The Defense of Marriage Requires Honesty About Homosexuality

Gay-marriage

When the battle over marriage began, a decision was made not to talk about the problems associated with homosexuality, but focus on marriage between one man and one woman as they way things have always been and on benefits for society of traditional marriage. This strategy was initially very successful. The defenders of marriage won referendum after referendum, but in this election cycle things changed and marriage lost.

Public opinion has changed. One reason may be that in the years since this battle began, those pushing the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples have been free to push their deceptive propaganda about the nature of same-sex relationships with no rebuttal from the defenders of marriage. As a result, the younger generation has been taught to believe that persons with same-sex attraction (SSA) are—expect for one small difference—the same as those with other sex attraction, that they were born that way and can’t change, that same-sex relationships and same-sex parenting are no different than husband/wife marriages and father/mother families, and therefore it is only fair to let same-sex couples enjoy the benefits of legal marriage.

It is long past time to educate the public and particularly the younger generation as to what we know about SSA. First of all, there is no evidence that persons with SSA are born that way—no evidence of a genetic or hormonal cause. If there were such a cause then identical twins would virtually always have the same pattern of sexual attraction, but this is not the case. In a large study of male identical twins, in only 11% of the cases where one twin had SSA so did the other. If SSA is not genetic, what is the cause? There is no reason to believe that there is a single cause, but many persons with SSA experienced gender identity disorders (GID) as young children. They felt different than their same-sex parent or peers and identified with their other sex parent or peers. This has been linked to failures to securely attach in early childhood. If these problems are identified early and the parents are willing to make changes, GID can be healed, and subsequent SSA avoided.

There are those who argue that SSA is normal for some people and therefore GID, which often precedes SSA, is normal and children should be allowed to dress as the opposite sex and their classmates told to accept this change. Other therapists, who have treated children with GID, are convinced that these children have numerous problems in addition to GID and need help.

Change of SSA is possible. It is more common among women, who may be involved in same-sex relationships at one point in their lives and later marry a man. It may be more difficult for men, because men with SSA are more likely to become addicted to certain sexual practices, in particular masturbation with fantasy. This behavior sets up patterns in the brain which are extremely difficult to overcome, but it is not impossible.

Untreated GID can be the precursor of SSA and other problems. Numerous large, well designed studies have found that persons with SSA are significantly more likely to have psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, suicidal ideation, and to have been victims of childhood sexual abuse and violence. The relationships of men with SSA are more likely to be short-lived and are almost never faithful over time. The HIV/AIDS epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM) continues unabated and has been linked to substance abuse and sexual addiction. MSM are also 44 times more likely to be HIV positive, and far more likely to be inflected with other sexually transmitted diseases.

While mentioning such things may seem harsh and judgmental, those who are friends with persons with SSA are not blind to their problems. They see the troubled childhoods, narcissistic attitudes, and the other problems. The gay activists are not unaware of these difficulties either, but blame them on ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’—society’s negative attitudes toward homosexuality and preference for heterosexuality. They want to believe that if society would only accept homosexuality as normal—including redefining marriage—everything would be okay. There is no reason to think this is so. In places where homosexuality is normalized, the problems persist. Normalizing disorder does not create order, but abandons the troubled.

Redefining marriage encourages same-sex couples to acquire children, which will by definition place children in a sub-optimal situation. Study after study has found that children do best when they spend their entire childhood living with their married, biological parents. Everything else is sub-optimal. This doesn’t mean that children in such situations cannot overcome obstacles, but they are at greater risk.

Every child separated from one or both biological parents experiences that separation as loss. Every child acquired by a same-sex couple has been separated from one or both biological parents. Every child acquired by a same-sex couple is denied the experience of living with a parent of both sexes, but what is worse, these inevitable losses are not the result of tragic circumstances, but the conscious, premeditated decisions of the very people on whom the child depends. Rather than understanding their child’s sense of loss, same-sex couples in defending their decision to acquire children may deny their child’s legitimate desire for a parent of the other sex. The child can come to feel that his or her natural desire is a betrayal of their custodial parents.

Given that persons with SSA are far more likely to have psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, suicidal ideation, sexually transmitted diseases, and disrupted relationships, children acquired by a SSA, who have already experienced losses intrinsic to their situation, face the very real risk of subsequent losses and traumas.

Persons with SSA have been deeply wounded. They feel rejected and alienated. Often they cover their pain with cynicism, brittle humor, and rebellion against the moral law. They are convinced that if society would only accept SSA as normal and allow them to legally marry a person of the same sex they would feel better. Unfortunately, our defense of marriage only makes them feel worse and more convinced that changing the laws on marriage is necessary for them to achieve peace.

When the psalmist wrote, “Mercy and truth are met, righteousness and peace have kissed,” he was recognizing that the reconciliation of mercy with truth and righteousness with peace is difficult and can only come about with God’s intervention. To persons with SSA our proclamation of truth and call for righteous behavior are taken as condemnation. Our defense of marriage resurrects all their past rejections. They want mercy and peace, but without truth and righteousness. However, too often we proclaim truth and righteousness without mercy and the promise of peace.

Allowing persons with SSA to call their relationships marriages would be an easy mercy and a false peace, we cannot sacrifice truth or righteousness, but we must find a way to reconcile them with true mercy and real peace.

How? First by prayer. How often have our churches engaged in public prayer for those tempted by SSA? I have heard prayers for the defense of marriage, but never for the healing of people with SSA. We must work to make sure that therapists, teachers and pastors are trained in the counseling of those tempted with SSA. We must welcome the strugglers into fellowship. Such a change will be difficult, but nowhere near as difficult as the one we expect of them.

Dale O'Leary

By

Dale O’Leary is the author of The Gender Agenda and One Man, One Woman. Her blog can be found at http://daleoleary.wordpress.com/

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Arguments over nature –v- nurture often overlook the obvious fact that one can be a function of the other.

    Consider the condition that used to be known as cretinism and which is now called phenylketonuria. We now know that the learning difficulties sufferers display are the result of brain damage, caused by phenylalanine in the diet, an environmental factor.

    However, it only affects the tiny minority of people who are unable to metabolize it, a genetic condition. It is because phenylalanine is present in virtually all natural proteins that cretinism was thought to be a genetic disorder.

    In other words, here we have neither nature nor nurture, but an interaction between the two.

    Until we discover the aetiology of SSA, we cannot pronounce on its cause

    • dalemoleary

      Each person with SSA is an unique individual with his or her own personal history. There is no reason to expect to find a single cause for all SSA, but in case history after case history the individual aetiology is clear. Some children are born more sensitive to maternal mood swings and attitudes to masculinity and femininity and there for may be more likely to develop an attachment disorder, which can in turn lead to GID. The family situation almost always plays a significant role. It is wrong to imply that because we don’t know everything about the aetiology of every instance of GID and SSA, we don’t know a great deal. What we do know should be put to use in prevention and treatment.

  • http://twitter.com/ChouinardN Norm Chouinard

    Love this: “Our defense of marriage resurrects all their past rejections. They want mercy and peace, but without truth and righteousness. However, too often we proclaim truth and righteousness without mercy and the promise of peace.”

    • J G

      I have never met a happy homosexual.

      • Ray Olson

        Perhaps you haven’t looked diligently enough, J G. I’ve known many homosexuals for as long as 40 years. Not a depressed, surly, foul-mouthed, violent, bigoted one among them. I don’t deny there are unhappy homosexuals, but in 40 years, I’ve met remarkably few and chosen to get to know none of them. Maybe, however, your definition of “happy” is just different from mine. How many happy heterosexuals have you met?

        • J G

          I have known a fair number of them, so I speak from experience. Mortal sin never produces joy.

          • TheBentAngle

            I said this earlier on this thread, but here it is again:

            Maybe the reason your gay “friends” have not appeared very joyful around you is that they don’t like you. I don’t usually feel very joyful around people who are highly judgmental. Neither did Jesus.

            • Adam Baum

              No, Jesus wasn’t very joyful around unrepentant sinners. The parable of the man who thanked God for not being a sinner and his reaction to the money changers in the Temple show that rather clearly.

              • TheBentAngle

                Adam, don’t you see that in your analogy, Jesus = gays. Unrepentant sinners = homophobes? Jesus wasn’t joyful around unrepentant sinners because they are the ones who always cast the stone. They are always the ones who see the speck in the other person’s eye when they have a beam in their own.

          • Ray Olson

            My happy homosexual friends must not be guilty of mortal sin, then.

            • Adam Baum

              Well, knowledge of the act and consent of the will are necessary for mortal sin, so it’s possible some are not.

              • TheBentAngle

                Adam, let me get this straight. If I am a homosexual (which I am), I cannot be joyful (even two days from Christmas) because I am in mortal sin. But if I am joyful it is because I am not in mortal sin, and that must be because I have no knowledge of my acts and do not willfully consent to them. Did I get that straight?

                Okay, here’s the problem: I do have knowledge of my acts and I do willfully consent to them, and I am having quite a joyful Christmas, thank you. So I (an unrepentant homosexual) must NOT be in mortal sin.

                Whew! What a relief! I thought I might go to Hell or something!

                In spite of the season, I do feel very sad for any poor Catholic young person who believes this drivel.

            • J G

              All homosexual acts are objective mortal sins. So your friends are not happy, but I bet they pretend to be. Humans can work very hard to fool themselves.

              • TheBentAngle

                Hi J G. I thought about what you said, and then I went shopping. Not a single one of the people in the grocery store looked happy. Do you think maybe they were all homosexuals?

                So here I am preparing to have friends over for a Christmas eve dinner tomorrow evening, and you tell me, without even knowing me, that I am “pretending” to be joyous. How presumptuous and arrogant of you. I think, based on what you’ve said, that you are just “pretending” to be a Christian.

              • Ray Olson

                An explanation remarkably similar to those of the Communists, who also claim they know other persons’ minds better than the persons–or anyone other than the Communists–do themselves. They call what you and I think “false consciousness”. They treat that condition with re-education (brain-washing), show trials, cultural revolutions, and, inevitably, plenty of executions, starvation, and excessive exposure to bad weather.

                • TheBentAngle

                  Ray, I think you’ve identified something very important about these conversations. I’ve been puzzling over the fact that my detractors pretend to know me better than I know myself. They seem to have a certain “idea” of me that nothing I say can dislodge or dispel. I find I have to keep saying, over and over again, that I am not unhappy, that I am not ridden with disease, that I am not a moral monster. These relentless accusations—typical of what so many GLBTs have to put up with—are driven by a disembodied idea that refuses to ground itself in the lived experience and the reality of actual human beings.

                  You are exactly right about the totalitarian mindset. It always pretends to know each one of us better than we know ourselves … and to know what is better for us.

                  • Ray Olson

                    Dear BentAngle–Thanks for the reinforcement. Trying to talk many Catholics into realizing that they have an enormous amount of work to do in order to treat non-Catholics as fellow human beings, created in the image of God, is a very demanding pursuit. They usually sound as generous and compassionate as Stalin. Or Hitler.

              • Mark Y

                I want to clarify things here. “Happiness” is not the same as “Joy,” and neither of these are “Pleasure.” “Pleasure” is a positive experience of the physical senses, “Happiness,” of the emotional, and “Joy” spiritual.

                The three can all occur at the same time but pursuit of one may not be the pursuit for the rest of the others. True, pleasure and happiness may be the focus of a person but lack of joy still leads to “restlessness of the heart.” With this we can better understand when Aquinas said, “My heart is restless until it rests in you [God.]“

  • poetcomic1

    The ‘gay’ attitude of camp, of irony, eye-rolling caricature of everything and anything is a slow poison that has permeated all life in the West as we know it. Nothing is REALLY real anymore – all is pose, posturing, ‘presentation of self’. The intelligent, urban, witty and artistic SSA male simply does not understand what his fundamentally ‘double-life’ values have done to…everything. The female SSA hatred of the ‘normative’ as ‘normative’ and of natural law itself is a sickness with entirely different (and vast) fields of devastation. Twin grindstones that pulverize family, religion and human joy.

    • TheBentAngle

      Post-comic: Camp, irony, and caricature are slow poisons permeating all life in the West As We Know It? This sounds vaguely like a caricature, and I believe I detect some irony. Is this a variation on the “same-sex marriage will bring about the Collapse of Western Civilization” theme, which is itself extremely campy? Where would English majors be without these comic modes that you deplore? How would King Lear have ever recognized his folly?

      Family, religion, and human joy are being “pulverized” by the homosexual’s rejection of natural law? Aren’t you being a bit operatic? And you know what kind of people like opera, don’t you? Yes, they’re the ones who are creating vast fields of devastation and grinding away at All That We Hold Dear.

      • poetcomic1

        Sorry if you misunderstood me. I am not at all going into people’s private sexual activities. “Gay Identified’ persons degrade and ghettoize themselves and tend to embrace a ‘camp’ ethos, cynicism, irony and a hatred of the norms of our civilized society. This atttude is permeating all of society, especially the young (both gay and straight). The radical lesbian feminist version (which doesn’t even have the redeeming humor of camp!) is equally ugly and destructive – above all for those who practice it.

        • Tim

          Right. You’re not into people’s private sexual activities. You just want to stigmatize them with every idiotic stereotype you can manufacture so you don’t have to recognize them as equals. I always thought that “cynicism, irony and a hatred of norms” was championed by misanthropic white Anglo-Saxon males who savored being curmudgeons. Gay culture, on the other hand, was not invented to ghettoize homosexuals, but to give them an opportunity to live in reasonably safe communities of like-minded people where they weren’t in constant fear of being abused by those who hate and criminalize them. Gay culture today is beginning to de-materialize as gays are increasingly integrated throughout heterosexual society, both in the social, political and religious realm and feel more comfortable living in heterogeneous relations with others. If you wish to talk about irony, it seems to be more and more the case that when the Catholic church gets to define “norms,” civilized society truly starts to break down. How can it be “civil” if we spend all our time judging one another?

          • poetcomic1

            “You see, you, dear reader, havebeen sold a lie. You have been told from every television show and comedy routine and political cartoon since you were a child that tolerant and easy-going do-your-own thing vices are willing to live and let live, and that blue-nosed intolerant angry and judgmental virtues, motivated only by hate, are seeking out vice in order to destroy harmless pleasures, and will not leave well enough alone.
            The opposite is true. Vice is intolerant of virtue and cannot stand to
            share the same world with it. Saints know all men are sinners and
            forgive all. Sinners go mad trying to pretend sin is good and
            goodness is sin, and condemn all.”
            -John C. Wright

            • TheBentAngle

              Well, that bit of paranoid diatribe was a kind of dead-end, wasn’t it? Personally, I am speechless.

              • poetcomic1

                ‘Paranoid diatribe’ is not an argument it is pseudo-intellectual name-calling. You didn’t even begin to consider or refute a single thing in the quote given. Your bug-eyed incredulity towards anyone who disagrees with you is comic, actually.

                • TheBentAngle

                  Neither was your comment an argument. It was a paranoid diatribe.

                  • Ray Olson

                    Oh, I don’t think it’s a paranoid diatribe, really. Gross exaggeration on the part of a hysterical depressive, yes, but paranoid diatribe, no.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Thank you, Ray. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

                • John200

                  Tragic, too. We know where it ends.

        • Stephen Marcus

          I think he is just upset about not making it as a poet or comic and blames gays for such misfortune. He sounds like a man who feels shut out. Don’t blame your lack of witt on gay people.

  • Tim

    Ms O’Leary, you write, ““In a large study of male identical twins, in only 11% of the cases where one twin had SSA so did the other.” Can you please cite the study? The one I’m looking at is by J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 1991 and titled “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation.” They found that 52% of monozygotic brothers (identical twins) had same-sex attractions. Wouldn’t this undercut your argument that there is nothing genetic about homosexuality?

