Homosexuality and Friendship: A Response to Austin Ruse

Plato courtesy of shutterstock

 They are the New Homophiles and they accept the Church’s teaching that sexual activity can only occur between married men and women. They oppose a redefinition of marriage… They are fine … with living celibate lives. They do not want to stop being gay; they don’t believe they can or even should. They believe God made them gay so they want to be known as gay and they want the Church to accept them on those terms. And they believe being gay is part of God’s plan and vocation for them.

Austin Ruse wrote that in a recent piece for Crisis. He includes me in a group of writers that he creates and names the “New Homophiles.” As Joshua Gonnerman pointed out, Ruse presupposes much more homogeneity than actually exists among this “group.” Although we accept the Church’s teachings, we have subtle nuances in how we approach these issues. Here I speak for myself.

Ruse claims that I don’t believe I can stop being gay. The truth is that I don’t know whether I could stop being gay. Perhaps I could. I’m open to this possibility. But for years I haven’t stopped, and I don’t foresee any changes.

The question of whether I should want to stop being gay is a different question, largely depending upon the meaning of the word. Ruse writes: “defining and using terms [about sexuality] in this debate is fraught with difficulties.” Rather than using terms such as “homosexual” or “same-sex attracted”, he uses the word “gay,” “out of deference to the good people I am writing about.” He then replaces the word “gay” with the more difficult and less deferent term, “homophile.”

Because of these difficulties, I’ve begun to develop my own taxonomy for these terms, and I’ve started to use them accordingly:

  • Homosexuality: an inclination towards sexual activity with someone of the same sex. Homosexuality is a desire for acts that are intrinsically sinful and, thus, this inclination is intrinsically disordered.
  • Gay: the experience of predominant same-sex-attraction, as opposed to opposite-sex-attraction.
  • Same-sex-attraction: much broader than homosexuality or gay, I’ve used same-sex-attraction (SSA) to indicate a variety of forms of attraction to someone of the same sex, whether a desire for emotional intimacy or a particular appreciation of same-sex beauty. When this attraction is an inclination towards sexual activity or impurity with someone of the same sex, then this is a disordered inclination. SSA, as I have used it, is not itself intrinsically disordered, however. It can be ordered towards a variety of ends, good or bad.

One should note that I am only applying this taxonomy to my own writings and that I do not claim ownership over these terms, their common use, or their development.

Under this scheme, I would say that one should seek to stop being “homosexual” but not necessarily seek to stop being “gay.” This is largely a question of language, however. If “gay” only indicates a desire for impure sexual acts, then one should seek to stop being “gay.” However, neither the broader culture, nor the old homophiles, nor the “New Homophiles,” nor Pope Francis use the word “gay” so narrowly. As I use the word, being “gay” isn’t something that should be stopped; it is something that should be ordered.

Ruse’s piece, however, does not reflect this linguistic nuance when he writes: “Damian says flat out that [John Henry] Newman was gay and that the friendship with Father Ambrose St. John was the fruit of that.”

Perhaps Ruse was referring to a series of posts I wrote a year ago, in which I argued for a broadening of the way in which we discuss “same-sex-attraction.” I discussed Michelangelo’s art and Newman’s intimate friendship with Ambrose St. John. I did say that these men experienced “same-sex-attraction”, but I argued for a broader understanding of this term than the common understanding of the words “homosexual” or “gay.” I wrote, “In broadening the concept of same-sex-attraction, questions about whether the figure [of Newman or Michelangelo] was ‘gay’ become irrelevant, and this broadening may provide an opportunity for the Church to take back these figures (and their sexuality) from secular ‘gay rights’ culture.” Ruse interprets this to mean that I am “flat out” saying Newman was gay. I’m not.

As Joshua Gonnerman points out, Ruse plays the anthropologist in his piece on the “New Homophiles.” Unfortunately, he hasn’t spent enough time with his subjects to get to learn their language. I hope that this piece offers an aid for translation, at least for my own writings. Ruse also states:

[The New Homophiles’] ideal is that you can draw close to someone of the same-sex, love them intimately and intensely, yet never cross the line into sexual activity… But here they are playing with the hottest of fires. Perhaps this is possible for Christ and for saints like Newman but for others it could be a serious problem. This is why married men should avoid intimate friendships with women and why priests should also. This is why married men and priests who form intimate friendships with women often lose their way and ruin their vocations.

One might take note of the almost Gnostic separation between “saints” and “others.” Ruse argues that opposite-sex extramarital intimacy may be possible for saints, but that it is to be avoided by “others”—presumably ordinary people, like me. He almost establishes certain people as a pre-determined class, such that the realm of legitimate human possibilities and relationships for them is broader than ordinary “others”. Such a statement creates a gap between saints and ordinary people, a gap that many saints, such as St. Josemaría Escrivá, sought to diminish. These saints emphasized that all people are called to—and capable of—sanctity.

The gap Ruse risks creating not only de-emphasizes the fact that all people are capable of sanctity. It also dismisses the saints as models for others to follow. Ruse says that what is possible for Christ and the saints is to be avoided by others, and, in doing so, he risks suggesting that Christ and the saints are not models that can be followed, especially by gay Christians.

Many gay Christians don’t need to be convinced of this; they already believe it. They extend Ruse’s emphasis on the near total depravity of man’s sexual desires and believe that their desires make them incapable of either sanctity or human friendship. Ruse is right to point out dangers associated with extramarital intimate friendships. But perhaps he takes this too far.

If one were to follow strict logic (which I don’t often recommend, but will do so here), Ruse limits legitimate intimate friendships to: a husband and wife; two heterosexual men; and two heterosexual women. The idea is that the dangers of sexual attraction are so great that it’s better not to create risks by having intimate friendship with someone you could be attracted to. Combine this with the idea that it is scandalous for someone to have an intimate friendship with a non-spousal member of the opposite sex, and you have the general advice to non-married gay people that they not create intimate friendships in general. I won’t hold Ruse to such a view, but one should note that this is the message many gay Christians are getting, whether intended or not.

Many prominent Catholics push against such an over-preoccupation with the risks and dangers of attraction. Newman himself has placed affection as the foundation of Christian friendship. Consider also a recent article in Scientific American, “Can Men and Women be Friends?”:

With the data clearly indicating that male-female friendship is thriving, perhaps it is time to abandon the old trope that men and women can’t be “just friends.” Yet the idea has persisted for the simple reason that attraction can cause boundaries to blur. Consider, for example, one rare high-profile opposite-sex friendship from the late 1940s, when the young, religious and Southern Flannery O’Connor met the older, Waspy Robert Lowell at a retreat in upstate New York. Lowell brought O’Connor around to literary parties in Manhattan, with his fiancée also in tow. As O’Connor reportedly once wrote to a friend about Lowell, “I feel almost too much about him to be able to get to the heart of it…. He is one of the people I love.”

Flannery O’Connor was surely one of the “hottest of fires” in her day, if only for her flaming personality, but her commitments as a Catholic did not prevent her from loving her engaged friend.

Ruse’s suspicion towards opposite-sex friendship should not be surprising, however. Much of North American Christianity has developed a strong suspicion towards sexuality, drawing heavily on Calvinist and Freudian influences. A sense of total depravity towards man’s sexual nature, combined with an almost determinist view that fallen man’s eros is fundamentally ordered towards sexual impurity, has driven suspicion towards non-marital relationships in which the partners can or do experience attraction towards each other.

This perhaps explains Ruse’s extreme suspicion towards male-female friendship and towards friendship between two people who experience same-sex-attraction. This also seems to me the crux of the sharp contrast between Ruse’s approach to homosexuality and the approach to same-sex-attraction taken by many of the writers at Spiritual Friendship, including myself.

Many of the Spiritual Friendship writers have worked with groups that strongly emphasize the fallenness of man’s sexual desires. Ron Belgau recently pointed out, however, that a communal over-preoccupation with sinfulness can have the unintended effect of normalizing sinfulness.

Thus, the approach we have taken is a more vocation-centered approach. Rather than approaching relationships with man’s fallenness as the starting point, we begin with God’s call to a unique and good way of life, revealed in part by the circumstances in which God places us. In this way, I do accept Ruse’s so-called “gay exceptionalism.” The sexuality of gay people makes them exceptional, in the same way that each person’s individual traits make him or her exceptional—each person has a unique calling from God, and this calling is partly revealed by and lived through our unique circumstances.

Ruse calls this view “at least a little bit narcissistic.” I call it Catholic.

Editor’s note: The photo above depicts a statue of Plato at the Academy of Athens, Greece. Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

Christopher Damian

By

Christopher Damian received his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame and is currently pursuing a J.D. and an M.A. in Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas. He writes as a contributing blogger for Spiritual Friendship and for his own blog at Ideas of a University.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Mr. Damien, you seem to take the license to define these words and claim they are only for you and your point of view and then pretend to engage in debate, you seem to me to be arguing from your own personal reality, and though I respect your free will and right to make whatever claims you desire, it is relativistic and gives no foundation from which to engage in reasoned argument.

    You make the claim that Ruse hasn’t spent enough time with the subjects to learn their language- well I suspect he has, but honestly, by that standard who has spent enough time with the subject to learn “their” language? You allude to the subjectivism that is at the root of this entire problem. One who hasn’t spent enough time with the object of the Logos is ill-equipped to use the only language that matters, the language of Truth.

    It seems troubling that you claim to redefine words to make same sex attraction not disordered, it is either disordered or it is not. Gayness is either disordered or it is not. Homosexuality is either disordered or it is not. Pope Francis does not equivocate on this point, the media does.

    It is particularly troubling that you characterize Ruse as “gnostic” when in reality you are speaking in rights ideology. As Catholics we understand that the saints cooperate with supernatural grace and are therefore strengthened against temptation in ways that those of us who persist in our own wills and sins are not protected. To be born anew in the spirit of Christ means to die to ourselves, and that would surely include our addictions, vicissitudes and disordered inclinations. Ruse did not create a gap between the sinner and the saint, there is one, and what separates the two is the disordered will, not Ruse.

    I am wholly unconvinced by your personal point of view on this Mr. Damian. Either same-sex attraction and all its attendant outgrowths are disordered and in the category of addiction, just like promiscuous heterosexuality or they are not. I have yet to see any evidence that it is not and the homophile movement would be akin to the alcoholicphile movement, or the heroinphile movement and even worse, the pedophilephile movement.
    This article is very troubling for its subtle errors. Your final points seems to me not to be Catholic, but grounded in the prevailing ideology of egalitarianism- remember that line from the incredibles? “when everyone is super, no one will be.” I am afraid that the claim of exceptional and then the claim that everyone is exceptional renders the word meaningless.