  • Pingback: The Defense of Marriage Requires Honesty About Homosexuality | Catholic Canada

  • Tony

    Some years ago, one of the cable channels, perhaps TCM, featured biographical documentaries on one gay entertainer after another: Tony Perkins, Rock Hudson, Raymond Burr, Liberace, Paul Lynde … They didn’t know it, but they were making a powerful case for an etiology of same-sex attraction in males …. Over and over, we heard the same things — a father who had abandoned the family (Hudson), a father who farmed his small child out to win money for the family and then abused the child (Liberace) …

    • Tim

      No, Tony. It takes more than anecdotal evidence to develop an etiology. And what about all the straight guys whose fathers abandoned the family or abused them? What about the brothers of the gay entertainers you cite? I’m afraid there is no “powerful case” here. I have a dear friend who is the second of four boys in his family. They are all in their fifties, all successful, and all happy and healthy. Their parents are highly respected members of their community. One of the boys is gay. What do you make of that? Oh, and by the way, he’s the second son. (Statistically, second sons are much more likely to be gay than first-borns.) For my friend and his family, there’s no problem. Nor should there be. Why does the Catholic Church persist in slandering homosexuals? If it wants to address HIV, then let it do so, and it will find that 95% of HIV cases in Sub-Saharan Africa are among heterosexuals. And yet Ms. O’Leary does not publish articles about “the problems associated with heterosexuality.” (See her first sentence!) This is the essence of bigotry in a nutshell.

      • Mrs_Snoopington

        So, the fact that gay men and men having sex with men are 44 times more at risk for AIDS, a deadly disease, and syphillis is not a problem with you? You just skip over that part.

        The author is challenging her readers to be HONEST about problems specific to homosexuality! (Problems of straights are likely the same problems gays have: abandoning the family, unfaithfulness, and the like.)

        I’m a retired health educator. I attended a health ed training for teachers a few years ago. I was appalled that the educational material for students down-played the very high percentage of gays with HIV/AIDS. It’s all about politics now. HIV/AIDS is a political football in America.

        I know all about Africa and heterosexual AIDS. African males sneak off and have sex with men, even though they are married. That’s the short version.

        • TheBentAngle

          Mrs. Snoopington, I think you just said something very incriminating about heterosexual men. You said that “African males sneak off and have sex with men.” These are heterosexuals, I presume? So are we to conclude that heterosexuality is “objectively disordered” and that heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

          BTW, how do you know what African males do? If they “sneak off,” isn’t it secret? Is this documented anywhere, or is this just another confabulation?

          • sajetreh

            Mrs. Snoopington doesn’t know what she is talking about. The parallel between the community of those who practice homosexual acts in the west and Sub-Saharan Africa is the Human Immune system. In Sub-Saharan Africa it is normal to have a deficient immune system from starvation and squalid living conditions, whereas in the community where they practice homosexual acts the deficient immune system is from abnormal sexual acts. It all boils down to the normal vs. the abnormal.

          • Mrs_Snoopington

            I saw a piece about it years ago. Some people are more informed than others and let’s leave it at that.

      • Adam Baum

        “(Statistically, second sons are much more likely to be gay than first-borns.)”

        Which would strongly suggest that SSA is a behavioral thing, rather than a chemical or genetic thing, unless we assume that genetics and biochemistry are aware of birth order.

        • TheBentAngle

          Adam, just read up on the subject. There has been so much scientific literature about this. I’m not going to repeat all of it for you. Just use the search field in your browser. Avoid Catholic websites if you want accurate information.

  • Jeff

    I have seen the study referred to be another commenter, Tim, that indicates SSA is genetic. As for natural law, as a long-term pet owner, I can attest that SSA shows up in animals — dogs, birds, guinea pigs. All the evidence points to SSA as genetic and therefore “natural”. So do we accept or vilify these people? From my own friendships with gays and lesbians, I can attest that many of them are more highly-principled than straight people. Many love their partners in a way that is clearly sincere and deep-feelng. Many are well-educated, compassionate people who would make far better parents than several straight people of my acquaintance. My own marriage to a woman is in no way affected by the existence of relationships between gays and lesbians. I do not need a constitutional amendment or a new law to keep me “straight” as I am perfectly happy with being straight. Again and again, we find that those obsessed with managing the sexual behavior of others have their own sexual quirks (Ted Haggard is an obvious example.) I would much rather a gay man married another gay man than that, in an attempt to seem “normal”, he married my daughter and let her find out about it later.

    • Tim

      Thank you, Jeff, and I couldn’t agree more. Same-sex attraction is found throughout the animal kingdom, even in insects. That fact alone should dispel any idea that SSA is a result of trauma or defective parenting or whatever. In humans, there are correlations with birth order, with the size of the hypothalamus, and with other biological features. All this points to genes, gene expression, and gene environment. And yet, in the face of all this evidence, Ms. O’Leary claims that “there is no evidence that persons with SSA are born that way—no evidence of a genetic or hormonal cause.” What can I say? Ms. O’Leary’s claim is just patently false. I’ve researched this many times over the years and have found an abundance of evidence—evidence that she denies even exists. The journals in which this evidence is presented could not be more reputable or mainstream. By contrast, Ms. O’Leary does not cite her sources. We are just supposed to believe her as, I suppose, she believes her church on this matter. And she accuses us of propagandizing!

      If you search the Internet on this subject, you will find many, many claims like Ms. O’Leary’s, and many of them purport to be scientific. But here’s the thing: Always look at who is advancing those claims! It is usually the Catholic Church or a fundamentalist group like Focus on the Family or a conservative anti-SSM organization like NOM. You don’t find ANY of the major health and social care organizations of this country advancing those claims. Not a single one. On the contrary, those organizations are–every one of them–firmly opposed to therapies that seek to change sexual orientation. Such therapies, BTW, are now outlawed in the state of California.

      Health and social care organizations condemning conversion therapies include the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Sociological Association. That’s a pretty impressive line-up. On the other side, we have the catechism of the Catholic Church. (>//<)

      • Scott

        As I understand it, the studies on the hypothalamus were done on cadavers who were identified as having been homosexual or heterosexual (for the purposes of comparison). However, the conclusion that a small hypothalamus was symptomatic of homosexual behaviour is opposed by the equally valid contention that it could be the result of long-term homosexual behaviour in men (“use it or lose it” kind of logic around the development of this area of the brain).

        As to homosexuality in the animal kingdom, it doesn’t really apply. There is behaviour, but orientation is much harder to demonstrate. Famously gay penguins reverted to “heterosexuality” once female mates were available to them. Besides, one cannot argue convincingly from nature as a norm for human behaviour – male bears will attack and kill their own young; female swine are know to kill and eat their own young. This hardly makes such behaviour ethical for human beings (abortion put to one side). As to the endorsement by highly politicized professional organizations, I take anything they have to say with a hefty helping of salt. And, on the other side, we have the collective wisdom of the Church garnered through trial, error, the rigorous application of reason and the test of persecution over the course of millenia. That’s pretty impressive.

        • Tim

          Scott, the studies of hypothalamus size would not have passed the first stages of peer review if they had not reckoned with the age factor. If hypothalamus size is affected by “long-term sexual behavior,” then one would expect to find normal size among young, inexperienced homosexual men.

          Your information about gay penguins is inaccurate. They refuse to mate with females even when females are available. They pair-bond with other males.

          The same is true of domesticated sheep: about 10% of the males refuse to mate with females but do mate with other males.

          Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species. Every species that has ever been observed for signs of homosexuality has exhibited it, except some species that don’t have sex at all.

          You write, “one cannot argue convincingly from nature as a norm for human behaviour.” That is true, but that is not what one is trying to do. Our allusions to animal behavior are in response to claims by Catholics that homosexual behavior is not natural. We wish to demonstrate that it is in fact natural.

          You can dismiss the opinions of every major health and social welfare association in this country as “politicized,” but that will not stop you from relying on your doctor for medical advice, will it?

          Would you rely on your church for medical advice? If not, why do you rely on it for medical judgments about homosexuality—judgments which are contradicted by nearly every medical professional in this country?

      • Jordanes551

        Even in the animal kingdom, homosexual conduct is aberrant. But then animal behavior cannot determine human morality, or else it would be acceptable for us to kill and eat our own children.

        As for your genetic fallacy, the fact that it is the Catholic Church that advances these claims is a point in its favor, since the Church has much greater authority and has vastly more experience in dealing with human nature than the AMA or APA.

        • TheBentAngle

          Jordan. The Cathedral at Salamanca was built by slaves. During the Renaissance, the Pope’s galleys were manned with slaves. Shall I go on? I’ve got a whole spiel about this.

        • Tim

          No one is saying that animal behavior should determine human morality. The references to homosexuality in animals are offered as refutations of the claim that homosexuality is not natural. It is in fact natural. It has been observed in about 1500 species. See elsewhere on this thread for a fuller discussion of this point.

          Do you think the Church has greater authority on scientific and medical care issues than the AMA or the APA? Curious. When you need medical care, do you go to your Church?

          • Katy

            Tim, do you also believe that bestiality would be okay if the medical/mental professional membership organizations condoned this behavior? After all, dogs will attempt to mate with people and this “dominant” acting out behavior is found in the animal kingdom. And there are sexual perverts (they are in the closet now) that would be happy to mainstream this practice.

            SS attractions are not “natural” in moral beings because males and females were made to complement (completes or brings to perfection) each other–physically, spiritually and mentally. Rules of conduct go hand-in-hand with living a good life otherwise there is disintegration in families and in society. The search for single genes for complex human traits, like sexual
            orientation or antisocial behavior, or mental disorders like
            schizophrenia or depression, is seriously misguided. In fact, genetic research on manic-depression and schizophrenia has
            rekindled the recognition of the role of environment in emotional
            disorders. If distinct genetic patterns can’t be tied to the disorders,
            then personal experiences are most likely crucial in their emergence.

            “Epidemiologic data on the major mental illnesses make it clear that they
            can’t be reduced to purely genetic causes. For example, according to
            psychiatric epidemiologist Myrna Weissman, Americans born before 1905
            had a 1 percent rate of depression by age 75. Among Americans born a
            half-century later, 6 percent become depressed by age 24!
            Similarly, while the average age at which manic-depression first appears
            was 32 in the mid 1960s, its average onset today is 19. Only social
            factors can produce such large shifts in the incidence and age of onset
            of mental disorders in a few decades.” (My Genes Made Me Do It, Stanton Peele)

            More and more mental health professional will be swayed to also go along with transgender sexual identity politics. Many of its proponents are closely aligned with the bisexual/homosexual movement. Do you also believe that there is a “nature” explanation for wanting to alter one’s gender? Your posts clearly choose to focus on the so-called “nature” issue because detachment issues and other environmental factors (i.e., sexual abuse) are the major contributors to disorders like SS attraction.

            • TheBentAngle

              Katy, would bestiality be okay if the Catholic Church made a sacrament of it? Of course it wouldn’t! You would abandon your faith in Catholicism and become a Unitarian Universalist. Wouldn’t you?

              …wouldn’t you?

              I guess it depends on how strong your faith is.

              I have very strong faith that the sun will appear on the eastern horizon tomorrow morning because it has always done so. And I have strong faith that the AMA and the APA are basically responsible and professional. If they disappoint, then perhaps I will lose my faith in them and invest it elsewhere.

              What? There are sexual perverts trying to mainstream bestiality? Where? Do they have a website? (Well, of course they must, if they are seriously trying to mainstream bestiality. How can you do it without a website?)

              Rules of conduct go with living a good life. Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. I’m 69, and somehow or other, I got through all those years with no felonies, no DUIs, and no addictions. Without rules, people cannot make strong families, and society suffers as a result. I am gay, I have a son who got his college degree and now works in a bank, I am partnered to a man whom I will marry in July of next year, and all is well with the world. Life is good.

              I’m afraid your theories linking homosexuality to mental disorders are pure bunk. I don’t know what their basis is, but I suspect it is a preconceived notion supplied by… your Church. It is certainly not based on mainstream science. This is why I keep saying the Church–your Church–is way out of its depth on this issue and can only further embarass itself by persisting in the claim that homosexuality is a disorder when there is no evidence that it is.

              If you want to understand homosexuality, I have a simple but effective suggestion: Stop reading Catholic publications on the subject. The Catholic Church has absolutely no expertise on homosexuality.

              • Katy

                TheBentAngle:
                “If you want to understand homosexuality, I have a simple
                but effective suggestion: Stop reading Catholic publications on the subject.The Catholic Church has absolutely no expertise on homosexuality.”

                My post about SS attraction does not cite anything from the Catholic Church. I read a variety of information sources and I am familiar with the gay community. Should you stop reading gay publications and believing in the wisdom of the AMA and APA in order to understand every angle about the redefinition of marriage and the importance of monogamous marriages and children having a mother and father? Radically changing the legal structure of families so that children are not attached to both their biological parents and sanctioning homosexuality have profound implications.

                “I’m afraid your theories linking homosexuality to mental disorders are pure bunk. I don’t know what their basis is, but I suspect it is a preconceived notion supplied by… your Church.”
                You say that SS attraction is not a disorder and that claims to the contrary are wrong, but give no evidence? There is
                growing and increasingly sophisticated literature on same-sex attraction to counter the tremendous amount of false information about this issue and to offer hope for those with immediate needs in this area.

                • TheBentAngle

                  Katy, every single major health and welfare association in this country has issued position papers on homosexuality, and they have all declared that it is not a disorder. The evidence is abundant and easily available. Do you want me to go find it for you? How about this: I’ll tell you how to find it for yourself. Use the search bar in your browser and type something like “American Psychological Association position on homosexuality,” or “American Psychiatric Association position on homosexuality,” or “American Medical Association position on homosexuality.” It’s really easy. You can also check on Wikipedia, which is a great portal for references about this issue.

                  • Katy

                    TheBentAngle:
                    “Katy, every single major health and welfare association in this country
                    has issued position papers on homosexuality, and they have all declared
                    that it is not a disorder.”

                    The APA has work to do to get the truth out to the public:

                    Robert Spitzer, M.D., the Columbia University psychiatric researcher, who was directly involved in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, has become involved with researching the possibility of change. Dr. Spitzer stated in an interview: “I am convinced that many people have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s news… I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.” (Spitzer 2000).

                    It should be noted that almost without exception, those therapists who regard therapy as unethical, also reject abstinence from non-marital sexual activity as a minimal goal (Barrett 1996) and among the therapists who accept homosexual acts as normal many find nothing wrong with infidelity in committed relationships (Nelson 1982), anonymous sexual encounters, general promiscuity, auto-eroticism (Saghir 1973), and sado-masochism. Some even support a lessening of restrictions on sex between adults and minors (Mirkin 1999) or deny the negative psychological impact of sexual child abuse. (Rind 1998; Smith 1988)

                    As the prevention and treatment of same-sex attraction improves, the individuals who still struggle will, more than ever, need compassionate and sensitive support.

                    Pediatricians need to know the symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and chronic juvenile unmasculinity. With early identification and intervention, there is every reason to hope that the problem can be successfully resolved. (Zucker 1995:Newman 1976) While the primary reason for treating children is to alleviate their present unhappiness (Newman 1976: Bradley 1998: Bates 1974), treatment of
                    GID and chronic juvenile unmasculinity can prevent the development of same-sex attraction and the problems associated with homosexual activity in adolescence and adult life.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Oh, this is good. This is just too good. You just made my day.

                      You have mentioned Robert Spitzer to bolster your case that homosexuals can “change.” Did you not know that Robert Spitzer recently (2012) apologized to the gay community for backing the “gay cure?” Read about it in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

                      Excerpt: Now here he was at his computer, ready to recant a study he had done himself, a poorly conceived 2003 investigation that supported the use of so-called reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality for people strongly motivated to change.

                      What to say? The issue of gay marriage was rocking national politics yet again. The California State Legislature was debating a bill to ban the therapy outright as being dangerous. A magazine writer who had been through the therapy as a teenager recently visited his house, to explain how miserably disorienting the experience was.

                      And he would later learn that a World Health Organization report, released on Thursday, calls the therapy “a serious threat to the health and well-being — even the lives — of affected people.”

                      Dr. Spitzer’s fingers jerked over the keys, unreliably, as if choking on the words. And then it was done: a short letter to be published this month, in the same journal where the original study appeared.

                      “I believe,” it concludes, “I owe the gay community an apology.”

                    • Katy

                      TheBentAngle:
                      “You have mentioned Robert Spitzer to bolster your case that homosexuals can “change.” Did you not know that Robert Spitzer recently (2012) apologized to the gay community for backing the “gay cure?”

                      Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study validating the earlier reparative therapy was a massive blow for the gay lobby because it came after Spitzer’s success in leading the effort to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. Spitzer, 80, suffers from Parkinson’s disease. This year he wanted to
                      retract his own interpretation of the study because *he had no way of knowing if the subjects in his study were telling the truth.* Is that not the
                      problem in many psychiatric studies? Spitzer remarked after the study, when he received criticism, that there should be “a controlled study where people go into the therapy, and then you initially evaluate them, and then you evaluate them later and see how many actually changed. But that study is not going to be done, unfortunately.” Without well-designed studies of the long-term impact of therapies, prospective patients can only guess about their effectiveness.

                      In general, it is best to view all psychiatric studies with skepticism. Many are unscientific– heavily biased, not well designed, and not replicable. We can take a lesson from history by looking at the influence of zoologist turned “sex researcher” Alfred Kinsey’s flawed science. It was funded for years by the Rockefeller Foundation and by Hugh Hefner (Playboy). Kinsey, a bisexual and exhibitionist, required staff to perform sexual acts on film. Considered the father of the sexual revolution, the false sex data Kinsey published in his books was accepted as scientific fact by many. His so-called sex research was based on faulty methodology, flawed data, and sexual “experiments” criminally imposed on adults, adolescents, children, and even infants. He had great interest in adults having sex with children and shielded pedophiles, like the serial child rapist Rex King, who carefully reported to Kinsey hundreds of victims.

                      “Welcome to the world according to Kinsey. In such a world a man’s most base, fallen inclinations are considered “normal.” In such a world, sexual pleasure—attained in whatever manner desired—is considered man’s
                      right and ultimate fulfillment. In such a world, the “icon” of sexual union has become an idol…” (“The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose On The Most Influential ‘Scientist’ Of Our Time” by Susan Brinkmann).

                    • Katy

                      TheBentAngle:
                      “You have mentioned Robert Spitzer to bolster your case that homosexuals can “change.” Did you not know that Robert Spitzer recently (2012) apologized to the gay community for backing the “gay cure?”

                      Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study validating the earlier reparative therapy was a blow for the gay lobby because it came after Spitzer’s success in leading the effort to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. Spitzer, 80, suffers from Parkinson’s disease. This year he wanted to retract his own interpretation of the study because *he had no way of knowing if the subjects in his study were telling the truth.* Isn’t that the problem in many psychiatric studies? Spitzer remarked after he received criticism
                      about the study that there should be “a controlled study where people go into the therapy, and then you initially evaluate them, and then you evaluate them later and see how many actually changed. But that study is not going to be done, unfortunately.” Without studies of the
                      long-term impact of therapies, prospective patients can only guess which programs will be effective.

                      In general, it is best to view all psychiatric studies with skepticism. Many
                      are unscientific– heavily biased, not well designed, and not replicable. We can take a lesson from history by looking at the influence of zoologist turned “sex researcher” Alfred Kinsey’s flawed science. It was funded for years by the Rockefeller Foundation and by Hugh Hefner (Playboy). Kinsey, a bisexual and exhibitionist, required staff to perform sexual acts on film. Considered the father of the sexual revolution, the false sex data Kinsey published in his books was accepted as scientific fact by many. Based on faulty methodology, flawed data, and sexual “experiments” criminally imposed on adults, adolescents, children, and even infants. He had great interest in adults having sex with children and shielded pedophiles, like the serial child rapist Rex King, who carefully reported to Kinsey hundreds of victims.

                      “Welcome to the world according to Kinsey. In such a world a man’s most base, fallen inclinations are considered “normal.” In such a world, sexual pleasure—attained in whatever manner desired—is considered man’s right and ultimate fulfillment. In such a world, the “icon” of sexual union has become an idol…” (“The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose On The Most Influential ‘Scientist’ Of Our Time” by Susan Brinkman).

                  • J G

                    Plenty will argue that abortion or infanticide is wonderful. That doesn’t make it morally good. In a certain country they once decided that being disabled or of the wrong ethnicity merited termination. Relativism is a terrible thing.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Plenty will argue that homosexuality is a mortal sin. That doesn’t make it so. In that “certain country” you mentioned, they also persecuted homosexuals and sent thousands of them to the concentration camps to starve and die. That country was overwhelmingly Catholic and Lutheran at the time. Bigotry and intolerance are terrible things.

            • Tim

              Life expectancy at the turn of the century (1900) was 46 years. Ratios of depression over time seem beside the point, especially a hundred years ago. It’s hard to be depressed if you don’t live long enough to share depression statistics with those who are. There was also very little interest or research done on depression back then. Identifying it in the midst of superstitious and condemnatory notions of mental illness was therefore harder. People who suffered from schizophrenia, bi-polar or depressive illnesses went undisclosed or were hidden by their own families as a means of protecting loved ones from the alternative: Insane asylums. The treatments were worse than the disease. If there is anything designed to increase rather than remedy depression, being committed to a mad house in 1900 would certainly be an overriding factor before the advent of effective pharmacology and cognitive therapies. The realistic answer is that depression has always been widespread, but few people identified the symptoms accurately, and therefore went without treatment. It was an earthquake without a Richter scale.

              • Katy

                Tim:
                “Life expectancy at the turn of the century (1900) was 46 years. Ratios of
                depression over time seem beside the point, especially a hundred years ago.”

                Yes, the point of my post was not to debate the onset of disorders but to discuss the link between complex human traits, like sexual orientation, and the role of environment. There is much that can be done to help in the resolution of the emotional pain which causes homosexual temptations and behavior at the early and later life stages.

    • J G

      Natural does not refer to nature as in animals. SSA is not natural for human beings according to our nature, genetic or not. To act against our nature diminishes us and makes us less human. Some with SSA must live chastely and not marry. That is possible and much healthier. “Gay marriage” is contrary to the common social good and harms the stability of marriage and family life. If you want to find obsession than look no further then the homosexual activists.

      • Tim

        JG, what makes you think homosexuality is against human nature? I realize you are expressing a religion-based view, but it has no support in science—the same science that takes you up in airplanes and develops meds for you. It appears that you only accept science when it does not disturb your cherished assumptions.

        The best possible prospect for people with SSA is to develop strong, committed sexual relationships and to have the possibility of marrying each other. How could same-sex marriage possibly “harm the stability of marriage and family life?” Can’t you see that it does the opposite? If you care about people with HIV, then visit the Centers for Disease Control website and see what they recommend. See the page on “Stigma and Discrimination,” where they recommend that you reduce homophobia, stigma and discrimination in your community and decrease the negative health effects. Are you prepared to do that?

        • Jordanes551

          “JG, what makes you think homosexuality is against human nature?”

          By recognition of the constitutive complementary sexual nature of the human person — the male and female sexual organs “fit,” male physiology is suited to fatherhood and defense and support of the family, female physiology is suited to motherhood and care of children. It is manifest to everyone that same-sex attraction is an aberration, a deviation from the biological norm. We’ve always been able to recognise that truth — this is why our adjective “bad” is derived from the old Anglo-Saxon word for a male homosexual, and why children and young people recently began to use the slang term “gay” as a synonym for bad. One reason why homosexuals are usually unhappy and troubled is because even they can sense, even if they can’t or won’t acknowledge it, that they are their partners do not “fit,” that their is something wrong with their psyches and with the way they live.

          “I
          realize you are expressing a religion-based view, but it has no support
          in science—the same science that takes you up in airplanes and
          develops meds for you. It appears that you only accept science when it
          does not disturb your cherished assumptions.”

          Rubbish. Natural law is grounded in philosophy and the study of the human person. It is not religion-based. One need not even believe in God to recognise and accept the natural law.

          • Ray Olson

            Jordanes551–Don’t miss “What’s Wrong with Homosexuality?” by John Corvino when it comes out in March. It includes a chapter on the antigay argument based on philosophical natural law.

          • Tim

            Jordan, what are fingers for? Grasping? Playing the piano? Opening jars? Tickling your lover? Tapping in impatience? Pointing at sinners?

            What is the mouth for? Eating? Kissing? Whistling? Singing? Wine tasting?

            You can take it from there.

            “Homosexuals are usually unhappy?” Apparently you do not know very many homosexuals. Or maybe the ones you do know become unhappy when they are around you and are happy when you leave. Like the light in the refrigerator.

        • J G

          Science does not have much to say on the issue really, although it is clear what the purpose of sexual organs and sexual intercourse are i.e. the procreation of children. I am sorry if that goes against your cherished assumptions, but it is true. The best possible prospect for people with SSA is to be chaste and holy. The best way to avoid HIV is to not engage in homosexual activity. Marriage is the building block of human relationships. By ending marriage, which is defined as being between one man and one woman, you undermine the foundation of human society. There is no such thing as “gay marriage” it is impossible. It isn’t marriage. That harms everyone. Homophobia, which is not a real word but a propaganda term, has nothing to do with it. I am prepared to uphold the Catholic teaching on marriage, family, and sexuality.

          • TheBentAngle

            When you say there is no such thing as “gay marriage,” I suppose you are unaware that there is indeed such a thing in 10 countries and 9 U.S. states?

            As for self-inflicted chastity and “holiness,” I have a suggestion for you as well. Why don’t you flagellate yourself every morning for 20 minutes. Just think how holy you will feel afterwards.

            • Adam Baum

              You can get a printing press and print counterfeit currency, it might even be accepted, but it still won’t be real money.

              I wouldn’t be so quick to cite civil legality as a barometer of rectitude. Hitler was obsessed with legalistic pretenses, but somehow that never equated to justice.

            • J G

              Making such a thing legal doesn’t mean it is real. Abortion is legal, but it is still murder. Marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. We can pretend something else exists, but it doesn’t. It is like arguing that the color red is actually the color blue. Your comment shows that you don’t even know what holiness is. You are indeed bent.

        • Adam Baum

          Tim, what makes you think homosexuality is human nature? I
          realize you are expressing a religion-based view, but it has no support
          in science—the same science that takes you up in airplanes and
          develops meds for you. It appears that you only accept science when it
          does not disturb your cherished assumptions.

          • TheBentAngle

            This makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

    • Jordanes551

      Cannibalism, incest, violence, and killing show up in animals too. Is it your contention that such things are in accordance with the law of human nature also?

      • TheBentAngle

        Jordan. I think we covered this. Read elsewhere in the thread.

    • Adam Baum

      (Some) Animals also copulate freely without any pair-bonding. Some do exhibit life-long pair-bonding, particularly birds. Is this how we define normal? Anything that shows up in the sexual behavior of animals is normative for people? It would explain a lot, particularly the “hook up” culture.

      • TheBentAngle

        Adam, read the thread. You’re coming late to the conversation, but we did discuss that at least a couple of times. No one is saying that anything normative for animals is normative for humans.

  • crakpot

    Science is experiment, and the most powerful experiment of all is the disproof, as lamented by Einstein. The twin paradox is the only disproof needed of homosexuality as nature.

    Truth cannot contradict truth.

  • Flavius

    Very thought provoking. Unfortunately, the issue appears destined to be settled in Politics, of all our cultural institutions the least susceptible to thought. Our Politics is self regarding, largely uninfluenced by traditional authorities unless they come with pre-packaged support, money or votes. The outcome is ordained. The real question, it seems to me, is how dissenters are going to deal with it privately and how the public will absord the unintended consequences as they pile up.

  • Ray Olson

    I second what Jeff says because it corresponds to my lived experience, my observation of others, and much reading about what Ms. O’Leary calls SSA. I recommend three recent books on these matters, one by an Episcopal priest, one by a journalist who largely retains the evangelical faith (Baptist) in which he was raised, and one by a philosophy professor who has moved away from the Catholicism in which he was raised: “God Believes in Love” by Gene Robinson, “Does Jesus Really Love Me?” by Jeff Chu, and “What’s Wrong with Homosexuality?” by John Corvino. Yes, all three authors have SSA. They are also measured in tone and base what they say about SSA on reputable research. Any conclusions they reach and situations they report are the ones that those who regard SSA as pathological must, respectively, refute and explain differently. I don’t think they can be refuted and explained away materially and empirically. Ms. O’Leary’s broad, presumptuous (“Given that persons with SSA are far more likely to have psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, suicidal ideation, sexually transmitted diseases, and disrupted relationships”–Given? By whom? On whose say-so?), and sweeping statements, which characteristically represent most or all SSA by the pathologies of a tiny minority of them, just do no one any good whatsoever. They fail the test she intends them to pass: they’re dishonest.

    • Augustus

      Ray, you should take a look at Dale O’Leary’s other columns on this site that do precisely what you say this particular column does not: provide scientific evidence to support her claims. And if that’s not enough, you can read her books and her blog. This column was not intended to prove what she had already addressed elsewhere. It was addressed to defenders of traditional marriage who are, in her view, not employing an effective strategy. You should not criticize her for failing to achieve what she never intended to do in the first place.

      • Ray Olson

        Thanks for the suggestion. I’m unsure that I’ll follow up on it. My dissatisfaction with Ms. O’Leary ultimately is not so much that her citations of science are wrong but that she argues from science at all. The strongest case against homosexuality and homosexual rights is the religious-ethical one, and that is what she should be arguing, with as much theological help as she can muster. Trying to argue by generalizing from material and empirical evidence is utterly futile. Such frantic scrabbling for the study or the report or the analysis that will prove the antihomosexual case suggests to me a lack of faith that well may be a direr sin than homosexuality. If one believes in the magisterial authority of the church, then say why you do in a way that will convince homosexuals, their friends, and those who just don’t see what all the fuss is about that they do, too.

        • TheBentAngle

          Ray, you are absolutely right, and that’s why I call Ms. O’Leary’s piece “dishonest.” (http://thebentangle.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/response-to-dale-oleary-author-of-the-defense-of-marriage-requires-honesty-about-homosexuality-crisis-magazine-122012/) Its failed attempt to appear grounded in sound science when it is not leaves it wide open to charges of factual errors and faulty premises.

          It’s best to stick with the religious-ethical argument, as you say. You can’t argue from empirical evidence because there is none.

          Now, how you will sell your religious-ethical arguments to those who do not believe in the authority of the Church is another matter. I expect they will ignore you. And as far as I am concerned, that is the optimal result.

          • Ray Olson

            Thanks. It’s nice to be agreed with!

            I’m willing to wait on the church (Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant), and not just because it will outlast all of us. As a human institution–that is, an institution that is operated by human beings, however divinely aided–it changes, willy-nilly though ever so slowly, as human knowledge and understanding change. Present thought about homosexuals vis-à-vis the church can and will change. I trust it will change for the better–that is, the more lovingly–for all.

            • TheBentAngle

              You’re right again. The churches will change. They always do. They bring up the rear. As MLK said, they are the tail-lights when they should be the head-lights. The Catholic Church is disgracing itself over this issue as we speak, and in fifty years time, it will pretend it never opposed same-sex marriage. And then in about four hundred years, it will finally get around to apologizing to gays and lesbians for the way it treated them.

            • sajetreh

              Mr. Olson, you and Mr. Bent will never escape the fact that homosexual desires and actions are not normal to the human reproductive system. Therefore any empirical evidence you claim can not be considered seriously. Except by those who have their own agenda.

              • Ray Olson

                sajetreh–Read what I’ve written again, please. I want advocates like Ms. O’Leary to make ethical and religious, not empirical, arguments against homosexuality because I believe that religious and ethical lines of inquiry and demonstration are the only things that may prove persuasive against homosexuality. Arguing the science, the statistics, and other hard factual stuff will not persuade because they are not meant to persuade but to quantify and describe. Moral argument calls for a different kind of evidence.

                • TheBentAngle

                  “Evidence” is something that can be communicated from one subjectivity to another. I doubt you will find any “evidence” to support the Church’s claims. You will only find “agreement.”