    • egalitrix

      He is not quite claimming the words for himself, he is realizing they have ambiguity and need to be defined for use in his argument with a definition that might not hold elsewhere. Maybe this wasn’t the best method and he didn’t assign the word their most common definitions, but this doesn’t make the rest of his argument useless.

  • AcceptingReality

    The reason a married heterosexual person should not form an intimate friendship with someone of the opposite sex is not necessarily the near occasion of sin. It’s because the time and emotional energy spent in the friendship should be spent with one’s spouse.

    And through all the splitting hairs over language and semantics that you do to clearly articulate your multifaceted viewpoint, I wondered how you feel about so-called “gay pride” parades?

    • egalitrix

      So no intimate friendships outside of spousal relationships? If that is your view then that explains a lot about how people come to similar positions to yours.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    My problem with all of this, is that pride remains a mortal sin. There seems to be no humility in the concept that a sinful state is “exceptional”, and reminds me strongly of the post 1960s attempt around the world to do away with right and wrong, sin and virtue, entirely.

    The sexual revolution was the biggest destructive idea since Adam asked Eve what is for lunch. Do we really want to continue it by encouraging our young to become homosexual?

    • Objectivetruth

      At Fatima, the Blessed Mother told The children that most souls are in hell due to sexual sins. That was 100 years ago before today’s widespread use of contraception, abortion, rampant societal accepted pornography, acceptance of sodomy and the gay lifestyle. Might be getting pretty crowded down there.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Hell isn’t just down there due to sexual sins. Hell is right here on earth for the aborted fetuses and the abandoned children due to sexual sin. Hell is completely apparent in every AIDS hospice I’ve ever been to.

        • AugustineThomas

          I don’t think you know at all what Hell is really like.
          There are hellish situations on earth, but none of us can imagine what the real place is like.

      • jacobhalo

        When was the last time you heard a sermon and the word hell mentioned? thank God, I found a Traditional Latin mass.

      • AugustineThomas

        There are more people now, so of course there are more risking Hell. You’re quite ignorant if you think people committed less sexual sins per capita in the past. Read some books about medieval pedophiles and rapists.. The powerful ones often got away with abusing hundreds and even thousands.

        Also, we must have at least one pope in Hell if there’s no way to repent of sexual sins.

        Anyway, I would worry more about asking Christ for forgiveness than cursing people to Hell in your mind.

        We still have hope that all can be saved, even Hitler, even Jerry Sandusky!

      • headonstraight

        At Fatima some children had a wild imagination!

        • Nina Makat

          “Fear the evils to spill out of Russia my children…”

          …And totally ignores Nazi-ism, development of nuclear weapons and infinitely worse things.

          Yeah, women got the vote in Russia before the rest of the world..What an AWFUL thing! Clearly of Satan.

          • headonstraight

            And just WHAT in thunder does any of THAT rambling and inchoate blithering have to do with what I actually posted, O disciple of irrelevancy?

        • Rich C.

          This sounds closer to the truth.

      • Rich C.

        God tortures people for eternity just cuz they’re horny?

  • poetcomic1

    As for Newman and Father Ambrose St. John…
    Have you SEEN Father Ambrose St. John? I would suggest you New Homophiles practice this intense spiritual friendship with someone who looks like Newman’s beloved friend – a cherubic and more homely Danny Devito and you should be quite safe in controlling your paraphilias! Otherwise you are playing with fire.

    • hombre111

      Have you SEEN the people some people marry?

      • Watosh

        Well they say “for every Jack there is a Jill.” I developed a lot of close friendships during my life, but the idea of marrying one of them seems absurd. Women generally are quite pretty, while men, sorry fellas, are not, moreover women can be perplexing. I had two Australian Cattle Dogs, a male and a female. Even in them you could identify some male personality traits and female personality traits. Maggie was always correcting Smokey. Maggie had a simple outlook, whatever was hers, was hers, and whatever was his, was hers. And for the most part he would put up with her, though once in a while he would snarl at something she did, upon which she would walk rigidly right up to his face with a glaring eye obviously daring him to say that again, at which he would sheepishly back down, and walk away. These differences make life more interesting.

    • DD

      Apparently we are to believe the homosexual person sees reality through the prism of their disorder. Everything is in some way related to the desire for same sex. That is most definitely pathology.

  • hombre111

    Excellent, thoughtful response, Christopher. Congratulations.

  • Rosalinda Lozano

    This article is so very dangerous and deceiving. Only the devil works in confusion and word play. None of this if of the Almighty God. Only prayers and fasting can help you to see the error of your ways and thinking. God bless you.

    • BCSWowbagger

      “Only the devil works in confusion and word play”? My good lady, have you ever read Aquinas? Aristotle? Augustine? Anselm? Their writings are grand ballets of word play, and, to the uninitiated, they are utterly confusing.

      That was a terribly uncharitable, untrue thing you said to Mr. Damian — who I believe not only has the best of the argument, but will ultimately be vindicated by the Magisterium — and you should either dispute his point or apologize for calling his position demonic.

  • Barb

    Excellent article, Mr. Damien. There are many knee-jerk reactions from our preconceived ideas of what “homosexuality,” gay,” or “same-sex attraction” words conjure in our thoughts. It is helpful to know what someone intends when they are using these words. In fact, if you look at the comments from Mr. Ruse’s article, it is clear everyone is using these words according to their own definition. Thank you for your clarity.

    I believe the good of this debate is that the Church clearly has not made a place of acceptance and inclusion for someone who is “gay,” and yet, is trying to live a chaste, devout, and faith-filled life. Just perusing comments from these articles makes this all too clear. To use some of the analogies from previous comments, a person born blind or other “less than perfect design,” would not be expected to change. And yet, there is gift in being blind or having Down Syndrome… special gifts that can not come to someone who has not experienced this. Assuming one is born gay (which some debate; I do not — or, at least, in many cases), there is gift with this design. Gift, always brings exceptionalism. And, yes, I believe we are all exceptional, if we use our gifts, in different ways. Does this dilute the meaning of the word? I don’t know — I believe God believes we are all exceptional — just as a mother sees her children — using the gifts they have been given.
    Damien and others also see struggle in their gift. Aren’t gifts often a double-edged word? And their struggle is to live this chaste life. But to deny who they are… is isolating, unaccepting, and unwelcoming. To love one another is to accept who God has made them. To love as mother loves her children… to love as God loves each of His children. And to help and support them in their struggles.

    • DD

      Someone born blind has a defect. We admit it is pathology. We do not use words like “gift” to redirect what the object is we talk about. We accept blind people but do not go on and on about their disability and what a great gift it is.

      Confusion, ambiguity, redefining terms is not from the Gospel.

      • Watosh

        Exactly.

      • Mary P. Walker

        However, we would certainly see virtue in a blind person trying to live a holy life in spite of his or her blindness. It would do no spiritual good for the blind person to “marinate” in how terrible it is to be blind. If the person accepts the blindness as something that God allows to happen (and all infirmity is at least permitted to exist by God), and accepts the grace God offers to deal with the blindness, we have growth in virtue. It is not a stretch at all then for the blind person to see their blindness as a gift that promotes virtue and fosters closeness to God. I THINK that’s what the author is implying.

        • DD

          If that is all he is implying then he said nothing new. The problem is that is not the issue.

        • Patrick

          So, since there are known genetic factors in alcoholism, should people with risk factors for it simply refuse to think about alcoholism and avoid considering that they may be? And certainly not live their life in accordance with knowledge that they are, if that turns out to be the case?

          Because last I checked, every single effective program for managing alcoholism involves, as STEP ONE, identifying as someone with that particular problem, and then after that going on to adjust their life to avoid the temptation.

          From the recovering alcoholics I’ve heard from, they consider “recovering alcoholic” to be their lifelong status.
          Yet that’s not “marinating in how terrible it is.” It’s simply understanding and managing a difficult condition.

          Furthermore, the difficulties of a blind person or a person with Down Syndrome can, in fact, be a gift to those of us to interact with them, and learn humility or charity.

          God can make even a flaw into a source of good in the world. Doesn’t mean it stops being a flaw, but it can still be a gift, in an indirect way.

      • Barb

        As I wrote, being gay is certainly “less than perfect” design, just as blindness, Down Syndrome, or other conditions. Yet, I disagree and do believe we speak about these disabilities as being “gift.” How often have you heard that a person’s Down Sydrome child is gift? That a person’s blindness has enabled them to experience the world in a different way? In ways we can all learn from the Down Syndrome child or the blind person? Yes, we can love, accept, and learn from someone who is gay and who is still following God’s plan for Creation and His plan for his/her life.

        • Lynn

          The only “gift” in a disordered desire is that the massive struggle one must put up in one’s life to fight such a burden can get one to heaven. To say that is is a gift that should be instead embraced and celebrated is like a page out of one of Screwtape’s letters.

    • Rosalinda Lozano

      Barb, fortunately for us, the church has definitely already made a place of inclusion and that is called Reconciliation. All sinners are called to repentance of our sins. Just as the church loves pedophiles, bank robbers and prostitutes, she also loves homosexuals and includes them in the love of Christ and God’s unlimited mercy and justice. By offering God’s truth and guiding sinners to repentance, the church teaches us all how to find Calvary and ultimately, salvation through obedience to HIM by rejecting our fallen nature and striving for perfection in Christ.

      PS: Being an adulterer is not a gift, it’s a sin. Being a homosexual is not a gift, it’s a sin, both in need of repentance.

      • Barb

        If you are saying, and apparently you are, that a person who is gay, yet is living a chaste life and trying to be a devout Catholic, is a sinner and in need of repentance (by the mere fact of being gay), then the discussion can go no further. A person cannot change being gay anymore than they can being Down Syndrome or blind. It is actions which are sinful. Though, clearly, you are making the point that we, as a Church, have a long way to understanding and embracing those who are struggling with this.

        • A person cannot change being gay anymore than they can being Down Syndrome or blind.
          ==============
          If this is not just your personal opinion, but the Church’s opinion, than the Church is seriously mistaken.
          Having a profoundly twisted mind, having a profound psychological problem (what homosexuality is), is not the same as being blind (a physical problem).