                • sajetreh

                  You may be right Mr. Olson and I respect your desire to persuade through love. But religious and ethical beliefs are arguable and individual choices. You are also right that I don’t argue to persuade. I’m just stating a fact that the homosexual community can not negate.

                  Forgive me for the antagonistic remarks. I am a man of science and truth with little patience for the obtuse, such as Mr. Bent.

                  • TheBentAngle

                    Again, Sajetreh, I invite you to say what scientific authority you look to for information about homosexuality. If you are a man of science and truth, what are your sources and standards? Please share.

  • Mrs_Snoopington

    Gays and lesbians can and are living they way they wish to. But they do NOT have the right or moral high ground to make gay lifestyle presentations in K-12 classrooms. I worry about how many young people grow up to be seriously mentally disturbed about their basic existence: am I gay or straight? Preposterous situation.

    Is there a difference in gay parenting? I found that answer in 2004: I found a gay parenting magazine online. Inside was an article, “Teaching Your Child All Things Gay.”

    • TheBentAngle

      Ms. Rutherford, gay and lesbian children are often bullied in school, as are children of gay and lesbian parents. One of the best ways of dealing with this is to remove the stigma from homosexuality. When adults stigmatize it, so do children, with the results that we see. School children do not need to know the particulars of adult sex, but they need to be aware that different kinds of individuals and families exist and that we all deserve respect. I am a gay dad, and I came out to my son when he was 6 years old. I can assure you he has suffered no ill-effects. We also live in a very progressive city where gays and lesbians are an accepted part of the social fabric. I am proud to say that my son is not homophobic, and that is more than most parents in more conservative communities can say.

      • Mrs_Snoopington

        Gays stigmatize straights! I know this from personal experience.

        I am the adult daughter of a straight-turned-lesbian mother who died in 1998, my God rest her soul. I miss her very much. My mother stigmatized straights! “I don’t like those kind of people,” she would say to me. They were my friends’ parents she was talking about; she kept me from having many friends over. She never, not once, encouraged me to marry and have children.

        I advise you to ask your son bluntly whether he approves of sodomy, excessive promiscuity, gay pride festivals, gay circuit parties, and gay bathhouses. In other words, does he know of gays’ obsessions with sex and exhibitionism?

        I live in a progressive city, too. I feel the need to disabuse you of cornering me into a right-wing stereotype. In fact, I was raised in Greenwich Village, New Orleans, Venice Beach, and Berkeley. I even had a bi-sexual boyfriend who died of AIDS in 1993.

        But “removing” the so-called stigma from children, as you advise, IN SCHOOLS, is repulsive. Don’t get me wrong: it is the use of psychological methods in the classroom — for ANY purpose – that parents should not stand for! (I imagine, removing the stigma gays have for straights would be just as repulsive to you.)

        • TheBentAngle

          Excuse me, Mrs. S., but your stereotyping of gay men is very offensive to me and reveals a surprising level of ignorance for someone raised in progressive communities like Berkeley. You think my son would “disapprove” of a gay pride parade? Would yours, if you had one, disapprove of Mardi Gras in New Orleans? Why should he? Why shouldn’t gays and lesbians be proud and have parades? My son and I have marched in gay pride parades together! Many straight parents march with their gay children. My son does not approve of gay bath houses any more than I do. Why did you assume that I would? Are you sure you grew up in Greenwich Village? You think gays are “obsessed with sex.” I guess you didn’t notice all the heterosexual obsessions around you in the Village, in Venice Beach, and in New Orleans. Just look around you. Start by looking at the magazine rack in your local supermarket. Then point an accusing finger at gays and lesbians.

          And your last comment–that I somehow value or promote stigmatization of straights by gays–is preposterous. From what you said early in your comment, I gather you got a bum deal somewhere along the line, and I’m sorry about that, but don’t take it out on gays and lesbians, please!

          • Mrs_Snoopington

            I am sticking with my observation: gays (not you apparently) stigmatize straights. You deny it? (And I’m sorry you took my last comment personally; I was trying to generalize. I apologize for appearing uncharitable.) I do appreciate gay men and lesbian women who aren’t exhibitionists. I like Tammy Bruce’s book “The Death of Right and Wrong,” and her talk show, as an example. She’s got her head screwed on right. She is against gay marriage, by the way. As are other gays I’ve heard on the radio. Talk about stigmatizing! They’re afraid to “come out” against gay marriage.

            No, I absolutely hate the over-sexualized Mardi Gras as do traditional Catholics and clergy.

            I’m very familiar with being bullied. In grade 6 I was bullied for being a new girl in class from PS 41. A boy threatened to beat me up at the bus stop (he never did). In New York, two boys walked by me and one bet the other to punch me in the stomach. I got punched and no adult helped me. Finally, at age 17 while waiting a red light on the way to school, a boy asked me, “Why do you have a big nose?”

            Yes, gays have absolutely nothing on being bullied or teased. It’s part of life.

            • TheBentAngle

              “It’s part of life.” Does that mean we just have to “accept it?” A lot of bullied kids commit suicide. Should we just accept that as well? Is that just “part of life?”

              Whatever the causes of bullying, let’s address them. There can be no doubt that homophobia is one of the major causes.

              • Mrs_Snoopington

                Gay teens are 5 times more likely to attempt suicide. Solution: teens should not self-identify as being gay. If you are so serious about preventing gay teen suicide, this sounds like a reasonable solution. Their developing self-image is not ready to “come out” — I know that’s a shocking proposal.

                http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide

                • TheBentAngle

                  Uh, oh, Mrs. S. You didn’t get the memo. Any idea why gay teens are five times more likely to attempt suicide?

                  You write: “Teens should not self-identify as being gay.” So if they have same-sex attractions, they should just keep quiet about them? Push them down? Repress them? Bury them? Deny them? Build up layers and layers of shame and self-loathing around them?

                  It doesn’t occur to you that all that fear, denial, repression, shame, and self-loathing might lead to suicide attempts? What do you think DOES lead to suicide attempts?

                  What I’m seeing here–and what I always seem to find on these Catholic websites–is an absolutely shocking ignorance of mental health issues, an ignorance that is aided and abetted by Catholic teaching. It is appalling to me because I know what the costs of it are. When you repeatedly drill into a child’s head that he is disordered, that his desires are disordered and abnormal, that he is narcissistic and rebellious and sinful, you have got to expect that his sense of self-worth is going to take a severe beating. You can only beat a person up for so long before there’s tragedy. I would urge you, as I urged Dale O’Leary, the author of this article, to do some serious soul-searching about this. It’s a question of responsibility.

                  • Mrs_Snoopington

                    Here’s a suicide attempt for you to mull over. My lesbian mother tried to commit suicide and I saved her life with the assistance of a physician on the phone.

                    Why did she try to kill herself? Her lesbian lover left my mother for a man! For a man! (I then took my mother in to live with me until she recovered.)

                    So my mom’s reason for suicide doesn’t fit neatly into the current gay propaganda.

                    Life is hard. For everyone. Not just gay teens. Suicide is on the increase in this country for all teens.

                    ‘Hemlock Society Targets Teens’
                    http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2012/11/15/hemlock-society-targets-teens/

                    Gay, blacks, Hispanics – the voting blocks of special interest – all depend on being victims.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Mrs. Snoopington-Rutherford. I am sorry about the difficulties you have encountered in life, but please don’t generalize. Anyone can do that, but it’s not fair to people you generalize about. Look instead at the relationship you have with your mother and try to imagine how that might have affected your feelings about gays and lesbians.

                    • Stephen Marcus

                      They are victims. You are not only homophobic but also racist.

                  • Briana

                    When a person is raised in the Catholic Church, of course that person will be told that he is disordered, that his desires are abnormal, and that he is narcissistic and rebellious and sinful. ALL Catholics are told that, regardless of their sexual preferences. It’s hard for anyone to be Catholic. We’re all called to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow Jesus. If you can’t take the heat, keep out of the kitchen.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Briana, I have no desire to “take the heat”, and I have no intention of ever entering the “kitchen” of your sexual-repressive religion. The more I see of it the less I like it. Apparently, the clergy sex abuse scandals did nothing to wake conservative Catholics up to the “intrinsic disorders” that result from so much repression.

                      By the way, why doesn’t a single one of you show a picture of yourself? I feel like I’m at a KKK convention.

            • Adam Baum

              “Yes, gays have absolutely nothing on being bullied or teased. It’s part of life.”

              Bullied: Big-eared kids, red-haired kids, tall kids, short kids, freckled kids, kids who develop early, kids who develop late.. the list is endless.

              • TheBentAngle

                So, Adam. If you were a teacher supervising a playground and you witnessed a bullying scene, what would you do about it? SHOULD anything be done? Can schools address bullying issues, or are they just “part of life,” like school shootings?

                • Stephen Marcus

                  I think this is why shooting happen. Take a kid who is mentally unstable and then subject him to the trauma of being bullied and you have space for a potential disaster.
                  I will say that homophobic bullying is different due to the often extreme violence. I remember a gay man getting ‘curbed;–that is when you smash a person’s teeth into the curb of a sidewalk. That never happens to big eared red heads because gay bashers think that they have society as well as god on their side.

        • Stephen Marcus

          You mother had issues; as a result, instead of blaming your mom for her problems, you decide to blame an entire community. One troubled mom does not serve as evidence.
          Straight and gay people both do ‘sorid’ things. Gays have bathhouses while str8 people have their own sex parties ,Spring Break and swingers clubs. You paint hetrosexuals with a very clean brush yet make dirty every gay.

      • sajetreh

        I am a conservative and my son’s and daughter’s are not afraid of homosexuals. They understand that your desires and actions are not normal to the human reproductive system. They also understand that those who practice homosexual acts are not dangerous just because they have abnormal desires. Our children have been taught that the drive to reproduce is the most important, normal instinct to every species. Without it the life doesn’t exist.

        • TheBentAngle

          Sajetreh, can we just drop the term “abnormal” as applied to homosexuality? It is an extremely pejorative term that either angers or offends homosexuals, and, even more important—it is not accurate.

          As a practicing, card-carrying homosexual, let me assure you that I fully respect your desire to reproduce and I recognize the value of breeding. But the human race is in no danger. Homosexuality is not spreading. The world’s population is still growing exponentially. You are safe. Civilization is not ending. Homosexuals do not want to take over the world. Life will go on. Same-sex marriage will not threaten your own marriage in any way, shape, or form.

          Also, despite predictions based on the Aztec calendar, the world is NOT going to end tomorrow, December 21st.

          • sajetreh

            Mr. Bent, you are so obtuse with the obvious. Of course the human race is in no danger from those who practice homosexual acts. Homosexuality can not spread. The world’s population is born heterosexual. I am safe and civilization is thriving. Homosexuals only want their sexual desires and actions to be considered normal and life will go on even though they aren’t. Finally, I have been married to the same beautiful women for 32 years and nothing but death itself threatens it.

            It is also good to know that you don’t believe the world will end tomorrow. It shows some reasoning skills.

            It is considered offensive to an Islamic man to inform him that he doesn’t treat his wife as an equal. But, that doesn’t make it less true. The truth can both offend and anger those on the other side of it. But, men can not reproduce with men and women can not reproduce with women. The normal function of the male sexual organ and the female sexual organ can not be denied. For those of us who love truth and science this can not be ignored.

        • Stephen Marcus

          Do you believe everything your kids tell you?

      • Adam Baum

        What are “gay children”? Are you suggesting that children should be treated as sexual beings, with fixed inclinations?

        Any sexual activity by children is unhealthy, as they are unable to understand and be responsible for those activities, especially the consequences that seem remote and rare in the first years when they become aware of sexual desires and impulses.

        • TheBentAngle

          Adam, of course children are sexual beings, and it’s only when we deny that fact that we harm them. Note I am not talking about “sexual activity.” My son was not raised in the Catholic church. But “Briana” (a few comments above) was, and here is what she writes: “When a person is raised in the Catholic Church, of course that person
          will be told that he is disordered, that his desires are abnormal, and
          that he is narcissistic and rebellious and sinful. ALL Catholics are
          told that, regardless of their sexual preferences.”

          Or take a look at the comments made by “John200.” (a newcomer, below). The guy is obsessed with sex and body parts. Again, he speaks as a Catholic, and not one Catholic on this site ever calls him out about it.

          What do you have to say about these products of a Catholic upbringing?

      • Adam Baum

        You “came out” to six year old? That seems incredibly self-indulgent and unnecessary imposition on a child and by what criteria do you say he has suffered no ill-effects? Simply because he accepts your behavioral choices?

        • TheBentAngle

          Adam, you know that I do not accept your premise that there is anything “disordered” about homosexuality. Nor does the World Health Organization. Why, then, should I conceal from my son that I am homosexual? As for ill-effects, there are no signs of any at all. He’s a great son and I love him. Best of all, he’s not a raving homophobe and gets along with just about everybody. He has a very positive outlook on life and does not live in fear, like most of the bloggers on this thread appear to do.

          • Mark Y

            The World Health Organization, as I understand, also does
            not deem sexual intercourse (where there is actual sexual INTER-course, not “we got the same parts, let’s play with them.”) wrong nor disordered. However, it is still considered by the psychological community that subjecting people as young as six to such events could be cause for psychological trauma.

            My point: there are psychological baggage, disordered or not, that should not be exposed to the young because they may not be able carry them effectively to healthy adulthood.

    • Tony Lock

      If they make presentations for other religions and/or ways of life that are FAR more of a choice than being gay, then there is ZERO reason for not including the very real existence of LGBT people as part of that educational process, especially when considering of middle school and higher where certain youths at those schools may begin realizing a specific sexual orientation identity.

      Plus, what do you do when children have gay parents, even at the K level? Hide them in the closet so your prejudice can be coddled? I don’t think so.

      No one owes you or other religious adherents any special consideration for their prejudice…and that’s really what you and they are after…SPECIAL rights to accommodate your want for discrimination. Fortunately, that is precisely what is going away – those special rights of discrimination that people really aren’t entitled to. Not in America anyway (or any society that truly embraces the notion of equality).

  • Prof_Override

    I would like to see a lot more attribution. There are a lot of unattributed comments i.e. “Persons with SSA have been deeply wounded. They feel rejected and alienated.”, are these from actual studies or just postmodern fantasies. If there is substantiation, the author has a case to make, but without it, it’s just more opinion stated as fact (see Fox News and MSNBC). We don’t need to go anyfurther in that particular direction.

  • TheBentAngle

    Ms. O’Leary, how ironic that your article calls for “honesty” about homosexuality but is so starkly and fundamentally dishonest in its claims. You would have us believe you are speaking as a professional, an expert, and perhaps even as a scientist: “It is long past time to educate the public and particularly the younger generation as to what we know about SSA,” you write. Who is “we?” Surely not the medical community, which has time and again denounced the reparative therapies that you advocate.

    Maybe by “we,” you means the Catholic Church? But the Church doesn’t “know” anything about homosexuality. It is not in the business of research or the accumulation of scientific knowledge; it is in the business of propagating certain views of society that are often at odds with scientific knowledge.

    So let’s be honest about where we’re coming from, Ms. O’Leary. This is a propaganda piece masquerading as health science, and one sure sign of this is the conspicuous absence of journal citations or even names of researchers. You refer to “numerous well-designed studies” without a hint as to their origin. You make easily disprovable claims from beginning to end, in the apparent conviction that none but the “faithful Catholic laity” for whom Crisis articles are intended will read your piece.

    Identical twins don’t share the same sexual attractions? Check again. More than half of them do. There is “no evidence” of a genetic or hormonal cause? Time to read up on the literature. By “the literature,” I mean the scientific literature, not junk-science articles in Catholic magazines. You want evidence? Just ask me. I’ve got it waiting in the wings. Homosexuality is caused by “masturbation with fantasy?” I suppose masturbation also causes pimples? … and hair to grow in the palms of your hand? All this is early 20th-century Catholicism redux.