          Having a perverted mind is a sin.

          While an individual cannot be blamed if their mind produces a desire
          they can’t control, and especially a perverted or perverse desire, they
          are responsible for what they do about it and how much they feed their
          perverse desires, thoughts, fantasies, etc. Not investigating the
          underlying problems that are contributing to the generation of that
          desire is neglectful and irresponsible, and only contributes to
          maintaining the psychological/social/ideological problems that generate
          the perverted desire in the first place.

          People with a homosexuality problem need to investigate the etiology of their problem and resolve it. The Church is sending the wrong message and sounding more and more like GLAAD.

          it is quite wrong to think that people are not responsible for
          resolving their dysfunctional minds that are producing perverted
          desires.

        • Rosalinda Lozano

          Barb, no where in what I wrote did I say that a person living a chaste life is a sinner – although, ALL of us are sinners at some level. I think my words are clear. However, your words are not… If you’re trying to conclude that the homosexual lifestyle is in our dna, you are way off base. It isn’t, just like every deviation from truth, homosexuality is brought on by many factors, most of them being a rejection or abuse from a Father. If you want the truth, you can research and find it, but in none of this research will any of it, even on the homosexual side, have a conclusion that homosexuality is genetic.

    • Rosalinda Lozano

      PS: A mother who truly loves her children, corrects them when they are in error and their soul is in danger of damnation. A mother who does not correct, does not truly love.

  • “Same-sex attraction” is never used in science. It is a fairly recent political-religious construct and it exists to deny the existence of sexual orientation to males, females both or neither. It’s really semantics designed to likening being gay to having a (curable) problem with drugs or alcohol.

    “The truth is that I don’t know whether I could stop being gay.”

    Mr. Damian is being disingenuous. He knows perfectly well that his sexual orientation is what it is. He might choose to be celibate but he probably cannot choose to be straight. There are many gay people in very healthy and happy long-term relationships. That may offend Mr. Damian’s religious views but that is the real choice that he has.

    • Homosexuality is similar to any other psycho-sexual dysfunction – in terms of being a dysfunction. It is not inborn, but like other dysfunctions, such a disorder or dysfunction is developed over time, due to a set of factors that can vary from individual to individual.

      You solve the underlying psychological, cultural, sociological issues producing various homosexual dynamics in the mind of such an individual, and the person lives as they were born to be: heterosexual. It’s not a question of changing the blueprint, it’s a question of solving underlying issues that are preventing the person from relating to the opposite sex, or which are disorienting the person towards the same sex.

      This is a good time to mention that the entire population of LGBTs does much more than have little relationships. They are responsible for doing widespread harassment, violence, abuse, spreading STDs, porn, etc. A person’s satisfaction in acting out their sexual perversity and dysfunction does not justify feeding into it. If the Catholic Church will ever evolve, it’s going to encourage people with a homosexuality problem to go do therapy to treat it. And the more of a gay mafia it has, the more it will destroy itself from the inside.

      • Please. While you try to sound authoritative you don’t know what you are writing about.

        No one’s sexual orientation is a “dysfunction.” There is no professional medical or counseling organization that considers homosexuality a “dysfunction” or “disorder.” Thus there is no “treatment.” The notion that the gay community is responsible for “harassment, violence, abuse …” is unsupportable nonsense. People who have unprotected sex spread STDs. The largest consumers of porn tend to be in the Bible Belt according to a Harvard article published a couple of years ago.

        Apparently you have no gay friends. Many are in long term relationships and are just as boring as straight couples.

        • The issue is that the more that people investigate why certain people develop a homosexuality or bisexuality problem, the more they find underlying problems as the causal factors.

          And for this, there is plenty of treatment.

          The notion that there are millions of acts of violence and harm perpetrated by the LGBT population is nothing other than pure fact, sustained by numerous studies and other types of evidence.

          For example:

          “Although accurate data is difficult to obtain, trends suggest that as many as half of lesbian relationships experience some form of abuse (Brand & Kidd, 1986; Nadoff, 1987; Renzetti, 1992, 1996; Taylor& Chandler , 1995). Greenwood et al. (2002) reported on a sample of 2,881 male cohabitants during the past five years and found a higher rate of violence than in cases of heterosexual relationships. Letellier (1994) found that gay men are more likely to be killed by their partners than a stranger.”

          http://drgehart.com/page3/page5/files/Peterson%20GLBT%20DV.pdf

          http://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/docs/WorkingPapers/2009/2009-16.pdf

          This just refers to interpersonal violence, and it does not include all the other types of harm and violence that LGBTs routinely do, notably towards heterosexual (children, adolescents, and adults).

          “People who have unprotected sex spread STDs.”

          And men who have sex with men in countries where homosexuality has been normalized, do the bulk of the spreading of HIV and syphilis, even though they are a very small group compared to heterosexuals. But that’s because of how perverted and harmful their homosexuality agenda and behavior is.

          “The largest consumers of porn tend to be in the Bible Belt according to a Harvard article published a couple of years ago.”

          Horsefeathers. This study only covered a tiny little portion of the porn available in society and it did not identify the ideology of the consumers. There is no study that has ever measured porn consumption in the US as a whole. You are just spewing liberal nonsense.

          “Apparently you have no gay friends. Many are in long term relationships and are just as boring as straight couples.”

          which brings us to this interesting fact: a significant percentage of harm and violence is perpetrated by people in long-term relationships, including towards children and to people outside that relationship, like what a lot of sexual harassment is. And many of these LGBTs and supporters are pushing to destroy society with their perverted and irresponsible views regarding sexuality and relationships, in how they vote, the laws they push for, how they discriminate professionally against social conservatives, how they malign social conservatives, how they attack religious freedom, etc..

        • DD

          Abortion is accepted by so called medical groups. That is not evidence it is good. Please get it straight in your mind that professional groups are deeply influenced by politics and ideology.

          • “Please get it straight in your mind that professional groups are deeply influenced by politics and ideology.”

            Not only that, they can be quite corrupt, as for example, the AMA and its history of being complicit with the tobacco industry. Or the APA and its positions regarding homosexuality: irresponsible, ignorant, and unscientific.

            But they can’t stop the tide. The more people investigate the factors for sexual dysfunctions, like homosexuality, the more evidence is revealed that it is caused by psychological, social, and ideological problems.

            • Guest

              Not only corrupted but unbalanced. Take these political/medical groups that issue position papers on any number of topics. They are loaded with ideologues and folks with an agenda. The public only knows what headlines get repeated in the news.

              • I was surprised the other day to meet a man who, like me, thought that among all the reforms we should do to the high school curriculum is to start teaching kids psychology from the first year of high school, if not earlier. We also need much more media literacy education if we ever want people to rise above gulping down junk science and yellow journalism as the Truth. And high schoolers should learn not only how science works, but how junk science works, how people distort results, twist studies, ignore questions, etc., all to fit a political agenda. Probably the best science class they could ever take in their lives.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          “There is no professional medical or counseling organization that considers homosexuality a “dysfunction” or “disorder.” ”

          There used to be, until the APA was bribed to change it to “gender confusion disorder” in the DSM-IIITR. Gender confusion disorder still exists in the DSM-V.

          • That is simply untrue. There are more than a dozen professional organizations that have reached the same conclusion including the AMA, The American Psychiatric Association and the American Association of School Counselors. Were they all bribed?

            Please. This is the result of decades of peer reviewed and published research performed by impartial investigators. It can take a year to get through JAMA’s referees and get an article published.

            • DD

              No, it is bigoted ideology under cover of science. The end points and numbers get pushed in any direction one desires. No study is needed to know homosexual ideology is harmful and decidedly immoral.

              • Bigoted? That is absurd!

                • DD

                  Hardly. You think these people are immune from ideology and seared consciences? The so called science is politics infused.

                  • It seems that you are wed to that notion because you do not like the scientific consensus – in contrast to anything substantive. Science starts with a hypothesis. Using the scientific method, tests are conducted and observed. Scientists are result agnostic. Disproving the initial hypothesis can be as important as proving it to be correct.

                    Most peer reviewers (or referees) are academics who are experts in their field. The prestigious journals do not identify the reviewers to the researcher or the researcher to the reviewers. It’s serious stuff. Some of it is banal and some of it results in treatments for cancer but the overwhelming majority of good research is nothing if not intellectually honest. Academics are generally not political animals either.

                    • Guest

                      You could not be more wrong. Scientists are influenced by politics just like the rest of the culture. So-called peer review is hardly the god you think it is. There is no competitive test to be an editor or reviewer. If you knew about this you would know that the lecture circuit, friendships, who you know, and more contributes to this entire issue.

                      That aside, the “science” is not mathematical equations but a mixture of hard and soft science heavily influenced by ideology.

                      If you think the scientists are agonist and simply robots you have never worked with them or in a university or participated in any studies.

                      If the unwashed public new more about real science and how studies are conducted they would not be the sheep they are.

                    • It’s serious stuff.
                      ===============
                      Remember when serious science said that homosexuality was a mental illness? Serious stuff indeed! And this was declared by general consensus of experts! Too bad liberals prefer to be ignorant of the history of science instead of being honest about how politicized and actually unscientific a good deal of science is.

                      And actually, we have to take a look again at what scientists were saying in the past regarding how dysfunctional the psychology of homosexuals is because aside from the inane and obvious assertion that homosexuality isn’t the same as some psychotic mental illness, it is so perverted and deformed that it has nothing to do with emotional and psychological health.

                    • Guest

                      Yes, some topics are so political that it is almost impossible to separate out truth from error. Medical groups support “gay marriage, contraception, direct abortion, sex changes, and much else. Are we to believe this is “science” as if one can compute a series of numbers and get one correct answer?

                      Even so called hard science is infused with politics and ideology and error. Anyone can just look to “studies” about food and one can see you can find a study to support just about any position. The consensus often changes depending on which group is in power.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              Yes. The lobbying effort took 20 years. “peer reviewed” means nothing when all the impartial investigators have been run out of the profession by bigots.

              • Jones has done a very nice summary of all the published research
                that has been shown to be false while trying to prove that homosexuality is biologically determined or in-born. One after the other, all the claims have been shown to be false.

                Stanton L. Jones (January, 2012), “Sexual orientation and
                reason: On the implications of false beliefs about homosexuality,”
                digitally published at http://www.christianethics.org; an abbreviated version of this essay was published as “Same-sex science,” First Things, February,
                2012, pp. 27-33.