    If you are interested in disease control and prevention, follow commenter “Tim’s” advice. Go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website and read what they have to say about HIV. Here’s what I found:

    “The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:

    8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
    5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
    3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
    3.4 times more likely to have risky sex”

    I hope that the next article you write about HIV will take a serious look at the issue of responsibility for the HIV scourge. Blaming HIV on “troubled childhoods,” “narcissistic attitudes,” “[early] wounding,” “rebellion against the moral law,” and “[psychological] disorders” all adds up to homophobia, which is one of the three causes of HIV as identified by the CDC. If anyone needs conversion, it is you.

    • Mrs_Snoopington

      You wrote: ” . . . homophobia, which is one of the three causes of HIV as identified by the CDC.” Really now. Can you provide the link?

      • TheBentAngle

        I certainly can. Go to the following page and look in the section called “Prevention Challenges.” http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

        • Mrs_Snoopington

          Thanks for the link. The CDC does not state that homophobia CAUSES HIV.

          Here is what the CDC actually posts:

          “Prevention Challenges – As a group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM [men having sex with men] have an increased chance of being exposed to HIV because of the large number of MSM living with HIV. . . .

          “Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination put MSM at risk for
          multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether MSM seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services. Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family,
          discriminatory acts, and bullying and violence. These dynamics make it
          difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others [presumably doctors], which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health.”

          This is not scientific! It’s gay propaganda. Blame everyone in society. So the CDC is accusing physicians, nurses, and any other health care provider of being actively homophobic, stigmatizing, or discriminatory toward a sick person. That’s what they’re saying!

          The Gay Pride events by now would have pulverized this old fashioned latrophobia (fear of doctors). I sent the CDC a request to remove that paragraph.

          • TheBentAngle

            OK, Mrs. Rutherford. Cause/Prevent. Big difference there. But thank you for re-posting what the CDC said. I thought you were going to refute it afterwards. Instead, you just decided, on no basis whatsoever, that it is “unscientific.” If it is unscientific, then maybe you would be prepared to say why? Oh, it’s gay propaganda. Uh-oh. Those gays have taken over the CDC! Please let us know how the CDC replies to your request to have that paragraph removed.

            And thanks for helping me keep the focus on that paragraph from the CDC’s statement. I’d welcome any further comments about it.

    • sajetreh

      I agree with you. You can’t blame HIV on “troubled childhoods,” “narcissistic attitudes,” “[early] wounding,”
      “rebellion against the moral law,” and “[psychological] disorders”. First HIV doesn’t kill anyone because it isn’t a disease. It is the deficient immune system that kills and the MSM community is rife with behaviors that contribute to their own demise. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

      • TheBentAngle

        Sajetreh, did you happen to read the paragraph just above the list of behaviors? I noticed that you agreed that HIV couldn’t be blamed on narcissistic attitudes, etc., but do you understand that homophobia in the form of stigmatization and discrimination contributes to a climate in which homosexuals develop low esteem, and that low self-esteem drives individuals to substance abuse and high-risk sexual behavior? This is what I’m trying to help you see. It’s there, in that paragraph just above the behaviors. It’s not just the CDC saying this. It is a generally recognized fact among social and health care workers throughout this country and abroad.

        • sajetreh

          Mr. Bent, it is obvious from the discussions that your claims are debatable. I don’t care either way. I am only interested in science and truth. The scientific truth is that homosexual desires and actions are not normal to the human reproductive system. This is a fact that you can never escape. There can be no good science without starting with the basic facts. Until you do that, there will always be psychological and behavioral issues among those who have and act upon these abnormal desires.

          • TheBentAngle

            Sajetreh, you claim to only be interested in “science and the truth.” What would it take to convince you that homosexual desires and behaviors are natural? I have cited the major medical and social welfare associations. Do you need a statement from the World Health Organization? Would that convince you? If not, what in thunder do you mean by “science?” There IS NO science supporting the view that homosexuality is unnatural.

            But excuse me, you used the word “normal,” not “natural.” Are you using the word “normal” in the statistical sense? If so, you are correct. But premature baldness isn’t normal either. Nor is left-handedness.

            So, please help me here. What scientific organization would you believe about this? Shall I check with the World Health Organization for you?

            • sajetreh

              Mr Bent, have it your way. The natural/normal purpose of the male and female organs is to copulate and produce offspring. Your desires and actions are not natural/normal to this purpose.

              Are you born with this abnormal desire? Who knows. I personally don’t care. It doesn’t change the fact that nature intended the human species to reproduce itself by copulation between the male sexual organ and the female sexual organ. That is natures way of reproducing and your desires and actions aren’t natural/normal to natures way.

              The study of human anatomy is the science behind my claims. Let us use an easy experiment. Male and female use their sexual organs the way nature intended and there is a probability of reproducing their species. This of course has been proven billions of times.

              Now let us take male and male using their sexual organs in a way nature never intended and of course there is no reproduction of the species.

              Wow! It is scientifically proven that your desires and actions have absolutely nothing to do with natures way of reproducing the human species. Does the World Health Organization disagree with the human anatomy, when it comes to reproduction?

              • TheBentAngle

                Sajetreh, “Nature” is not a person with intentions. “Nature” does not “design” anything, and “nature” has no “purpose” for organs. Organs develop in certain ways because of a process called natural selection. When an organ is adaptive (meaning, it helps the organism survive until it can reproduce), the genes for it are passed on to the next generation. Noses of a certain shape and orientation allow passage of air but keep out water. Our ears have their present shape not because they were “designed” that way but because they were adaptive: they amplified sound, kept out water and dust, and cooled the body (note: three purposes). Same for the eyes and the mouth and the fingers and the toes and the penis and the vagina.

                But every single one of these organs can be used for purposes that have no direct connection with the transfer of genes to the next generation. Every single one of them can be used for pleasure, for bonding, and for various kinds of utility. The nose and the ears are great for hanging glasses on. The mouth, without which primitive creatures could not have fed themselves, is used by humans for singing, whistling, speaking, kissing, smiling. We can hang beads around our necks. Or ties. The fingers are used for not just for grasping but also for typing, for pointing, for tapping, and for putting rings on. Why would you want there to be just one function for everything? And why would you suggest that some functions are “natural” while others are not?

                Does it even matter that some body parts are not used for the purpose of transferring our genes? You understand, of course, that a woman’s nipples are necessary for suckling infants. But what are a man’s nipples for? What “purpose” does nature intend for them?

                One thing that I so often find troubling about the religious perspective is that it is so formalistic and categorical. It wants there to be a simple one-to-one correspondence between every object and its function. But life is not like that, and we get into a lot of trouble when we try to straight-jacket it.

                Another thing that I find problematic about the religious perspective is its strange obsession with reproduction, as if reproduction were some kind of fragile flower that needed constant attention. Don’t you know that reproduction will take care of itself? There’s no lack of humans on this planet, and there are far too many in countries like Pakistan, India, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The real driver for these obsessive concerns about reproduction is tribalism, which always wants us to increase our own numbers so that we can more effectively counter the enemy tribes, nations, religions, or whatever. We need to move beyond that.

                • sajetreh

                  Mr. Bent, who are you trying to convince, the rest of us or yourself. Nothing you say disputes the fact that your desires and actions can not produce offspring. Therefore they are not natural or normal to the human reproductive system.

                  My motives for pointing out the obvious is nothing more than pointing out the truth. Those who have homosexual desires and act upon those desires want to force the rest of us to consider these desires and acts as normal and that nature created you that way from birth. I have no idea whether or not you were born with this abnormality, but I do know that these desires and actions are not normal to the human reproductive system.

                  I am not arguing for your sake for you have chosen your path. But, your movement has spread propaganda misleading the public from the truth of your abnormal desires and actions regarding the reproductive system. I also don’t make a religious argument because that is subjective to the individuals belief and I don’t believe religion should force its morality on anyone.

                  I want to turn the narrative back to the basics. A basic fact that can not be disputed. Homosexual desires and acts are not normal to the human reproductive system and thus should not be considered so and certainly not taught as a normal lifestyle.

                  • TheBentAngle

                    Sajetreh, I can see that producing offspring is extremely important to you. You talk about it constantly. However, to me, it is really not at all important. I have an adopted son whom I love, and I have no desire to have offspring.

                    You keep insisting that I am deficient or defective because I don’t have a biological child. Apart from the gratuitously insulting tone of those remarks, they are absurd for the simple reason that I do NOT aspire to have a biological child. I am 69 years old.

                    We have a saying, “If something ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well, I ain’t broke, so you don’t need to fix me. Instead of obsessing about my defects and shortcomings, I’m sure you must have some of your own that you would do well to concentrate on.

                    • sajetreh

                      Mr. Bent, it is interesting you now use the term defective or deficient to describe yourself. I’ll stick with the truth, which is that you have abnormal or unnatural desires and actions when it comes to the natural or normal purpose of the human reproductive system.

                      The past has taught us not to subjugate science for religious, political or social purposes. Science has to be based upon absolutes. It is the homosexual community that is obsessing with forcing the rest of us to believe your desires and actions are normal. When they are not.

                      It is time for all good men to stand and defend truth and science.

                    • Tim

                      Sajetreh, you don’t read very carefully, do you? The Bent Angle did not describe himself as defective or deficient. You, however, have been describing him in the most negative terms: your favored epithets are “abnormal” and “unnatural.” Of course your descriptions of him are baseless, but I’m beginning to see that they are also obsessive to the point of being pathological. I would advise you to turn your attention to your own defects and deficiencies. Your obsession with his are beginning to reveal more about you than about him, as is usually the case. In Western culture, it is now generally recognized that those who feel the most “driven” to denounce and condemn homosexuals are often themselves homosexual. There is a positive correlation there. Beyond a certain level of interest–or fixation–we have to wonder… Have you not heard of Ted Haggard, the famous anti-gay evangelist who was exposed as a closeted homosexual?

                      Men who are secure in their masculinity–or their sexual identity, if you like—do not spend their time badgering homosexuals. Nor do they feel threatened by them. Men who have not accepted their sexual orientation often obsess about those who have.

                    • sajetreh

                      Welcome Tim the cliche, and the propaganda issues forth.

                      Maybe you should read more carefully and I quote, “Instead of obsessing about my defects”. Mr. Bents words not mine. It’s one of those Freudian slips you elude to.

                      My time is not meant to badger those who have these abnormal or unnatural desires and then act upon those desires, but to educate others as to there scientific abnormality. To bring the conversation back to the basic scientific fact of the human anatomy. Others read these conversations and we must re-direct the conversation away from the propaganda you so eloquently express and focus on the scientific truth.

                      Religious people want to save your souls. I just want to defend natures science. It’s a fight worth having.

                      BTW, I know a few homosexuals and besides their abnormal or unnatural reproductive desires and acts they are as normal as anyone else.

                    • Tim

                      Sajetreh, good luck trying to defend “nature’s science.” You seem to be embarked on a Quixotic endeavor, tilting at windmills. I hope you get your own sexual confusion straightened out.

                    • sajetreh

                      Sorry Tim, not even a good try. As usual, bereft of science and dependent on philosophy. The human anatomy is no windmill and your self-projected sentiment is appreciated and understood.

  • sajetreh

    Good article. As Ms. O’Leary points out “Normalizing disorder does not create order, but abandons the troubled”. No matter what the arguments are for SSA they can never overcome the truth. Homosexual acts or attractions are not normal to the human reproductive system. They never will be and this is a truth that the SSA community can not run away from. It is not surprising that the SSA community is rife with disease and addictions outside the norm of the rest of society. Surprise! It is not normal so it will always be outside the norm.

  • Katy

    Tim, do you also believe that bestiality would be okay if the medical/mental
    professional membership organizations condoned this behavior? After
    all, dogs will attempt to mate with people and this “dominant” acting
    out behavior is found in the animal kingdom. And there are sexual
    perverts (they are in the closet now) that would be happy to mainstream
    this practice.

    SS attractions are not “natural” in moral beings because males and
    females were made to complement (completes or brings to perfection) each
    other–physically, spiritually and mentally. Rules of conduct go
    hand-in-hand with living a good life otherwise there is disintegration
    in families and in society. The search for single genes for complex
    human traits, like sexual
    orientation or antisocial behavior, or mental disorders like
    schizophrenia or depression, is seriously misguided. In fact, genetic research on manic-depression and schizophrenia has
    rekindled the recognition of the role of environment in emotional
    disorders. If distinct genetic patterns can’t be tied to the disorders,
    then personal experiences are most likely crucial in their emergence.

    “Epidemiologic data on the major mental illnesses make it clear that they
    can’t be reduced to purely genetic causes. For example, according to
    psychiatric epidemiologist Myrna Weissman, Americans born before 1905
    had a 1 percent rate of depression by age 75. Among Americans born a
    half-century later, 6 percent become depressed by age 24!
    Similarly, while the average age at which manic-depression first appears
    was 32 in the mid 1960s, its average onset today is 19. Only social
    factors can produce such large shifts in the incidence and age of onset
    of mental disorders in a few decades.” (My Genes Made Me Do It, Stanton Peele)

    More and more mental health professional will be swayed to also go
    along with transgender sexual identity politics. Many of its proponents
    are closely aligned with the bisexual/homosexual movement. Do you also
    believe that there is a “nature” explanation for wanting to alter one’s
    gender? Your posts clearly choose to focus on the so-called “nature”
    issue because detachment issues and other environmental factors (i.e.,
    sexual abuse) are the major contributors to disorders like SS
    attraction.

    • TheBentAngle

      Katy, would bestiality be okay if the Catholic Church made a sacrament of it? Of course it wouldn’t! You would abandon your faith in Catholicism and become a Unitarian Universalist. Wouldn’t you?

      …wouldn’t you?

      I guess it depends on how strong your faith is.

      I have very strong faith that the sun will appear on the eastern horizon tomorrow morning because it has always done so. And I have strong faith that the AMA and the APA are basically responsible and professional. If they disappoint, then perhaps I will lose my faith in them and invest it elsewhere.

      What? There are sexual perverts trying to mainstream bestiality? Where? Do they have a website? (Well, of course they must, if they are seriously trying to mainstream bestiality. How can you do it without a website?)

      Rules of conduct go with living a good life. Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. I’m 69, and somehow or other, I got through all those years with no felonies, no DUIs, and no addictions. Without rules, people cannot make strong families, and society suffers as a result. I am gay, I have a son who got his college degree and now works in a bank, I am partnered to a man whom I will marry in July of next year, and all is well with the world. Life is good.

      I’m afraid your theories linking homosexuality to mental disorders are pure bunk. I don’t know what their basis is, but I suspect it is a preconceived notion supplied by… your Church. It is certainly not based on mainstream science. This is why I keep saying the Church–your Church–is way out of its depth on this issue and can only further embarass itself by persisting in the claim that homosexuality is a disorder when there is no evidence that it is.

      If you want to understand homosexuality, I have a simple but effective suggestion: Stop reading Catholic publications on the subject. The Catholic Church has absolutely no expertise on homosexuality.

      • Katy

        TheBentAngle:
        “If you want to understand homosexuality, I have a simple
        but effective suggestion: Stop reading Catholic publications on the
        subject. The Catholic Church has absolutely no expertise on
        homosexuality.”
        My post about SS attraction does not cite anything from the Catholic
        Church. I read a variety of information sources and I am familiar with
        the gay community. Should you stop reading gay publications and
        believing in the wisdom of the AMA and APA in order to understand every
        angle about the redefinition of marriage and the importance of
        monogamous marriages and children having a mother and father? Radically
        changing the legal structure of families so that children are not
        attached to both their biological parents and sanctioning homosexuality
        have profound implications.

        “I’m afraid your theories linking homosexuality to mental disorders
        are pure bunk. I don’t know what their basis is, but I suspect it is a
        preconceived notion supplied by… your Church.”
        You say that SS attraction is not a disorder and that claims to the contrary are wrong, but give no evidence? There is growing and increasingly sophisticated literature on same-sex attraction to counter the tremendous amount of false information about this issue and to offer hope for those with immediate needs in this area.

        • TheBentAngle

          Katy, there is a big difference between the “wisdom” of the Catholic Church and the medical community’s evidence-based understanding of human sexuality and social issues. The first begins with ideology and the second starts with empirical observation. The day the AMA gets taken over by ideologues is the day that I stop trusting my doctor.