                **Stanton L. Jones, Provost and Professor of Psychology, Wheaton College (IL)

                ==============

                I quite like this part:

                Discussion of a genetic contribution has shifted to yet a more sophisticated statistical estimate, that of “heritability.”
                Heritability is an estimation of how much of the variability of a
                particular phenomenon such as sexual orientation, out of a total of
                100%, may be attributed to genetic influences versus environmental
                influences. The higher the heritability estimate, the greater the
                genetic contribution.

                The Långström 37 study, for instance, produced heritability estimates of”.34-.39″ for male homosexuality for their subject populations.

                But what does this estimate mean?

                Among the many psychological traits showing this level of
                heritability are a dizzying array of social attitudes including
                inclinations towards right-wing authoritarianism, certain measures of
                inclination towards religiosity or religious fundamentalism, and church attendance.
                One study by a giant of behavioral genetics, Robert Plomin, even
                examined the heritability of that most mundane and ubiquitous of
                behaviors, television watching, 39 and found an average heritability
                estimate of .45 for the proclivity to watch television, marginally
                higher than the typical estimate for the heritability of homosexuality.
                ==========================

                Now you know: if you must believe that people are born homosexuals, you must believe that people are biologically determined to be couch-potatoes! There’s nothing they can do! And the same goes for people who believe this – because IQ is also one of the “traits” that are biologically determined. Alas, you are lost!

            • Have you forgotten when all medical associations said smoking was OK? Have you forgotten when lobotomy was legal and practiced on countless victims? Have you forgotten when it was legal to chain psychiatric patients in wards? All approved by your little professional medical and psychiatric bodies! All approved by peer review!

              There are many professionals and professional organizations that have shown how shoddy and unscientific the APA’s position is.

              Secondly, there is no such thing as being “impartial” in the social sciences. Social sciences are founded on political and social ideology and will always be partial, one way or another.

              And it’s funny how liberals treat “published articles” as Bible verses. If it got published, it must be true, they say! And then a year or a decade or two later, it gets proven to be false. But never mind that!

              As long as they can hitch their destructive homosexuality agenda on any “scientific” discourse, that’s all they care about.

    • DD

      Terms like gay and straight are silly political terms, not scientific terms.

      • In a clinical setting we use terms like “homosexual.” In polite society we address people as they choose to be addressed. In this case that would be “gay” or “lesbian” although the term gay encompasses both.

        • DD

          In polite society some do not like the term straight or homophobia. This is central to the discussion.

        • “In polite society we address people as they choose to be addressed.”

          This is why liberals pushing for a homosexuality agenda are incapable of behavior fit for polite society.

          You need to be nasty, ignorant, and rude to call a social conservative a “bigot” or “hater” if the latter rejects the shoddy liberal homosexuality agenda.

          • If you oppose, say, marriage equality – no problem. You are entitled to your opinion. However, if you try to foist your religious views by force of law (for something that doesn’t affect you in any way whatsoever) and you do so by claiming that gay people are a threat to children – then you are probably a bigot.

            Some conservative Christians seem to think that everyone else should agree with them; Gays, Jews and Muslims for starters. When anyone complains they are branded as anti-Christian.

            Gays want a few important things. They want gay children to be safe in school. They also want equal protection under law. That includes marriage equality and ENDA.

            • DD

              It is not marriage equality but inequality you seek. Marriage is only between male and female.

              • Where do you get these talking points? You are free to express religious opinion. However, marriage is legally defined by whoever the state licenses to wed.

                • DD

                  No, an unjust law is no law at all. The state can mandate square circles but they do not exist except by some legal fiction. It is absurd.

    • Adam__Baum

      So if “orientation” is innate and immutable, explain Kelly McGillis, Meredith Baxter and Anne Heche.

      • What about them? McGillis was in three marriages that failed. I think that she still lives with her girlfriend. Many gays enter into sham marriages. Same thing with Baxter who is now married to her girlfriend Nancy. I am going to decline to comment on Ms. Heche.

        Nobody said that it was simple. The important thing to understand is that when your 16 year old tells you he is gay he needs acceptance. Very devout people like Beverly Le Haye and Phyllis Schlafly have managed to do so. Alan Keyes – not so much (he and his daughter are estranged). Even one of the founders of NARTH, the late Dr. Socarides, had a gay son who is now active in politics – and he is still very gay.

        On the other hand, I live in/on South Beach. We have a fairly large population of homeless kids. It is estimated that 40% of them got kicked out when they came out. If a child is willing to live on the streets rather than pretend to be heterosexual, that should tell you something.

        What would Austin Ruse do?

      • Heterosexuality is innate, but it is not immutable, because the human mind is mutable. There is no such thing as being born a pedophile, but every adult pedophile was born a heterosexual baby ready to develop into a healthy heterosexual and then got psychologically deformed along the way. That’s exactly what happens to people with a homosexual problem.

        From the sociological and psychological side, here’s two articles to note:

        Was It a Phase? Young Women’s Relinquishment of Lesbian/Bisexual Identities Over a 5-Year Period – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology – Lisa M. Diamond

        http://www.psych.utah.edu/people/people/diamond/Publications/Was%20it%20a%20Phase.pdf

        ==============

        Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study

        http://www.glhv.org.au/files/Female_bisexuality_results_from_a_10-year_study_0.pdf

        Nearly 80 young sexual-minority women, identified as lesbian,
        bisexual, or unlabeled, have been assessed five times over a 10-year
        period, beginning in late adolescence and following through to early
        adulthood.

        ………

        By T5, 60% OF T1 LESBIANS HAD HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH A MAN, and 30% HAD BEEN ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED WITH A MAN.
        Many of these women resolved the resulting contradiction between their
        lesbian identity and their other-sex attractions/behavior by SWITCHING
        to unlabeled or bisexual identities

        ====================================
        They changed.

      • From: What We Got Wrong About Sexual Identity Development: Unexpected Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Young Women – Diamond (2005).pdf:

        There is this – p. 14:

        Compared with respondents who identified as lesbian or bisexual at T4, the unlabeled women reported significantly greater absolute gaps between their percentage of physical versus emotional same-sex attractions.

        This finding demonstrates that the overall fit between a woman’s physical and emotional feelings for women and men is a key piece of evidence she might use to assess her sexual identity. As one woman said,
        quite straightforwardly, during her second interview,

        Sometimes I worry that I will never settle down with anyone, because
        the way I feel about guys is mainly sexual, and the way I feel about women is mainly emotional. So I’m always going between the two, and I don’t know what to call that, you know?

        Yet traditional sexual identity models make no accommodation for this sort of quandary. According to the traditional paradigm, women claiming discrepancies between their emotional and physical attractions are either confused heterosexuals or repressed lesbians.

        =============

        This example also blows a hole the size of a crater in the simplistic way that “born this way” proponents think about “sexual orientation.”
        First because this example stresses what I have pointed out previously. The concept of “sexual orientation” is a fraud, since the human mind in respect to sexuality and relationships is extremely complex and can never be reduced to “sexual attraction” only – especially not of the benign kind, and which is what much of the research focuses on, ignoring how perverted and perverse so much of sexual attraction is in a highly dysfunctional society are ours. There is no such thing as an independent, isolated part of the brain that will have any kind of sexual attraction that is unrelated to anything else that happens in the brain, or to that person’s entire psychology; or unrelated to their their entire personal history and their development history, their cultural and ideological conditioning, etc. Claiming that sexual attraction happens out of the blue in the brain and then determines every other aspect of the social and psychological functioning of a human being is simply absurd.

        It is not sexual attraction that determines the rest of a person’s psychology. It is exactly the opposite: a person’s entire psychological/emotional/cultural/ideological structure will determine specifically what kinds of sexual attractions are produced in their mind. This model explains and fits every type of attraction produced, from the healthiest to the most deformed, dysfunctional, and perverted.
        Therefore the term “sexual attraction” is highly inadequate, since
        “attraction” implies something mostly benign.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Correct- the term in DSM-V is gender identity disorder.

      • Incorrect. Gender identity has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation. Homosexuality is absent from the DSM because it is not a disorder.

        • GV

          It is absent due to politics and ideology.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          They just changed it into Gender Identity under political pressure and bribery.

          It is most certainly disordered. If it wasn’t disordered, then two sperm or two eggs could make a human baby.

          Of course, by that standard, contraception is pretty disordered as well. But I don’t find it odd at all that the social sciences are more about politics and corruption than science. Stop lying about homosexuality not being a disorder when it clearly IS a disorder. It just makes gay people look stupid.

          • Patrick

            Homosexuality and Gender Identity are still separate things, though.

            Unless you want to run that logic all the way through and say that contraception is also homosexuality because they are both spiritually disordered.

            • I am saying they are both disordered- and the way they are the same disorder is by a severe lack of understanding of the real purpose of gender.

              Contraception is related, because although heterosexual contraception still uses the standard genders, it is biologically disordered because it disrupts a normal biological process.

              I don’t see any of the three being any more “spiritually disordered” than any other sin, and quite a bit less “spiritually disordered” than many other sins. But the fact remains that all three are biologically disordered.

              • Patrick

                They aren’t the same disorder though. They are separate disorders that relate to parts of the same thing.

                Homosexuality does not include a disruption of the self-identity of gender, which is the defining trait of a disordered gender identity.

                Homosexual men do not identify as women, and they don’t identify other men as women. Homosexual women do not identify as men and don’t identify other women as men.

                The subject of gender identity is when someone is born male but identifies as a woman, or vice versa.

                They are quite clearly distinct issues from one another. Especially since some individuals exhibit both, but most do not. That is typically indicative of independent factors being involved.

                • “Homosexuality does not include a disruption of the self-identity of gender”

                  A huge part of the self-identity of gender is adult attraction to the opposite gender. How can homosexuality NOT affect that?

                  In other words, what you are saying, doesn’t make sense.

                  • Patrick

                    Homosexual men identify their gender as male. Individuals born men who have a disordered gender identity do identify as women (usually. I guess I should say “not men” to be entirely precise).

                    Lesbians aren’t not-women and identify as women. Their gender identity matches their real identity. A disordered gender identity would involve identifying as a man, or at least not as a woman.

                    How does it make sense to claim a man who IDENTIFIES as a man has a non-male gender identity? Gender identity is ostensibly what they identify their gender as. If that matches the gender they were born with, then their gender identity is accurate.

                    Just because both things interact (partially) with (some of) the same parts of the mind and self-identity doesn’t mean they are the same condition.

                    • How does he identify as a man, if he’s not willing to be heterosexual enough to be a father?

                      I think we’ve set the bar on being a man far too low, even for heterosexuals. Which of course, led first to fatherless homes, and has now led to homosexuality becoming normal.

                    • Patrick

                      Um… the very easiest counterexample that comes to mind is priests. They are men. They HAVE TO BE men. I’d personally hope very strongly they all have a male gender identity even if they aren’t in a position to be having children.

                      Choosing to be celibate does not make them less male. It does not indicate some critical lack of manliness.

                      Gay people are also called by their vocation to be celibate.

                    • I struggle with the celibate priesthood. I see the reasons for it, the chief one being that mastery over one’s lust is possible, and a secondary one being economic, that we do not pay the priests enough to have a family.

                      I’ve known married priests.

                      I’ve also known not a few homosexual priests. I find they’re often the ones who never mention pro-life, never mention the Theology of the Body, never mention that contraception is evil or that lust can be bad.

                      And one has to admit that as professions go, the way the priesthood is set up, it’s the archbishop who has agreed to provide for his priests. I can’t even say that about pumping gas.

                      Growing up is learning that one has to take responsibility, and not just pleasure. There is no right to happiness, and even the right to pursue happiness is largely imaginary.

                    • Patrick

                      That’s all well and good, but the point was that male gender identity doesn’t require sex or children, or even intent toward the same.

                      There are even lay Catholics who are called, in effect, to celibacy, even without vows or holy orders. It would be demeaning to their fundamental human dignity to refer to them as not entirely a man because of their vocation.

  • For anyone who is interested, I had written a post on the matter of the CC and homosexuality, which is very critical of Damian’s position.

    The new Pope, the Catholic Church, and homosexuality: a fish rots from the head down

    The Catholic Church is finished. Not the Church itself, which will be
    around for millennia, but that Church and that Catholicism that is the
    cornerstone of a healthy, wholesome social conservative approach to
    life, including in the spheres of relationships and sexuality, and which
    has this approach as one of the cornerstones of its religious
    principles.

    http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/the-new-pope-the-catholic-church-and-homosexuality-a-fish-rots-from-the-head-down/

    Recently I received a couple of comments (one very angry), that I haven’t yet had time to address. But I hope to shortly. We could discuss some of the issues here as well if anyone is interested.

  • Mary P. Walker

    Chris–I really appreciate your thoughtful, nuanced writing. You have given me much to think about. Some of the comments seem to indicate that you should “hate” either yourself for being gay or your “gayness.” Self-hatred is not humility, nor is it a way toward spiritual progress. I believe we can only make spiritual progress when we accept “our lot” in life, and accept the grace God gives us to deal with it. Thanks for being a rational voice in the dialogue.

    • DD

      The term hate is used almost exclusively by gay apologists.

    • Lynn

      One should “hate” any temptation one is burdened with….of course, he should not hate himself…..he SHOULD hate the temptation to homosexuality BECAUSE IT IS A TEMPTATION TO SIN. This is so painfully obvious to anyone who has read the catechism and knows their faith that it is astounding that this is even a discussion.

  • GaudeteMan

    As pointed out by a previous article on the topic, even the Catechism of the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of accepting and classifying entire groups of people based on their so-called ‘sexual orientation.’ An immoral act, in which one engages a miniscule portion of one’s existence does not define what he or she is. ‘I am a heterosexual’ is not a definition of a person, it is at best an incredibly limited accidental characteristic. When the Church began to accept the terminology of those who sought to normalize such immoral and disordered behaviors, in essence the battle was already lost. Terms like sodomy are considered hateful but if one objectively analyzes the lives of those who engage in it, with all of the medical, psychological and emotional consequences (not to mention spiritual!) and endeavor to bring the painful facts to the attention of the general public, it would be a real work of charity. We must stop using the terms that they wish us to use and speak the truth in and out of season.

    • Patrick

      So, you’re saying we should use other terms, like “sodomite” that not only still define their existence based on a minuscule portion of who they are, but has cruel (or at least insensitive) implications to people who have a history of being bullied with words like that?

      It seems the only difference between their preferred term and your preferred term is not due to the reasons you criticize their term, but only that you know they don’t like being called your term.

      Remember, respect, compassion, and sensitivity are things the Catholic Church REQUIRES us to show them. As someone with a bit of a temper I know how frustrating it can be to show all three of those to just anybody sometimes, but we have to try.

      • jacobhalo

        Yes, we must show compassion to gays. They are God’s children. But we don’t have to accept their lifestyle.

        • MarcAlcan

          And the sad fact is to affirm gays consequently affirms their lifestyle because they do demand that we affirm their lifestyle.

        • Patrick

          The issue is more that too many people equivocate their lifestyle with experiencing an inclination toward same sex attraction, and the latter starts getting treated like the former.

      • MarcAlcan

        It is not a difference of their preferred term and our preferred term but what is the correct term?
        Homosexual is a rather benign word to apply to such a great evil. GaudeteMan is right, once you mess up with words, then the battle is half lost. We start then to dance to their tune.
        For an overwhelming majority of man who are attracted to man, sodomy is their practice. The only time we can apply the term SSA would be for a gay person who is celibate.

        • Patrick

          Did you miss the part where I pointed out that your term failed your own test for what would constitute a good term? The very test you used to say their term was not a good one?

          You said their term was bad because it was defining them by a tiny sliver of their being, then you suggested a deliberately emotionally fraught word that ALSO DEFINES THEM BY A TINY SLIVER OF THEIR BEING.

          My criticism was not about preference, but that your recommendation failed the test you used to try to disqualify their recommendation.

          The primary tangible difference between the term they want to use and the term you want to use is that you’re actively campaigning for the one that rejects respect, compassion, and sensitivity and is typically chosen specifically because it is known to cause emotional hurt.

          • MarcAlcan

            You said their term was bad because it was defining them by a tiny sliver of their being
            Actually not. For active homosexuals it is not a sliver of their being. It seems to define them. One author in fact said that he is a slut and is proud of it.
            So my question is why should an SSA person who strives to be chaste want to define his whole self by his disordered inclination if it is tiny sliver of his being. Why not just say you are a man and that’s it.

      • AugustineThomas

        Being a sodomite is not a small part of who they are. Being a sodomite means you’ve given yourself over completely to sexual sin.

        Many (all?) of us commit sexual sins and then quickly repent of our trespasses. Even people who constantly fall are not sodomites unless they’ve given themselves over completely to sexual sin.

        The people who celebrate sexual perversion at “gay pride parades” are most near the definition.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Talk about eating cake, icing, and the plate!

    You, like Eve T., put things very well. No doubt that you are DEVELOPING a “theology” of friendship in which homosexuality (as a mode of being) has a significant contributing part in its definition. Such a theology implies that sin not only contributes to redeeming grace but also to the foundation and order of Creation. If affectionate friendship can only be had within the arousal of homosexuality (albeit unexpressed as an act) then that contaminates any Natural Law of friendship, let alone privilege the homosexual person within the body of Christ.

    Affectionate male friendship cannot have has part of its definition a dismissal or bracketing of the feminine. That would be heresy against the doctrine of Creation: Adam rejecting all the was paraded before him, except the Woman.

    Of course, I make my remarks under the truth that BOTH the condition of homosexuality and its acts are equally sinful – they are both a consequence of Original Sin. This position does not contradict the current Catechism! The Catechism is addressing the issue of culpability. The condition of homosexuality contributes nothing positive in defining either the esse or the fundamentals of the human person.

    You cannot sever the nourishing cord between the homosexual condition and homosexual acts and expect the homosexual condition (persona) to contribute or assist in developing a full theology of friendship. The homosexual experience cannot us friendship theologians with insight.

    This is not being harsh, nor arriving at this conversation with a deaf ear. I understand the homosexual condition far to well.

    I find your attempt at defining “same-sex-attraction” to be weak at best, and self-serving at worst. No, take that back. What the pedophile “community” is currently doing is far worse: calling pedophilic acts wrong (they never say sinful) yet claiming that the pedophilia condition has something positive to contribute to understanding the full continuum of the human person. (They almost succeeded in the latest revision of the DSM-5.) Boy, do those guys talk about friendship!

    I fear the Gnostic elevation of friendship; it perverts the godliness of friendship to serve other ends. Friendship, as with all human relations, operates within the confines of the Natural Law. Why go beyond, outside that to locate and refine its definition. So much of our present culture is based on various Gnostic conceptions of the human person and his societies. In more ways than we are willing to admit, Aleister Crowley has formed and mentored our culture, from our arts to our politics, let alone the tyrannical campaign to reorder human relations within the dictatorial perimeters of “constructionism”. I find your redefinition of “same-as -attraction” to be Crowley-like. That is not an insult, but an attempt to decipher the full fallout of your position. Once you know that man’s mind (and his enormous cultural influence) picking up the scent of his imprint is not difficult. Our current obsession to define and redefine comes from somewhere – often a shellfish place.

    I am an artist. In my figurative work I paint, or draw, almost exclusively the male figure. The majority nudes. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it – selection of subject, or method of approach.

    I utterly refuse to use the word “gay”, or to egegete the homosexual implications of Caravaggio’s “The Calling of Matthew”, or whatever.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    How is homosexuality NOT a Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID)?

    The APA did what they did years ago, but it has put them, as individual practitioners in a bind – in spite of the cultural politicians among them. Friendship is never a disorder, so how can a recognized disorder define its nature and place among human relations?

    • Patrick

      Here’s how homosexuality is not a Dissociative Identity Disorder:

      Dissociative Identity Disorder is characterized by multiple (as in two or more) DISTINCT identities or personality states that have alternating control over the subject’s behavior, and it’s rare enough that between the various other disorders that it has comorbidity with, there’s debate over whether it actually even exists as a particular concrete disorder, and does not even have an empirically supported definition for the disorder.
      On average, someone with DID is also diagnosed with between 5 and 7 other mental disorders, often including schizophrenia, epilepsy, bipolar disorder, or Asperger Syndrome.
      Homosexuality is NOT comorbid with an average of 5 to 7 mental disorders.