          The fact of the matter is that the Church makes claims about homosexuality that are simply untrue by any objective measure. One of the best examples I can offer you is the article that we are commenting on, which seems to channel the Church’s line pretty closely. It is simply wrong in its major premises. You can’t build a sound argument on a faulty premise, but that is exactly what Ms. O’Leary has attempted to do. This is because she, like the Church, starts with a conclusion (the dogma) and uses argumentation to build support for it. If the facts don’t fit, then she hammers them until they do.

          Science operates in a very different manner. It starts with observation and collects data under rigorous standards. It then analyses those data and forms a hypothesis to explain them. It then tests that hypothesis through various means that are, ideally, rigorously controlled. And then, finally, it approaches a conclusion about the hypothesis.

          Religious thinking does it the other way round. This is why religious arguments are so often loopy. They start with conclusions that are based on cognitive distortions, perceptual errors, and age-old prejudices. There is no check on these errors because the only means of testing them is rejected out of hand. Science is dismissed and disparaged when it doesn’t support those errors. Those who dismiss and disparage it are quite happy, however, to board jets that will carry them thousands of feet into the air, to undergo surgery, to rely on electronic equipment, to sit securely at home under a roof that they trust not to collapse on their heads. In other words, they trust science when it is convenient for them and disparage it when it challenges their most cherished assumptions about the world.

          This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the Catholic Church’s view of homosexuality and that of the American Psychological Association.

          • Katy

            TheBentAngle:
            “Science operates in a very different manner. It starts with observation
            and collects data under rigorous standards. It then analyses those data
            and forms a hypothesis to explain them. It then tests that hypothesis
            through various means that are, ideally, rigorously controlled. And
            then, finally, it approaches a conclusion about the hypothesis.”

            The answer then is that mental health professionals, like in the other branches of science, must be exceedingly careful to continually examine their hypotheses and their assumptions in light of collected data. The APA has work to do to get the truth out to the public:

            Robert Spitzer, M.D., the Columbia University psychiatric researcher,
            who was directly involved in the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality
            from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders,
            has become involved with researching the possibility of change. Dr.
            Spitzer stated in an interview: “I am convinced that many people have
            made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual…I think that’s
            news… I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes
            can be sustained.” (Spitzer 2000).

            It should be noted that almost without exception, those therapists
            who regard therapy as unethical, also reject abstinence from non-marital
            sexual activity as a minimal goal (Barrett 1996) and among the
            therapists who accept homosexual acts as normal many find nothing wrong with infidelity in committed relationships (Nelson 1982), anonymous sexual encounters, general promiscuity, auto-eroticism (Saghir 1973), and sado-masochism. Some even support a lessening of restrictions on sex between adults and minors (Mirkin 1999) or deny the negative psychological impact of sexual child abuse. (Rind 1998; Smith 1988)

            As the prevention and treatment of same-sex attraction improves, the
            individuals who still struggle will, more than ever, need compassionate
            and sensitive support.

            Pediatricians need to know the symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder
            (GID) and chronic juvenile unmasculinity. With early identification and
            intervention, there is every reason to hope that the problem can be
            successfully resolved. (Zucker 1995:Newman 1976) While the primary
            reason for treating children is to alleviate their present unhappiness
            (Newman 1976: Bradley 1998: Bates 1974), treatment of
            GID and chronic juvenile unmasculinity can prevent the development of same-sex attraction and the problems associated with homosexual activity in adolescence and adult life.

            • sajetreh

              Thank you Katy for sticking to scientific studies and not religious arguments. You have made a great argument.

              • TheBentAngle

                So gullible. It must be hard being so abnormally susceptible to being taken in by pseudo-scientific claims.

                • sajetreh

                  Says the pot calling the kettle black.

                  • TheBentAngle

                    Sajetreh, you still haven’t told me what scientific authority you would believe about this. The World Health Organization won’t do?

            • TheBentAngle

              Ok, Katy, you obviously cribbed most of this, and it shows in the attributions. What good is there is offering names and dates without publications? How are we to find “Mirkin 1999?” Such information would obviously be useful in an end-noted paper, because you could go to the end-notes and look for “Mirkin” to find the name and issue number of the publication. So, once again, you’ve offered us something that masquerades as science but isn’t, and it is unverifiable. If you want to even have a chance at impressing your readers, you have to offer links that we can follow and investigate. But obviously you’re not interested in subjecting your claims to any real scrutiny.

              • Katy

                TheBentangle:

                Sources:
                Barrett, R., Barzan, R.
                (1996) Spiritual experiences of gay men and lesbians. Counseling and Values. 41: 4 – 15.

                Bates, J., Skilbeck, W.,Smith, K, Bentley, P. (1974) Gender role abnormalities in boys: An analysis of clinical rates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2, 1: 1 – 17.

                Newman, L. (1976) Treatment for the parents of feminine boys. American Journal of Psychiatry. 133, 6: 683 – 687.

                Mirkin, H. (1999) The pattern of sexual politics: Feminism, homosexuality, and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality. 37, 2: 1 -24.

                Nelson, J. (1982) Religious and moral issues in working with homosexual clients.(in Gonsiorek, J. Homosexuality and Psychotherapy. NY: Haworth) 163 – 175.

                Newman, L. (1976)
                Treatment for the parents of feminine boys. American Journal of Psychiatry. 133, 6: 683 – 687.

                Rind, B., Bauserman, R.,
                Tromovitch, P. (1998) A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin. 124, 1: 22 -53

                Saghir, M., Robins, E. (1973) Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins.

                Smith, J.(1988) Psychopathology, homosexuality, and homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality. 15, 1/2: 59 – 74:

                Zucker, K., Bradley, S. (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. NY: Guilford.

                • TheBentAngle

                  Thank you, Katy. And now I just need the name of the article that you cribbed from–the one that cites these journals. If you found it online, please send me the link. Thanks.

                  • TheBentAngle

                    Never mind, Katy. It wasn’t hard to find. Don’t you know that extended quotations without attribution are dishonest and unethical?

                    I found it on the NARTH website. If you don’t know what NARTH is, I would suggest you check it out. Rhymes with “DARTH.” It’s a discredited reparative therapy organization. Even its own practitioners recently admitted that their therapy doesn’t work, but they were long ago condemned by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. You’ll find their story fascinating reading. Check it out on Wikipedia.

                    The article that NARTH reprints on its website is from—get this—the Catholic Medical Association. Here’s CMA’s mission statement:
                    “The Catholic Medical Association is dedicated to upholding the principles of the Catholic Faith as related to the practice of medicine… CMA supports the teachings of the Catholic Church as laid out in the revised version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular the teachings on sexuality: “All the baptized are called to chastity.” (CCC, n.2348) “Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence.” (CCC, n.2349) “… tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered… Under no circumstance can they be approved.” (CCC, n.2333)”

                    Do you see what’s going on here? The CMA has started with its conclusions, just like Ms. O’Leary does in her article, and they try to “build the science” around that. The CMA, by its own admission, begins with the premises supplied by the Catholic Church and screens for any research that appears to support those premises, even if the research is faulty and discredited.

                    This is really fascinating. Now I’m going to research the CMA to see how it is regarded by the major medical associations of this country. I already know that its conclusions about homosexuality are soundly condemned by the World Health Organization.

                    This is just unbelievable! When is the Catholic Church going to wake up and smell the coffee? It has painted itself into a corner (again!) and now sees itself as “under siege” by the secular world. Well, so are Scientologists, and there’s good reason why.

                    • Katy

                      TheBentArrow:
                      “Do you see what’s going on here? The CMA has started with
                      its conclusions, just like Ms. O’Leary does in her article, and they try to
                      “build the science” around that. The CMA, by its own admission, begins with the premises supplied by the Catholic Church and screens for any research that appears to support those premises, even if the research is faulty and discredited.”

                      The Catholic Medical Association uses studies in clinical
                      psychiatry and medicine related to their research in many areas including those that relate to health care laws. The studies cited here have appeared in a variety of publications including journals and in peer reviewed articles. Because the CMA refers to these studies does it diminish their worth? Are they less worthy than let’s say…studies advanced by the Human Rights Campaign, LAMBDA and NAMBA to further their causes? I would think that most psychological studies
                      that are referenced by groups support positions that represent their constituencies. The “premise” of the gay lobby is to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, would you agree?

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Katy, scientific studies should be conducted by scientific establishments that abide by strict rules of data collection, analysis, and peer review. I do not go to the Human Rights Campaign to find original scientific research. You should not go to any organization that announces right up front that it is beholden to an ideology that takes precedence over science, reason, evidence, and medical norms. The Catholic Medical Association is way out of the mainstream because it has done exactly that, and its statements about reparative therapies are diametrically at odds with those of the World Health Organization, which states:

                      “Conversion” or “reparative” therapies and the clinics offering them should be denounced and subject to adequate sanctions.
                      Public institutions responsible for training health professionals should include courses on human sexuality and sexual health in their curricula, with a focus on respect for diversity and the elimination of attitudes of pathologization, rejection, and hate toward non-heterosexual persons.
                      Professional associations should disseminate documents and resolutions by national and international institutions and agencies that call for the de-psychopathologization of sexual diversity and the prevention of interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation.

                      See my article about this, here: http://thebentangle.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/for-bishop-robert-vasa-catholic-faith-trumps-medical-norms-reason-and-science/

                    • Ray Olson

                      Woh! BentAngle, you rock!!

                      Also, though I called out John200, I’m not a Catholic. Romanophile, yes, Catholic, no.

                    • John200

                      You called me out? Perhaps you do not know what the expression means. OK, I won’t pursue that. But let’s take the straight (doesn’t mean I expect you to convert) path forward:

                      Where is your substantive position?

                    • Ray Olson

                      You’re right about my command of the idiom, I should have said some version of “call to account”.

                      But I ask your closing question of you. Substantive position? You have simply shown a fixation on the human anus. I believe you may have an incipient paraphilia. In any event, you use your obsession to abuse others who are trying to have a serious discussion. You owe us all an apology.

                      If you had read this stream attentively, you would know my position. Give it a try–reading the stream, that is.

                    • John200

                      I have read the thread. I can’t state your position. If you can state it, you haven’t. If you can’t state it, then it isn’t there. Nor is there any reason to take you and Doughlas any more seriously than I do. Just so you know, I have experience with Doughlas trolling CrisisMag.

                      Back to you; I don’t expect you to formulate a substantive position. Since your perspective lies in the wrong, it will take you a long long time. Homo”sex”ual activity is hard to defend and impossible to justify. This is the primary reason you are having such a difficult time.

                      The defense of marriage requires honesty about homo”sex”uality.

                    • Ray Olson

                      I don’t think I can put it all in words of one syllable, but my position, which others seem to understand from what I’ve already written, is that it is futile to argue about the morality of homosexuality with physical data (research findings, statistics, etc.) as Ms. O’Leary does. Theology and philosophy, not science, furnish the only proper methods and means for arguing about the morality of homosexuality. I don’t have any ultimate “position” on the morality of homosexuality, just my healthy prejudices based on–to begin with–the Golden Rule.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      John200, you have disgraced yourself so badly with your potty mouth that I really don’t give a hoot whether you take me seriously or not. If I respond to you, it’s only to alert those who might take YOU seriously.

                    • John200

                      Dear Doughlas,

                      How sad that your intimidation tactics have no effect on me. I know you don’t have any substantive response — I remember, believe me, I remember you trolling CrisisMag, trying in vain to make the sale, only to end up doing it again today….

                      Pitiful. Just like last time.

                      And in case you think I don’t know, you care deeply about getting the best of me. That’s why you are still at it. Unfortunately, you are advocating the wrong answers to everything sexual (or homo”sex”ual if you will), so you lose by force.

                      ‘Bye for now, I suppose you will try it again soon enough. There will always be a good normal person to enlighten you.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Bye! See you next December!

                    • John200

                      I expect you to come back for another round ‘way before that. Perhaps January 4 is a good prediction. It’s hard to say because I don’t know who will write what articles and when. But surely homo”sex”ual perversion will come up, and you will be here to spread the fruits of your darkness and be rebuked.

                      Best to you and yours, including the man you are destroying.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Well, thank you, John200, a very merry Christmas to you, too! The next time we talk, I hope the doctors in the institution where you reside will have adjusted your meds.

                    • John200

                      And I hope your doctors know how to perform restorative surgery on the alimentary canal, and furthermore, that the “doctors” where you are heading are somehow denied possession of your soul.

                      Both are up to you. Conscious decisions, Doughlas, this is all about decisions consciously made.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      You’re a Romanophile? I’m not exactly sure what that is. What brings you to this site?

                      You’re always welcome to visit The Bent Angle. I have a comments section there, but please keep it under your hat. I don’t want to get visited by John200.

                    • Katy

                      TheBentAngle:
                      “Katy, scientific studies should be conducted by scientific establishments
                      that abide by strict rules of data collection, analysis, and peer review. I do not go to the Human Rights Campaign to find original scientific research. You should not go to any organization that announces right up front that it is beholden to an ideology that takes precedence over science, reason, evidence, and medical norms.”

                      The studies cited were not conducted by the CMA. Why are you confused about this? Publishers include the American Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology and the Psychological Bulletin and are not under the umbrella of the CMA. Because the studies have different conclusions than your own, is that why you do not want to accept them?

                      Instead, you give a link to an article with your opinions and conclusions about therapies for homosexuals and how society should educate people about this topic–as if you are the supreme authority of “science, reason, evidence, and medical norms.” I have no plans to read the article.

                    • TheBentAngle

                      Katy, there are always articles to support any conclusion that one happens to favor. Climate change denialists have their cherry-picked list, which reflects the opinions of less than one percent of climate scientists.
                      It is very hard for you or me to judge scientific studies, and it is impossible when we do not have access to them.

                      This is why the idea of “consensus” is so important. It’s not enough to say that, e.g., “five peer-reviewed studies show that gays make lousy parents” when there are maybe fifty or a hundred studies that show the opposite and the consensus is that gay parenting is not a problem.

                      The World Health Organization’s statement about homosexuality reflects the consensus view, and if you want to drill down, you’ll find that that consensus is also built on the consensus of all the major health and social welfare associations.

                      When someone like yourself ignores the scientific consensus about climate change, or homosexuality, or smoking, or seat-belts, one has to wonder why. But the answer is not usually too hard to find. In some cases it is religious indoctrination, in some cases it is campaigns of disinformation from oil or tobacco companies, and in some cases, it is political party propaganda.

                      I would just encourage you to look at the scientific consensus without any pre-judgments. You will hear plenty of accusations that the APA or the WHO or the UN or NASA have been subverted by ideological activists, but none of this is true. They may not be perfect, but they’re among the most non-ideological organizations you can find. No organization could be more ideological than the Church, and ideology means starting with conclusions and trying to make the facts fit into them. This is not scientific understanding, it is just more ignorance. This is exactly why the WHO and the Church are on opposite sides of this issue.

                    • Katy

                      TheBentAngle:
                      “Katy, there are always articles to support any conclusion
                      that one happens to favor. Climate change denialists have their cherry-picked list, which reflects the opinions of less than one percent of climate
                      scientists. It is very hard for you or me to judge scientific studies, and it
                      is impossible when we do not have access to them.”

                      Researchers in psychoanalytic studies need to use methods like the double-blind procedure to protect from bias and collect adequate patient sampling. Once again, mental health professionals, like in the other branches of science, must be careful to continually examine their hypotheses and their assumptions in light of collected data.

                      “This is why the idea of “consensus” is so important. It’s
                      not enough to say that, e.g., “five peer-reviewed studies show that gays make lousy parents” when there are maybe fifty or a hundred studies that show the opposite and the consensus is that gay parenting is not a problem.”

                      This article states the obvious. “Study after study has found that children do best when they spend their entire childhood living with their married, biological parents.” Same-sex individuals raising children *always*
                      separate offspring from either one or both of their biological parents. In
                      order to accept your theory that gay parents are equivalent to biological
                      parents we would need to accept that an adopted parent or adopted parents are equivalent to biological parents and then that the androgynous sexuality model should be equally supported by society as the complementary sexuality model.The androgynous understanding of sexuality is that the male and female are more or less interchangeable. The complementary model is where male and female sexual differences are seen as important and positive and as fundamental to reality and to the nature of each person.