      Also, you might recognize Dissociative Identity Disorder better by it’s old name: Multiple Personality Disorder.

      Somehow I don’t think you’d be making your same argument if you referred to the disorder that way.

      Sincerely, the son of a doctor of psychology and a former psychology teacher.

      P.S. Seriously. Don’t armchair diagnose. That causes no end of problems for lots of people.

      • CadaveraVeroInnumero

        M P D was changed to D I D, partially, to account to a larger and more complex phenomenon. Also, to dilute the distorted images and notions in the public’s mind caused by popular culture: film, fiction, and such. And to distinguish from schizophrenia, which is another conceptual tool contaminated by popular culture. (See Nesblitt’s edited volume.)

        D I D, unlike the primarily biological basis of schizophrenia, is trauma induced -of course, often, if not mostly, associated with other issues. But the critical factor is trauma, “circumstantial” or programmed. What is “produced” are various degrees of altered states, from completed “personalities” to fragments. Which in therapy need to be acknowledged and placed under control of the host, executive, core subject. But, then, you know all that.

        My point. Gender Identity Disorder is too limiting, as it is currently used. My point. Homosexuality is associated – ignoring the politics – with more co-morbid issues then our present culture is willing to admit. Our political climate prevents us from raising the question about the etiology of homosexuality. That is unfortunate, for the basis of the condition can located in trauma – by which I am not suggesting that early molestation is present in all cases. But the utility of trauma to

        • Patrick

          “Homosexuality is associated – ignoring the politics – with more co-morbid issues then our present culture is willing to admit.”

          Possibly, but there’s been enough study of the subject to clearly show that it is not so catastrophically comorbid as DID is.

          If you can find statistics on the frequency of the conditions comorbid with DID among gay people, I’d love to see it.
          But I’m pretty sure that it won’t come even close to the 5-7 on AVERAGE the DID is comorbid with, which would indicate, at the very least, that the two are not the same thing.

          And again, armchair diagnosis causes incalculable harm. Don’t. Do. It.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I think you’ve confused Dissociative Identity Disorder with Gender Identity Disorder. Homosexuality is the later.

  • Marc

    Gnosticism…..really? Be realistic.

  • thebigdog

    Brevity is the soul of wit — but apparently it is not a factor in rationalizing an intrinsic disorder.

  • Matt Jones

    Really great stuff, Chris! Sexuality is so controversial and obsessed over in our society that often people simply can’t experientially understand what it means to be thankful for all the lessons learned and truths gained while wrestling with being gay while not making it in any way “central” to one’s personhood and self-perception. I appreciate your willingness to help others understand a bit better, even if they don’t often seem particularly hospitable or charitable.

    Peace, friend. Keep up the good work.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Let us say that I am a S&M, Leather & Bondage aficionado; and that that condition, my unique of being-in-the-world defines my person more than either being homosexual or heterosexual. For those ways of being a sexual being is a meta-sexual mode of being that arises above, which enters into KNOWLEDGE more than the confines of heterosexuality, or even garden variety homosexuality. Why shouldn’t this be God’s calling for me, the envelope in which God’s life is poured into mine? Why not, based on the argument of this article?

    • DD

      Exactly the point. The real, unspoken, issue is that too many want being gay to be viewed as no big deal. It is not allowed to compare it to other disorders.

      • Patrick

        There is, mind you, a difference between an inclination that is not spiritually ordered and a psychological disorder, which is a specific scientific term with specific non-spiritual conditions for something to be accurately labelled as such. Something can be one, the other, both, or neither.

        In other words, be careful with similar terminology, because equivocation never achieves anything in an argument except to make people cross with you.

        • Guest

          The essence of the attraction is wrong. It is not ordered toward the good or the natural.

          The distinction you seek is of no consequence.

          You seem to want to claim it is spiritually disordered but in some way it is “naturally” ordered correctly? No way.

          The pathology involved may or may not rise to the level of psychosis or some serious aberration but it is fundamentally pathologic. The problem is we too often start with erroneous notions of what health and pathology include.

          • “The essence of the attraction is wrong. It is not ordered toward the good or the natural.”

            Not only that, it is not in-born. Thus every individual with such a problem is responsible for going to investigate why they developed the problem in the first place and treating it.

            • Patrick

              Psst.

              The Catholic Church officially teaches that the essence of the attraction (the inclination, in other words) IS NOT A CHOICE.

              Acting upon it is absolutely a choice, but the Catechism clearly states, in no uncertain terms, that, and I quote, “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.”

              That is the Catholic Church speaking, I am just passing the message along here.

              • Patrick–an important point of order here is that you are not quoting from the “Editio Typica” (Second Edition) of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church but rather from the *first* edition. That phrase actually was deleted from the Editio Typica, which instead now reads: “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” (See CCC #2358)
                The part about it not being “a choice” is no longer in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

                • Patrick

                  Sorry about that, I copy-pasted from the Vatican website without realizing the one there had not been updated.
                  I actually was aware of that change and was caught up in the moment when I posted that.
                  I apologize, and I’ll try to moderate my temper.
                  And thank you for the correction.

                  I would like to say, though, that there is still nowhere where the Catechism that says it *is* a choice, or that it is a “developed” problem in some or all cases, and that the Church does hold that the inclination is not sinful, only that acting upon it is (that is what spiritually disordered means, after all).

                  Too many people try to play semantic games to rationalize their distaste for people who are coping with the disorder but still are subject to it.

                  Sometimes God does not remove a trial, but instead gives us the strength to pass it.

                  • Right–its removal doesn’t mean it’s *not* the case, but only that the CCC is now silent on that point. Thanks, JR

          • Patrick

            “The essence of the attraction is wrong. It is not ordered toward the good or the natural.

            The distinction you seek is of no consequence.”

            Psychological disorders are not about being morally right or wrong. That is the distinction I am making.

            Spiritual disorder and psychological disorder are different things, and treating the terms interchangeably is a malfunctioning argument. It will not work because equivocation is not sound reasoning.

            “You seem to want to claim it is spiritually disordered but in some way it is “naturally” ordered correctly? No way.”

            No, that’s what you would like for me to be claiming because it fits your preconceived notions of people who disagree with you.

            There is all manner of behaviors that are maladaptive or counterproductive, for instance, that are not psychological disorders. The category “Psychological Disorder” is far more precise a taxonomy than you are treating it as.

            There are even psychological problems that aren’t psychological disorders, because in the useage of the field of psychology, the term “disorder” is a very specific TYPE of problem. It is not all mental problems ever. It is not all non-normative mental states. It is not all mental states that cause distress.

            There are several necessary conditions for a mental problem to be a disorder, and something can be a problem that meets some of those conditions, but being necessary conditions for the “disorder” categorization, it is NOT a disorder unless it meets ALL of the criterion.

            “The problem is we too often start with erroneous notions of what health and pathology include.”

            More true than I think you realized when you said it, and I absolutely agree.

        • CadaveraVeroInnumero

          Patrick, you are correct, but see my earlier reply to you. We may differ on this. Still ask, how is homosexuality NOT trauma based?

          Man is too bodily – too attached to flesh, here or hereafter, for homosexuality NOT to be both psychological and spiritual. RegArding creatures, only angels and demons are pure spirits.

          Just had a young friend who was “took and taken”. He was Aspergers, with C & O disorders, but totally not schizophrenia,; yet also cannibalistic, associated with ritualized Satanism combined with serial killers. All wrapped within the warp of metal hard rock. And why? Because homosexuality traumatized him at an early age.

          • Patrick

            “Just had a young friend who was “took and taken”. He was Aspergers, with C & O disorders, but totally not schizophrenia,; yet also cannibalistic, associated with ritualized Satanism combined with serial killers. All wrapped within the warp of metal hard rock. And why? Because homosexuality traumatized him at an early age.”

            That feels like post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc to me. I don’t have enough information to make a judgement on if that could be a causal factor, and I have a sneaking feeling maybe you don’t really either.
            Answers very often seem more obvious from a distance.
            I remember in 9th grade I once argued that solar panels (by making people more energy independent) would create a society free of poverty. Once I had more than a novice’s knowledge of the matters in question it became clear that it was so much more complicated that I simply could not deduce a solution, even though it seemed so plainly obvious at first glance.

            • CadaveraVeroInnumero

              Homosexual sexual assault (repeated) at a young age could cause the trauma which installed the fixations described above. In this case, in my judgment, it did. One need only to do the first stage of observation – a careful listening and recording of his story – to know that was the case. Almost three years worth. That is more than just a glance.

              • Patrick

                Jumping from “could cause” to “did cause” is -exactly- the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

                Just because one event followed another does not necessarily mean the second event was a result of the first.
                It is entirely possible the second event would have happened anyway, or that the first event exacerbated the second but was not the root cause.
                For that matter, it could have been something that was simply waiting for any sort of trigger, and could have just as well been caused by something less severe further down the line.

                Not enough information to have such absolute certainty about even a probable solution.

          • He was likely targeted *because of the Asperger’s*. I was a bit stronger than he was, but I was targeted also at a young age.

            The PTSD though- that’s more a part of the Asperger’s and comes from being treated as different by Neurotypicals in general.

      • “It is not allowed to compare it to other disorders.”

        And liberals have stipulated this by issuing an ideological decree and going to smearing campaigns of anyone who present a reasoned comparison.

        Because when we start to investigate the personal history, the ideology, the environment, and the deep psychological and ethical problems that each LGBTs individual has, we find that many factors are analogous or actually the same as for many other individuals with other sexuality or relationship-type disorders.

        • Patrick

          Except it’s not being compared to other disorders. If it were, we would treat them as victims, not perpetrators, as someone who needs compassion, not as someone to accuse of having a “mafia” or “agenda” or nonsense like that.

          We don’t go around talking about the “sick people mafia” trying to destroy the Church from the inside out, do we? Where’s the “deaf mafia”? The “Tourette Syndrome mafia”?

          Do we talk about “the alcoholic agenda”? That’s both a congenital, empirically documented condition AND a spiritual disorder. Even when alcoholics keep drinking, we don’t talk about them in terms like “trying to destroy America,” which I’ve heard regularly leveled at people with same-sex inclinations both here and elsewhere.

          Why so much animus for people subjected to this one disorder in particular? Because they identify by it? They identify by it because they’re treated poorly for it and have it in common with each other. They create their own culture because they’re made to feel unwelcome in ours.