                      “The World Health Organization’s statement about homosexuality reflects the consensus view, and if you want to drill down, you’ll find that that consensus is also built on the consensus of all the major health and social welfare associations.”

                      Many of the guidelines for counselors treating patients for unwanted SSA are consistent with guidelines for other practice areas. This is an area of ongoing scientific discovery. A consensus viewpoint about SSA behaviors does not exist, In any case, examples abound of consensus being the enemy of truth. A generation ago, many people with autism were placed in institutions. Today the picture is much clearer. With appropriate services and supports, training, and information, children on the autism spectrum can flourish, even if at a different developmental rate than others.

                    • Katy

                      TheBentAngle:
                      “When someone like yourself ignores the scientific consensus
                      about climate change, or homosexuality, or smoking, or seat-belts, one has to wonder why. But the answer is not usually too hard to find. In some cases it is religious indoctrination, in some cases it is campaigns of disinformation from oil or tobacco companies, and in some cases, it is political party propaganda.”

                      You have veered off track here. Denigrating those that disagree with your invalid arguments by making wild accusations about them on a host of other issues that are not part of this SSA discussion does not make your case stronger. You hold the mistaken belief that only you are unbiased, disinterested and on the quest for truth.

                      “I would just encourage you to look at the scientific
                      consensus without any pre-judgments. You will hear plenty of accusations that the APA or the WHO or the UN or NASA have been subverted by ideological activists, but none of this is true. They may not be perfect, but they’re among the most non-ideological organizations you can find. No organization could be more ideological than the Church, and ideology means starting with conclusions and trying to make the facts fit into them. This is not scientific understanding, it is just more ignorance. This is exactly why the WHO and the Church are on opposite sides of this issue.”

                      The WHO alerts to possible health problems and potential solutions and their findings/opinions are often ignored and/or they fail to be implemented. You are fooling yourself if you believe that members of organized groups don’t hold common tenets, ideologies and principles. Industries as well as religions have them, and countries hold them (e.g., Bill of Rights). Movements also abide by them. The gay liberation movement works to legitimize homosexuality. It maintains that being gay is as good as, if
                      not better than, being heterosexual. They argue, for instance, that
                      homosexual relations are based on equality and sensitivity, whereas
                      heterosexual relationship are based on power and paternalism.

                      I will end my comments on this thread here.

                  • Katy

                    Sorry, but this information will have to do.

          • sajetreh

            Mr. Bent, the Church makes no claim to the science of being born with abnormal reproductive desires. They base their teachings on the human anatomy and sacred scripture. Sacred scripture is debatable, but the human anatomy can not be debated. The male sexual organ has a profound purpose in copulating with the female sexual organ to produce life. This is normal to the human reproductive system. Your desires and actions on the other hand produce nothing and are not normal to the human reproductive system.

            • TheBentAngle

              I would suggest you read up on (1) evolutionary biology and (2) the teleological fallacy.

            • TheBentAngle

              Oh, and here is something from the World Health Organization:

              “Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation,” said PAHO Director Dr. Mirta Roses Periago. Practices known as “reparative therapy” or “conversion therapy” represent “a serious threat to the health and well-being—even the lives—of affected people.”

              The PAHO statement notes that there is a professional consensus that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition.

              You can read the whole statement here: http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&Itemid=1926

              • sajetreh

                Mr. Bent, none of this negates the fact that there is a natural purpose for the male and female sexual organs in the reproduction of offspring and your desires and actions are not natural/normal to that purpose.

                I agree with the PAHO statement. Homosexuality is a present deviation from the function of the human reproduction system that is not caused by disease or disorder. From one of the most corrupt organizations on earth a little truth.

  • Catholictherapists.com

    Well said Dale. We do need to make changes in the way we respond to those suffering with SSA…and as a therapist I can tell you that it is a great suffering. I can also tell you that the wounds of childhood can be healed through God’s grace and through that healing much of the same sex attraction will resolve with it.

  • iamoverrated

    How about you give us citation or sources for this drivel? You’re pushing psuedo science and twisting a real medical disorder (GID) with a sexual orientation. Here’s a novel idea, equality. Why does it matter what two consenting adults agree to in their personal lives? What gives you the moral authority to tell others how to live their lives? I’m all for using your words, handing out pamplets, and proseltyzing… but stay the hell away from the legislature. What works for some doesn’t work for others and as long as someone isn’t infringing on your rights, you get zero say in their decisions. It might also help to read a psychiatric journal or two, I believe ‘homosexuality’ stopped being a mental illness in the 1950′s.

  • Stephen Smythe-Jones

    All a Christian need know is that Scripture (and all societies cultures and civilizations for that matter in all of human history until less than 20 yrs ago) uniformly without exception condemn homosexuality as moral and sexual perversion. Period. No exceptions. It is not a matter of human freedom or liberty unless you believe the right to engage in licentious behaviour is a God given right. If a Christian believes he is homosexual he must, to remain a faithful Christian, accept that his Creator has called him to lifelong celibacy.

    • TheBentAngle

      History tells us that the reason the Jewish religion didn’t spread among the Gentiles around the time of St. Paul was that it required circumcision. Paul dealt with that in the way that you are familiar with.

      Now you and your church are telling homosexuals that in order to be good Catholics or faithful Christians, they must be celibate. Um-um. Do you see any parallels there?

      The secular humanists and atheists will be very delighted to know that your standards are so high that homosexuals cannot be faithful Christians without virtually castrating themselves.

      • sajetreh

        So bitter. It must be hard having abnormal human reproductive desires. “History tells us that the reason the Jewish religion didn’t spread among
        the Gentiles around the time of St. Paul was that it required
        circumcision”. Is this the best you have to offer. It is not surprising that you focus on the superficial.

        • John200

          Dear sajetreh,

          (sajet = Tejas spelled backwards?) Nice to renew acquaintance. Too bad you are trying to educate Doughlas, I don’t think you can. He is a confirmed bumhole worshipper. Still we must write for other readers.

          I have one point of contention with you: Those are not reproductive desires. No midwife awaits the emergence of a child from the mother’s bumhole; the midwife doesn’t look there. That goes double for a homo”sex”ual’s bumhole; a child isn’t going to come out of there, either.

          According to me, this discussion is about perverted lust, not reproduction, and not even sex.

          • TheBentAngle

            Again, I notice that no Catholic on this site has anything to say to John200 about his language. Is a gay non-Catholic man the only one scandalized by it?

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jambe-dArgent/100003865893919 Jambe d’Argent

              Never mind the language, answer the argument.

      • Stephen Smythe-Jones

        “Do you seee any parallels there?” Answer: No.

    • Ray Olson

      Mr. Smythe-Jones–As a Christian, I find any statement beginning “All a Christian need know” a denial of our Savior’s promise of fuller life. We must constantly grow in knowledge and truth so that we may live with Him in Eternity. Of that constant growth one might say “no exceptions”, though probably not “period”.

      • Stephen Smythe-Jones

        Your comment is non responsive to the content of my comment.

        • Ray Olson

          Your comment, as far as I can see, is intended to prevent discussion, research, questioning, and everything else that would promote learning more about sex and love, virtue and sin. “Period,” you write. I find that attitude killingly satanic, calculated to cut off Jesus’ promise of fuller life.

          • Stephen Smythe-Jones

            No my comment is designed to prevent discussion of non relevant comments which have nothing to do with the content of the original post.

  • Mrs_Snoopington

    Let’s make a deal! The Left overturns Roe v Wade and the Right legalizes same-sex “marriage.”

    Homosexuals can and do adopt children. I don’t understand their nonstop agitation for marriage. Oh, it’s the treasure trove of government benefits.

    The honest homosexual “families” waiting for adoption:
    http://www.openadopt.org/birthparents/waiting-families

    An attorney I know had a case. The 9-year-old adopted by two lesbians kept telling them, “But I want a mommie and a daddy.”

    The lesbians sued the adoption agency. The little girl got her wish.

    The rights of children to be parented by a mother and a father should be protected.

    • TheBentAngle

      Yeah, yeah. Children should get everything they want. When my partner and I moved into a new home, my son had a fit because we claimed the master bedroom for ourselves.

      Children don’t have “rights” to be parented by a mommy and a daddy. Some of them are lucky to have any parents at all. Two parents are better than one, but there’s no evidence that mixed-gender parenting is optimal. In fact, there is a longitudinal study from the American Journal of Pediatrics showing that child outcomes from lesbian parenting are actually superior to those from mixed-gender parenting. If you’re interested, I’ll send you the link.

      • John200

        Doughlas, Doughlas, Doughlas,

        Good grief, what is wrong with you? Your son objects to a guy poking you in the heinie. And you see nothing worthy of response. Nothing to see here, folks, move on. Doughlas’ son is some kind of weirdo, or a normal man, or whatever.

        I won’t even bother with your lamentable, “there’s no evidence that mixed-gender parenting is optimal.” Your guy knows where to stuff that.

        • TheBentAngle

          John200, What on earth are you talking about? Are you coming from a Catholic perspective or a tavern? I see that is it 9 pm by PST. You’re in the bars by now. With your laptop.

          • Ray Olson

            John200–I’ve flagged as inappropriate both this and your earlier comment. Please speak to the point, and wash your mind out, too.

            • TheBentAngle

              Thank you, Ray. I was wondering when someone would speak up about this. John200′s language is totally unacceptable.

              • John200

                My language is perfect English. It conveys my message, as you well know.

                • Ray Olson

                  However “perfect” it is, your language conveys contempt for BentAngle, in particular, and constitutes an ad hominem argument, at best.

                  • John200

                    My language conveys accurate thoughts, while you are still struggling to formulate a perspective.

                    I don’t expect substance from you, it will take you a long long time. Meanwhile, homo”sex”ual activity is hard to defend and impossible to justify. This is the primary reason you are having such a difficult time.

            • John200

              I did speak to the point. My language is fine, it communicates a clear message, and you know it. Malheureusement, your beliefs do not rule. Nor do Doughlas’.

              Nor do the Marquis de Sade’s (his, and perhaps your, philosophical muse). Since all you have done is carp, I cannot identify your substantive position.

              Do you have one? Can you state it?

              But you can both learn something, although perhaps at different points in time.

          • John200

            No, Doughlas, I am not drunk. The defense of marriage requires honesty about homo”sex”uality. The corollary is that the attack on marriage by homo”sex”uals requires deception. Unfortunately, we cannot advance a truthful discussion with your main tactic, deception, as a basis.

            Your son objects, and you pretend you don’t know why he objects.

            Do you see? I don’t expect you to answer me truthfully; experience says you won’t. I guess you can’t, at least not until you develop further.

            But I wonder if you see, in your own private deliberations, what you are doing. I don’t expect you to answer me truthfully.

  • TheBentAngle

    Ms. O’Leary, I think you should be aware of the following:

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has strongly denounced conversion therapies. Here is part of a statement from one of its regional offices, the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO):

    PAHO makes a series of recommendations for governments, academic institutions, professional associations, the media, and civil society, including:

    “Conversion” or “reparative” therapies and the clinics offering them should be denounced and subject to adequate sanctions.

    Public institutions responsible for training health professionals should include courses on human sexuality and sexual health in their curricula, with a focus on respect for diversity and the elimination of attitudes of pathologization, rejection, and hate toward non-heterosexual persons.

    Professional associations should disseminate documents and resolutions by national and international institutions and agencies that call for the de-psychopathologization of sexual diversity and the prevention of interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation.

    In the media, homophobia in any of its manifestations and expressed by any person should be exposed as a public health problem and a threat to human dignity and human rights.

    Civil society organizations can develop mechanisms of civil vigilance to detect violations of the human rights of non-heterosexual persons and report them to the relevant authorities. They can also help to identify and report people and institutions involved in the administration of “reparative” or “conversion therapies.”

    [The full statement is available at http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&Itemid=1926

  • Pingback: Pope’s Childhood Christmas Letter to Baby Jesus Published | Big Pulpit

  • Pingback: The Defense of Marriage Requires Honesty About Homosexuality … | National Geographic Part 1

  • John

    I hesitate to add my voice to the cacophony below, but I think I’ve something worth mentioning. Catholic doctrine (inspired by the Holy Spirit, refined through generations, and binding for all Catholics) clearly articulates that only fertile (or potentially fertile) sexual contact between a man and a woman who are married to each other is licit. The church celebrates fertile (or potentially fertile) sex within marriage because it is ordered to the good of the spouses AND the procreation of children. ALL other sexual activity (including heterosexual sex outside/before marriage, including contracepted sex within marriage, including masturbation/sodomy/any other sex act that cannot pass the “potentially fertile” test… ALL of it) is illicit. So in some ways, the “conversation” below about whether people with SSA are “normal” or “joyful” or “sinners” is doomed because it will always crash against this obstacle: All homosexual (and a great many heterosexual) ACTS are sinful. Despite the public scandals against marriage that serial divorcers (even “Catholic” ones) commit, ultimately, the Church considers marriage Good, and the sex within it as Good, because the marital act is ordered to the good of the spouses and the procreation of children. Homosexual “marriage” can never be licit because it requires homosexual sex to be accepted as “good.” Regardless of the kindness, joy, intentions, genetic material, tragic upbringing, or any other contextual factors behind why a person wishes to have sex outside of what the Church has articulated as the ONLY proper place for it, such sex will remain illicit, a sin, and never celebrated as “good.”

    • Ray Olson

      John–Thanks beyond measure for reminding all of us of the Catholic doctrine. It seems to me a large part of the bedrock for all meaningful–that is, theological and philosophical–debate about homosexuality. Which is not to say that I accept it without question.

    • TheBentAngle

      John, of course I do not accept your premise, because I am not a Catholic. It’s as though I were listening to a Jew telling me that eating pork is forbidden, or to a Muslim telling me that wine is forbidden.

      But a Jew and a Muslim would probably qualify their statements in a way that you did not. They would probably tell me that eating pork is forbidden to Jews. The Muslim would say that drinking wine is forbidden to Muslims.

      You, however, are saying that homosexual acts are sinful—presumably not just for Catholics but for everyone. But what if we don’t believe in the core Catholic teachings about sin and retributive justice? Where’s the hook?

      The point is, there is no hook except for those who share your beliefs in the Church’s teachings. So your argument may be effective among people who already think as you do, but it will have little appeal to anyone else.

      Have you thought through the “sin” thing? What happens to unrepentant sinners? Do they suffer in Hell for all eternity? Do they lead miserable lives? What ARE the consequences of what the Catholic Church defines as sinful?

      And finally, do you think there is any way to “map” Catholic sinfulness to what medical authorities describe as “unhealthy?” This is an important question, and I hope you will answer it. (It’s also a trap, so be careful! :-)

      • John

        Hesitant as I am to enter a “trap” willingly, I would defer most of your questions to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which fairly clearly teaches what the faithful must believe regarding sin, repentance, unrepentance, God’s mercy, and God’s ultimate judgement for those who hear His words but reject them. How men and women who have not chosen to follow the Church that Christ established while He walked on earth–I will trust them to God’s mercy and justice. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

        I don’t understand your question about mapping Catholic sinfulness. If it means what I think, I’d say there is often no connection between what some “medical authorities” describe as “normal” (masturbation, contraception, and now, homosexual sex are often described as such). I know what the Church teaches is sinful. It is no coincidence, though, that when men and women preserve themselves and preserve sex for sacramental marriage, they spread no disease, guilt, shame, or fear. How to apply God’s law, written on our hearts and our intellects through Natural Law to the laws of our state is not an easy question, but hopefully through our fruits, we may convert the hearts of our neighbors.

        • TheBentAngle

          Slavish adherence to the Catechism (which, in your own words teaches what the faithful “must” believe) is a form of idolatry. As a form of control and governance, it is frighteningly authoritarian and, when coupled with the Confessional, totalitarian.

          It’s a relief to me that so few Catholic accept that authority any longer, most only paying lip service to it. The threat of “God’s ultimate judgment” has become empty, impotent, and ridiculous. I hope that you do not imagine that you are frightening anyone by invoking it.