          Furthermore, there are plenty of LGBT individuals who don’t have “deep psychological and ethical problems” and live perfectly chaste, virtuous lives. You just don’t HEAR about it.

          But even for the ones that do, isn’t that even MORE reason to show the UTMOST COMPASSION to them? To make sure they never feel cast out or hated? To not go around accusing them of trying to intentionally demolish society?

          We are called to treat them with respect, but how respected would you feel if someone accused you of trying to destroy the very foundations of western society?

          • john

            Patrick, as I’m sure you’ve already figured out by now, the alcoholic analogy is inapt. Neither society nor alcoholics who are honest with themselves embrace or celebrate their disorder. Neither do they demand others tolerate it, except when being manipulative. They still feel the shame of their weakness, we non-alcoholics feel compassion for their sickness, and we all celebrate when they triumph over it. It could become an apt analogy if both society and alcoholics began demanding that the rest of the world cheer for their drinking, recognize their binges as love between a man and his drink, and stop calling alcoholism a disorder. Were that to happen, we might agree that the unrepentant alcoholics’ movement was trying to destroy America.

            • Patrick

              Patrick, as I’m sure you’ve already figured out by now, the alcoholic analogy is inapt. Neither society nor alcoholics who are honest with themselves embrace or celebrate their disorder.

              I am specifically advocating for those with the disordered inclination of same sex attraction who RECOGNIZE that it is a disorder and ACT ACCORDINGLY to be role models!

              How can I be more clear about this? I want there to be chaste, faithful Catholics who are living a life that resists the temptation of their disorder to be open about that.

              But they’re too afraid because so many people call them, to directly quote Alessandra “Disgusting human beings” to serve as the noble role models of virtue the could be.

              “They still feel the shame of their weakness, we non-alcoholics feel compassion for their sickness, and we all celebrate when they triumph over it.”

              THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING we should do for people with same sex attraction, and people like Alessandra are saying “NO! No compassion for their sickness! Hide their triumph over it because that acknowledges that it exists to be triumphed over!”

              “It could become an apt analogy if both society and alcoholics began demanding that the rest of the world cheer for their drinking, recognize their binges as love between a man and his drink, and stop calling alcoholism a disorder. Were that to happen, we might agree that the unrepentant alcoholics’ movement was trying to destroy America.”

              So, we should just pay lip service to the idea that it’s a disorder that they are suffering from, and leave them to suffer without aid just because they are prideful? Especially when their pridefulness is often a knee-jerk reaction to mistreatment they’ve received? They become prideful because it’s a way to push back against being called disgusting and evil and barely human.

              That’s not Christian compassion. I’m sorry, but it’s not.

          • Guest

            Alcoholics do not form lobbies to promote having the disorder as “proud and good”. Drug addicts do not claim to be exceptional.

            The problem is that too many with this disorder demand special concessions and approval.

            • Patrick

              Alcoholics are also recognized as victims and given support and shown examples of other alcoholics who are successfully staying sober.

              We recognize they are victims of disordered inclinations and provide them with support structures to help them live healthy lives.

              Gay people? We call them sinners and shut the doors of our communities on them. We say that there should be no role models made of those of them who keep to Church teaching.
              We accuse them of worldwide conspiracies and use that to rationalize looking the other way when they are assaulted or abused.
              We treat them as an inhuman enemy instead of people who are struggling without our aid.

              We aren’t called to visit those recovering from sickness. We aren’t called to feed those who are already recovering from hunger.

              You’re saying they have a disorder, but that we shouldn’t treat them the way we’re supposed to treat someone with a disorder.

              There are many unrepentant alcoholics in the world doing all sorts of harm and getting angry if you try to suggest they sober up.
              Yet we still try to help them instead of writing them off as a special kind of enemy that we don’t have to love.

              • MarcAlcan

                Alcoholics are also recognized as victims and given support and shown examples of other alcoholics who are successfully staying sober.
                Indeed, but they don’t say they are proud to be alcoholic. As a matter of fact, they realize that it is a disorder which is the reason they hide it. But you are saying that one should be proud that one is gay? it’s a cross that one must bear and that is all it is.

          • “Except it’s not being compared to other disorders.”

            You have no idea what’s happening. I compare it all the time.

            ” If it were, we would
            treat them as victims, not perpetrators, as someone who needs
            compassion, not as someone to accuse of having a “mafia” or “agenda” or
            nonsense like that.”

            LGBT individuals are responsible for millions of acts of harm and violence in society due to their deformed and perverted psychologies regarding sexuality. And here you are trying to cover up this ugly reality. For most of this harm and violence LGBTs done, there is impunity, thanks to liberals like you. These are perpetrators; they are disgusting human beings. They don’t need compassion, they need accountability and to suffer consequences for what they are doing.

            Contrary to your propaganda, LGBs form mafias in institutions – they want power. This is no nonsense. Just like pedophiles and their supporters. Just like drug traffickers corrupt police institutions.

            And it’s funny that you are pushing your homosexuality agenda in every single comment you make here and then say that there is no such agenda! You’re displaying the homosexual agenda here for all to see.

            As it’s clear, you want to lie about all the harm and violence LGBTs do in society. That is also very much part of the homosexual agenda: to spewing a ridiculously embellished narrative that has basically nothing to do with reality and to enable the perpetrators of every kind of harm and violence.

          • Guest

            You are being too coy here. There are moral evils and physical evils. Moral evils are sin, physical evils are not. Being born with 11 fingers is a physical evil. We accept it is pathologic. We do not claim it is “normal” for that person simply because it exists.

            The gay lobby says the opposite. They claim it is “normal” to be “gay” whether acted on or not. Not only normal but a real good they claim.

            • Patrick

              The inclination of being attracted sexually to the same sex is a physical evil.

              But some of us insist on treating it like it’s a moral evil.

              I am not say we should claim it as normal any more than we would claim Tourette Syndrome is normal.

              That should be patently clear by what I said.

              In fact, you might need to go back and reread my post, because I did not even USE the word “normal.”

              YOU injected “normal” into it. I was saying clearly that it is a disorder.

              I was pointing out that Alessandra was SAYING it should be treated like any other disorder, but then what she was DOING was very different from how she actually treats other disorders.

              If someone is the victim of this disordered inclination, we need to show them compassion. We need to help them to manage the condition, not throw accusations at them or invent conspiracy theories about them.
              Just like how we treat other victims of other disordered inclinations.

              • MarcAlcan

                Except that Tourettes is not inclined towards a moral evil, homosexuality is. The problem with homosexuality is that the disorder is towards a grave moral evil.
                Let’s suppose that they find that paedophilia is a sexual orientation. Would you limit paedophilia to just a physical evil like Tourettes?

          • MarcAlcan

            Except it’s not being compared to other disorders. If it were, we would treat them as victims, not perpetrators, as someone who needs compassion, not as someone to accuse of having a “mafia” or “agenda” or nonsense like that.

  • EE

    Thank you for your article. This is an important conversation for Catholics to be having and both you and Ruse did your best to speak respectfully of one another even as you disagreed. That is rare to see in discussions on this issue nowadays.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    ARTICLE: “Many of the Spiritual Friendship writers have worked with groups that
    strongly emphasize the fallenness of man’s sexual desires. Ron Belgau recently pointed out, however, that a communal over-preoccupation with sinfulness can have the unintended effect of normalizing sinfulness.”

    COMMENT: Catholic writers sitting down with those who have no problem with the “fallenness of man”: That’s a relief. For a moment there . . . never mind. Mr.
    Belgau, though, is snacking on to many pretzels. His argument starts off OK, but then it
    twists and turns in all sorts of directions. My take: A (homophilic) communal over-preoccupation with psychoanalyzing – with a dab of communitarianism – has the very intended effect of normalizing deviances from the norm.

    ARTICLE: “Thus, the approach we have taken is a more vocation-centered approach.

    COMMENT: You just admitted the “giftedness” of homosexuality. Flipping that into your newly-minted definition of same-sex-attraction does not sanctify the attempt of “gifting” what has, by doctrine and human history, to be destructive of the foundational relation
    among Mankind – that between Man and Woman.

    ARTICLE: Rather than approaching relationships with man’s fallenness as the starting point, we begin with God’s call to a unique and good way of life, revealed in part by the
    circumstances in which God places us.

    COMMENT: You need to reread your Augustine. Pelagianism – even of the “semi” sort – was condemned by the Church. Why haul it out as support for your position? Think, I find this the most egregious and harmful comment in your article. Not saying you intend it – I am not a nasty fellow – but putting it the way you did, and positioning it has a primary prop in your argument, you are pitting Creation against the Fall of Man (that is, Original
    Sin). In your way of putting things, it is an “either/or” proposition. Like the
    Pelagians, you are weakening the bond between to fundamentals of the Faith –
    though, true, Creation does have an everlasting aspect about it, for Creation,
    as Creation, was made in and with God’s goodness. But once that bond is weakened to be point of severing, Creation becomes malleable (especially sex), it easily becomes what
    we make of it – and from our hands, present to God to compel him to
    accept. Yes, yes, you didn’t quite put it that way. I worded the intent of your
    statement with the (homophilia) man as the actor, where as you had put it with
    God as the actor. Still, it is the underlying Gnosticism (Pelagianism) that is the issue, and the philosophical handmaiden to your argument.

    ARTICLE: “In this way, I do not accept Ruse’s so-called “gay exceptionalism.” The
    sexuality of gay people makes them exceptional . . .,

    COMMENT: Rewording this a bit: “(put in your favorite little sin) makes them (us) exceptional . . .”]

    ARTICLE: . . in the same way that each person’s individual traits make him or her exceptional—each person has a unique calling from God, and this calling is partly revealed by and lived through our unique circumstances.”

    COMMENT: Again, you are admitting the being a homophile (even a faithful Catholic one, a FCH) is so severed from the doctrine of the Fall of Man (Original Sin) that it has turned into – here it is – a “trait”. Talk about psychologizing sin.

    ARTICLE: Ruse calls this view ‘at least a little bit narcissistic’. I call it Catholic”.

    COMMENT: I call it Pelagianism on steroids!]

    I have my own sins, my own fallenness to deal with. Hate to think any of that
    contributes to my willingness, my ability – yes, even my giftedness – to be a
    friend. On my friendship list is a young man who raped, repeatedly, since he was two.
    He thinks that his only peace comes from transforming himself into a woman. It will not be his comfort, let alone his salvation, with God saying “Relax, I’m here, I take it as it is, no problem”.