          My question that you didn’t understand was, “Is there any way to ‘map’ Catholic sinfulness to what medical authorities describe as ‘unhealthy?’” The answer is not too difficult. We all know that behaviors like drug abuse and environmental pollution are unhealthy, and the Church now (as of 2008) considers both to be mortal sins. So there’s overlap there.

          But the Church considers homosexual behavior to be “intrinsically disordered,” while the World Health Organization finds that “homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease. …There is a professional consensus that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition.”

          The World Health Organization has immense prestige and credibility. Meanwhile, one outcome of the clergy child sexual abuse scandals is that the Catholic Church lost every shred of credibility in matters of health and sexuality.

          • John

            Since the discussion here seems to be over the moral authority of the Church, I’ll allow the Church to speak for herself. She has greater wisdom than you or I, and, to be honest, you don’t seem interested in understanding the beauty of Catholic teaching on on human sexuality. But it is far from frightening. Jesus said, “I came that you might have life, and have it in abundance.” I do not obey the Church “slavishly,” but after many years of study in History and theology, many years living abroad, traveling, teaching young people, making (and keeping) friends with men and women of all faiths and cultures. I’ve seen enough of the world to give the Church the benefit of the doubt that it has, indeed, found “a more excellent way.” It is cause for hope, and joy, and mercy. Never for fear! I have nothing else to add.

            • Ray Olson

              John–Thanks so much for attempting to talk about homosexuality in the light of theology. That is what I crave and why I have objected so much to Ms. O’Leary’s and others’ attempts to argue about homosexuality from empirical and material evidence. I do trust that the church will arrive at a more humane, compassionate, and just attitude toward homosexuality, including gay marriage, than what Ms. O’Leary and her minions are pursuing.

          • Leo Ladenson

            “the Catholic Church lost every shred of credibility in matters of health and sexuality”

            You do realize that the Church is the largest nongovernmental provider of healthcare services in the entire world? WHO has just 8,000 international public health bureaucrats. The Church has thousands of hospitals, hospices, clinics, and nursing homes, and hundreds of thousands of doctors, nurses, technicians, health-sciences students, etc. In fact, as anyone who knows anything about history knows, the Church invented the hospital and modern healthcare. So I think the Church’s credibility on this issue is quite intact.

      • Leo Ladenson

        You do realize that Crisis is a Catholic magazine?

    • Kevin McCormick

      John, I appreciate your comments here and it is important to recognize this essential element when discussing the issue of SSA within the Church. Indeed because this topic is related to natural law it also is applicable to all persons regardless of their place on their journey of faith.

      However, it is important to clarify that the Church’s teaching is not exactly as you have indicated. The Church teaches that acts of intercourse are licit when they cooperate with God’s design for the human person. There are many loving expressions in preparation for sexual intercourse which married couples might engage in licitly so long as the couple ultimately end in coitus. We participate in the gift of sexuality as a gift of self to another. Any incomplete gift of self (i.e. any act which does not eventually end in coitus or in which the procreative component is deliberately denied) is not a truly loving act. There is much beautiful theology in the Church’s teachings and it is worth studying. But it is important to distinguish that there may be couples who are naturally infertile, either because of age or because of some defect, whose act of intercourse might scientifically speaking have a near zero potential for fertility (Abraham and Sarah and Elizabeth and Zechariah being notable exceptions) and yet would still be licit because they are following God’s design for sexuality–that is ending in normal coitus .

      • John

        Kevin, yes–this is a nice clarification (which I avoided for space reasons, but hoped to imply with the quotes around “potentially fertile.” I include NFP use to delay/avoid pregnancy in that category as well, provided all the moral requirements are met. In fact, perhaps the point is that the moral context of the act matters greatly, even for some acts that might, in some other contexts, be licit.

    • OLO101

      What about straight couples who do not want children? Not everyone wants children.

  • gregoryvii

    Thank you for the article. Many informative points were raised here. I’m not enough of a debater to argue these points with the same sexers and liberals, so I just rely on the basics. Homosexualism and it’s lifestyle is a mortal sin. If it’s a mortal sin, you don’t do it, and you certainly don’t enshrine it as a cornerstone of society. The psych disorders, diseases, etc., those all end at the grave. What does not end at the grave is the eternal punishment of those who die unrepentant of the mortal sin of homosexualism. Homosexuals do not like to hear this, but I have had some of them tell me they realize they are going to hell. Ironic, isn’t it? Many priests & bishops, who should be defending marriage and denouncing homosexualism as mortal sin, are in fact calling people who “admonish the sinner” judgmental, or harsh, while many homosexuals know the peril in which they are placing their immortal souls. Anyway, if marriage defenders, especially Catholics, start using the spiritual side of the argument, I think they will get better results.

  • rich

    finally!!! I’ve always said “what r we talking about!!!” It’s about two guys or gal’s wanting to bang each other in un-natural ways that have always, every where been considered sinfull and dangerous to practice, as natural and normal!!! r u crazy? the stragtagy I see at all these sites is for defenders of this perversion is to pfish these sites they would never visit otherwise, to rant at how Homophobic we all r so as to shut us up! It’s working! well done! there is a play book these activist follow so don’t be surprised or defeated or silenced. this evil will only win if good people say nothing and believe me it is evil!!! for those with SSA who realize that the sexual practice is the actual sin, surrender your soul to God and his unconditional love! this is the true love u r looking for! As St Augustine says we were made for Him and will not rest till we rest in HIM!!! this is Good News!!! Theirs is Bad news!!! God help us!

    • Katy

      Rich:
      “there is a play book these activist follow so don’t be surprised or defeated or silenced. this evil will only win if good people say nothing and believe me it is evil!!!”

      A group named MassResistance in Massachusetts has recorded many of the actions in the movement’s “playbook,” as you call it. If you search for “MassResistance, How the gay movement lobbies your state legislators” you will see how the movement has honed its skills with lobbying legislators (e.g. “Portray it as the “good” side for civil rights and freedom, versus the unenlightened “bad” side (which helps victimize
      people and promotes discrimination”). Currently, their activists are guiding a transgender bill through the Mass. State House. Enlightening stuff.

      Massachusetts has been ground zero for the same-sex marriage movement because of its political system – it is a one-party state and the judiciary is one of only three states
      where judges are appointed for lifetime tenures (instead of for fixed terms). It was easier there for the electorate to be shutout from voting on the issue.

  • zero_circle

    @d360f7945dbc5b83fb69c726200d5b9b:disqus
    I stumbled across this fiery debate at random this evening and would just like to give you kudos and praise for your engaging, eloquent, and downright intelligent responses to what has often been an ignorant and/or indignant crowd. Keep up the good work, sir!

  • yan

    I agree with the article that William May’s approach to limiting the argument against gay marriage to purely positive statements about the family while neglecting to mention the objective wrongness of homosexual acts is a strategic error. However, I disagree that the answer to SSA is simply to get them all to change their orientation.

    Most people with SSA are never going to change their orientation. There are biological factors at the root of SSA which are very difficult to overcome in most cases. This is a cross which a Catholic with SSA must endure.

    I knew quite a few well-meaning SSA individuals when i was younger who, for religious and psychological reasons, attempted to change, through various means. They always fell back into it. These were all good and well-meaning people.

    It is a sign of our age that we think that every human tragedy must have a solution in this life. The alternatives are not to either accept SSA as a good thing on one hand, or make it disappear on the other–though of course, whatever can reasonably be done to cure it, should be done. But in most cases, the answer at the individual level will never come until there is a uniting of personal suffering with the suffering of Christ.

    And why not? So many people suffer as a result of nature from time to time. Why is it wrong to ask SSA people also to endure what cannot be cured?

    If that is true, then it would seem that legalizing homosexual acts is wrong. The law should encourage the human will when it faces human weakness. We do not fail to punish stealing when a man who steals is hungry. But we do not punish it too harshly, either, because we consider the circumstances. We do not fail to punish murder [yet] when the person murdered has asked politely for it and is in pain.

    • JediWonk

      You are correct that “First World” peoples will always seek a solution to every problem. That is because the most fundamental thing about a “First World” orientation is that we seek to live as Nature’s master, and cannot understand the “Third World” point of view–being content to live as part of nature, subject to all of Nature’s goods and bads.

      Fortunately, in the case of male homosexuality, all we need is a little medical research.

      Since *male* homosexuality is like type-1 diabetes–it is “big” (more than 1 in 1000), “old” (has been present for millennia), and is highly reproductive-fitness-impairing–its cause has to be *some* pathogen, just as the root cause of schizophrenia is infection by *toxoplasma gondii*. It makes complete medical sense to try to defeat the pathogen behind male homosexuality. I know gay men who are fathers, and none have ever wanted their sons to be like them. They want grandchildren just as much as I do!

      On the other hand, as with schizophrenia, there is little evidence that the differences between gay male and straight male brains can be changed. And doing so is not *nearly* as easy as developing a new vaccine.

      > Civil society organizations can develop mechanisms

      > of civil vigilance to detect violations of the human

      > rights of non-heterosexual persons and report

      > them to the relevant authorities.

      Not in the “Land of the Free” they can’t. Mercifully, this is not an option in the United States of America. Apparently, the author of this nonsense does not understand the meaning of some syllable of:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      So in America, “the appropriate authorities” are what they should be: “powerless”!

      Now, of course, I came down *hard* on my son last year when, in 7th grade he and his male peers took note of the phenomenon of male homosexuality and reacted with the typical adolescent straight-male hostility. I pointed out that if males of his age *could* be turned gay, then it would be in his interest to *encourage* SSA, because then he would have less competition for the most attractive females!

      The same thing applies, of course, to girls who
      behave like total sluts. I told my son, who is the biggest kid in his class and
      likely to remain so, that he should beat up any peer who dares to greet girls
      who wear impossibly provocative clothes with anything but “warm
      appreciation”–such males are *traitors* to the their sex! My son should even shun female classmates who try to maintain
      the “female cartel of virtue” by using nasty words to their sisters whom they
      regard as too “available”. As by far the smartest and best-looking (not to
      mention being from the wealthiest family) boy in 8th grade, my son should have
      a lot of leverage to set the general social “tone”.

      Anyway, if SSA tolerance activists want to work on something, the most useful way to spend their time is finding the pathogen behind male homosexuality. Perhaps they will also then find the ones behind multiple sclerosis, type-1 diabetes, etc. etc. Note that according to an article in THE NEW YORK TIMES, the Finns cut their rate of juvenile (type-1) diabetes by 88% with just vitamin-D supplements. It would make sense that male homosexuality would also have increased as “screens (TV and computer) and sunscreens” have reduced American vitamin-D levels to catastrophic (public-health-wise) levels.

      As for female bisexuality, I scarcely think it could be more tolerated in American society than it is right now. I mean, seriously. What husband would not want a wife who brought home other girls to play with? A much bigger worry is how eager American females are to play sexually with males, and how young. It’s scary. Right now my daughter is hearing from her fellow third-graders than my now-8th-grade son is “HOT!” Yes, indeed he is–taller than Dad already and model-beautiful–but *third grade* girls talking about who is *hot*? Meanwhile, however, my son’s female classmates are looking at him with the fully-adult female expression that means…well, he is not going to be a virgin for much longer, and he will be caught completely by surprise as I was ‘back in the day.

      Given the culture my daughter is growing up in, if she must start being sexual right after puberty, which is the human evolutionary norm, I would much rather her be a “LUG” (lesbian until graduation)! Sen. Tom Coburn (R, OK) once remarked to me in a discussion devoted to health care reform that high school girls were taking other high school girls into the Ladies’ Rooms back in his state and having sex with them. I was dumbfounded. Would he rather they be going with a boy into the Men’s Rooms? And be exposed to STDs, pregnancy, and heartbreak? And generally encourage boys never to grow up to be men?

      Please recall that in Colonial America of 1700, the age of puberty was 18 for females, and that was also the age of marriage. Now the cover of TIME Magazine featured a story about how thin, caucasian girls are reaching puberty at 9. Are these girls going to behave themselves until the typical age of marriage in the United States of the 2010s? 17 years? Really?

      Now, of course, in the case of my own daughter, I really don’t want to know. I am going to advise her not to give the time of day to any male that is not such a marvel of DNA excellence that if she had a son by him, and that boy turned out *exactly* like his father, then that boy would be a natural winner in a society like ours, just as her older brother is.

      • Ferrari5858

        Finally someone who dares to broach the subject, pathogens cause disease, there can be mental symptoms due exclusively to physical illness. YES! !

  • Paul lancaster

    Another attack on gays by the Catholic Church. Thanks. Where us the support and compassion? It is a fact that a high percentage of clergy are gay and this article overlooks that.

  • Pingback: La mariage raté du Vatican et de la science | Allodoxia

  • Tony Lock

    Yes, let’s be honest…..:

    Ever wonder why O’Leary’s ideology continues to lose in a court of law where facts matter more than “belief?”

    Let’s compare O’Leary’s credentials and …ahem…”conclusions” compared to ALL mainstream healthcare organizations…..

    From the Am. Psychiatric Assoc., Am. Psychological Assoc., and Am. Association for Marriage and Family Therapy submitted in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Amicus Brief: “Homosexuality Is A Normal Expression of Human Sexuality.”

    From the Amicus Brief to the 9th circuit of appeals on the same case, sponsored by AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND ITS CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, AND THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION:

    “Rather, scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; that most gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults do not experience their sexual orientation as a choice; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; and that same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents.”

    AND we have the Am. Sociological Association:
    “WHEREAS the American Sociological Association (ASA) comprises
    sociologists and kindred professionals who study, among other things, sex and
    gender, sexualities, families, children, religion, culture, and systems of
    inequality and their effects, and…

    …WHEREAS the ASA is dedicated to advancing
    sociology as a scientific discipline and profession serving the public good,
    and…

    …WHEREAS a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against lesbians and gay men as well as their children and other dependents by denying access to the protections, benefits, and responsibilities extended automatically to married couples, and…

    …WHEREAS we believe that the official justification for the proposed constitutional amendment is based on prejudice rather than empirical research, and…

    …WHEREAS sociological research has repeatedly shown that systems of inequality are detrimental to the public good,,,

    …BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the American
    Sociological Association strongly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment
    defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

    BEST OF ALL, from the Am. Anthropological Association (Who would know better about the historical and cultural context of marriage than they? Certainly not Ms. O’Leary…LOL):

    “Statement on Marriage and the Family…

    The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies…

    …The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.”

    No doubt, the overwhelming weight of evidence and expert opinion falls heavily against O’Leary’s supposedly “justified” position. Only those irrationally clinging to “beliefs” would be
    deluded into maintaining otherwise.

    In large part due to these above mentioned facts, and just as it had done with slavery, Christianity will once again renegotiate with itself, this time regarding homosexuality. If not, the
    religion risks disintegrating into nothing more than being a sad history lesson of our country’s past. Of course, that renegotiation has already begun to happen… as witnessed by the changing attitudes shown in polling results of religious folk, no to mention the recent voting outcome of the Presbyterian General Assembly, but those facts will no doubt fall on deaf ears and blind eyes as well.

    America can NOT be a pluralistic society (many races, creeds, origins, religions, etc.) WITHOUT THE PREMISE OF EQUAL STANDING. That premise is completely absent under O’Leary’s irrationally and prejudicially inclined ideology against gays. O’Leary grandly examples precisely why gay marriage opponents continue to lose in a court of law where facts matter more than any “belief” that gays are less deserving of equal standing.

    Equal rights aren’t special rights. Conversely,what people like O’Leary and other religion adherents are so upset about, and the motivation for O’Leary and others being so utterly intellectually dishonest, is in their NEEDING to have special rights (and excuses) for their prejudice.

    No one owes religious adherents any special consideration for their prejudice…and that’s really what they are after…SPECIAL rights to accommodate their want for discrimination. YES, that’s what is going away – those special rights of discrimination that people really
    aren’t entitled to. Not in America anyway (or any society that truly embraces
    the notion of equality).

MENU