    At one point, I assumed that such a young man offering up to God his tortured, raped haunted life is all that God asks, that He will simply take residence there and ask nothing more. No longer. God never dwells, in hovel or palace, without setting up housekeeping – at times, tearing down walls and knocking out the foundation piers. Of course God accept what were initially offer him. But whatever that is it is weaved with repentance – as the crucified thief offered himself to our dying Lord. Paradise is certainly a better place for the repentant thief taking up his residence there; but don’t ever tempt the Lord God, don’t ever ever present your life to God without repentance, without knowing that He will whip it around, turn it inside out, make it unrecognizable.

    You don’t need to tell God what a gift it.

  • naturgesetz

    Chris —

    It seems to me that a real problem for a gay person is to distinguish among his same-sex attractions. Which are like Lowell’s for Flannery O’Connor, and which are like that for his fiancée? You seem to be saying that intimate friendships can be prudently developed when the attraction is of the first type, but they are too risky if the attraction is of the latter type. My own experience is that attractions grow.

    And by the way, it seems to me that your description of same-sex attraction is so broad that everybody experiences it — straight buddies would seem, by your definition, to be same-sex attracted in a non-disordered way.

  • nbg

    Crisis: Straight guys obsessed with gays guys.

    • Crisis: liberals obsessed in normalizing every kind of sexual perversion and dysfunction their minds produce.

    • Guest

      Homosexual agenda: Deflect and jam.

  • Chris–your “taxonomy” regarding the terms “homosexual,” “gay,” and “same-sex attraction” should leave readers deeply concerned about its consequences. I believe it to be a significant departure from the existing teaching of the Catholic Church.
    The taxonomy you present ultimately boils down to one driving force behind all three of your terms–“homo-eros”. And “homo-eros” stands in stark contrast to the authentically ordered “eros” envisioned, understood, and defined by the Church’s magisterium. Pope Benedict makes clear that “eros” is the “gift of love between a man and a woman” (General Audience, Jan. 18, 2006).
    Any enterprise that seeks to view “homo-eros” as potentially “ordered” rather than “disordered” is doomed to fail. Seeking to separate different forms of such attraction to members of the same sex such that the only such attraction that is “disordered” is the kind that doesn’t exclude sexual acting out is an illusory effort.
    I pray that Catholic readers stand fast to the truth about the nature of authentic “eros” and reject any line of thinking that asserts that *any* form of “homo-eros” is compatible with the Catholic faith. It does no favors to those struggling with same-sex attraction to propose a false approach to dealing with a struggle that is, ultimately, a battle for purity of heart long before it is a battle for sexual continence.

    • This is how I distinguish the terms “(homo)sexuality” and “(homo) sexual orientation.”

      Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity, problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

      Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of a myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional psycho-social dynamics.

      On using the words “a homosexual”

      The problem I see with using “a homosexual” is that it has an essentialist, inborn, or biological determination connotation to it that is the opposite of reality.

      This is why I often prefer using “individual with a homosexual problem,” since no one is born with a homosexual problem.

      This means in “liberalspeak” that no one is born a homosexual, no one is born gay, no one “is gay” in the biologically determined sense, and homosexuality or gayness or homosexual sexual orientation are not inborn.

      Homosexuals are not “being themselves.” They are being themselves with a homosexual problem. Resolve the problem and they are heterosexuals being who they are.

      • Patrick

        I’d just like to point out that the Catholic Church says “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”

        So please do be clear that your position on persons not being “homosexual” is your personal take on the matter, and not Church teaching.

        • The Church is being very irresponsible. The reason is here:

          The new Pope, the Catholic Church, and homosexuality: a fish rots from the head down

          http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/the-new-pope-the-catholic-church-and-homosexuality-a-fish-rots-from-the-head-down/

          • Patrick

            I would like to point out that the reason I used quotation marks around the sentence, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” is because I was directly quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not a change made by Pope Francis.

            How were you not aware of it? Have you never read the Catechism? Have you never received adult Catholic education?

            If you want to declare your opposition to the Catholic Church and the Magisterium thereof… I’d recommend you don’t, but if you must, a Catholic website is not the right venue for such things, I think.

            In other words, if you want to be a heretic, please do it somewhere else.

            • I think the CC needs to play a good and responsible role in society. So, should I have any criticisms, a Catholic forum would be a very good place to discuss the matter.

              • Barb

                Your opening sentence on your link says, “the Church … will be around for millennia”… not worried about the second coming, are you?

    • Rich C.

      You’re one of the dudes that used to comment at Strange Notions. Looks like you chickened out and ran away from all the atheists.

  • thebigdog

    Just a few thoughts:

    – If homosexuals were sincere in their claims of only wanting marriage, commitment and monogamy — they would demand that gay bars be closed since they produce the exact opposite.

    – If homosexuality is part of “God’s plan” then why are the vast majority of them pro abortion? Having babies does not even enter their life equation but they side with Satan and support killing them.

    – 97-98% of adult men in the U.S. are heterosexual while only 2-3% are homosexual, however, there is no known heterosexual equivalent for NAMBLA … this alone screams psychological disorder.

    • Patrick

      “- If homosexuals were sincere in their claims of only wanting marriage, commitment and monogamy — they would demand that gay bars be closed since they produce the exact opposite.”

      By that logic, the existence of strip clubs means non-homosexuals are also insincere about the ideas of marriage, commitment, and monogamy.
      They are no more homogeneous than any other broad category of people defined by a single trait they have in common.

      “- If homosexuality is part of “God’s plan” then why are the vast majority of them pro abortion? Having babies does not even enter their life equation but they side with Satan and support killing them.”

      Because they are made to feel unwelcome or even unsafe in the culture that also opposes abortion, and so join a culture that they are accepted in, and receive the messages that culture presents to its members.

      “- 97-98% of adult men in the U.S. are heterosexual while only 2-3% are homosexual, however, there is no known heterosexual equivalent for NAMBLA … this alone screams psychological disorder.”

      There are plenty of heterosexual equivalents for NAMBLA. Just because they are not known TO YOU does not mean they are not known.
      Besides, just as you are not responsible for Westboro Baptist Church and their actions, people who are not part of NAMBLA are not responsible for NAMBLA’s actions.

      The situation could certainly benefit from a stronger effort to actively dissociate from NAMBLA, but the same could be said for Christians who simply say “Not all Christians agree with WBC” but never make an effort to vocally declare that WBC’s actions are unacceptable by true Christian standards.

      • thebigdog

        Poor Patrick…

        You see, heterosexuals are not on trial and do not have to prove to anyone that they are normal and that sex between a husband and wife is natural. Sincere Christians oppose all forms of adultery, so your straw man “logic” fails. I noticed that you conveniently did not name any of the MANY heterosexual equivalent groups to NAMBLA that you claim exist. By mere statistics, there should be dozens of well known groups since 98% of the population is straight, however, I have never heard of any. Your empty rhetoric is cheap disingenuous propaganda.

        It’s the homosexual community that is trying to convince the rest of society that they are “normal” — therefore, the burden is on them and quite frankly, they have done nothing but lied and failed… unless you consider:

        – dressing in leather thongs on a parade float in broad daylight in front of children is a sign of normality.

        – having porn blasting from gay bars during the middle of the day that can easily be seen and heard by people walking by on the sidewalk is a sign of normality.

        – being obsessed with and trying to corrupt he Boy Scouts is a sign of normality.

        – 1973 — The AMA removes homosexuality from the list of
        psychological disorders with no evidence other than the empty promise of soon finding a “gay gene” and political pressure. The human genome project was concluded by Dr. Collins and found that there is no gay gene.

        Homosexual lie.

        – 70’s and 80’s rhetoric asked people to stop bullying and vilifying gays — when really they meant “acceptance”

        Homosexual lie

        – Late 80’s and early 90’s had the propaganda machine working overtime on the soon-to-be heterosexual AIDS epidemic.

        Homosexual lie

        – Early 21st century brought us rhetoric claiming that we should
        tolerate the gay lifestyle, when in reality, they meant accept and
        promote the lifestyle.

        Homosexual lie

        – Now we have to hear about homosexuals merely wanting the same
        rights as everyone else because they are all about committed, monogamous relationships, while the research shows that excessive promiscuity still permeates the culture so much that 400+ sex partners is not uncommon for homosexual men. During the 70’s and 80’s,before homosexuals knew that these statistics hurt their cause, surveys showed that approximately 50% of homosexual men had more than 500 sex partners.

        Homosexual lie

        – The talking heads skewed the early research and told us that
        children in gay households do “very well” The new research is showing
        more and more that kids raised in gay homes are not doing as well as
        kids in homes with a mother and a father.
        http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/

        Homosexual lie

        • Patrick

          Nobody said “on trial.” I’ve been saying, in several posts on several articles on this site, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

          Not a gavel-and-judge trial. A trial in the sense that something can try my patience, or settlers can experience a trying winter.

          “Sincere Christians oppose all forms of adultery, so your straw man “logic” fails.”

          I think you got confused. I was highlighting a flaw in your logic by demonstrating how it reaches unintended, and unreasonable conclusions, which shows the logic is flawed.

          “I noticed that you conveniently did not name any of the MANY heterosexual equivalent groups to NAMBLA that you claim exist. By mere statistics, there should be dozens of well known groups since 98% of the population is straight, however, I have never heard of any. Your empty rhetoric is cheap disingenuous propaganda.”

          Well, maybe it’s a regional peculiarity, but even in the last decade or so there’s been attempts to remove statutes around here that say it is legal for a 12 year old girl to be married, so long as her parents consent (and if I recall correctly the age for boys was 16 or 18, I don’t recall the exact number, but it was much higher).
          And there was a startling amount of push-back against it.

          Now, I don’t occupy my thoughts with such things, but it made the news enough that I heard about it repeatedly for about a year, which indicates there was clearly not enough consensus on the subject to just change the law to require age-of-majority, or it would have been over and done and I likely wouldn’t have heard about it in the first place.

          Maybe they don’t have a newsletter or an acronym, but they’re out there.

          “It’s the homosexual community that is trying to convince the rest of society that they are ‘normal'”

          Now THERE’S a straw man argument!
          Check my other posts. I have consistently stated that it is a disorder.
          I’ve also said that we should not demonize people because they suffer from a disorder, and apparently that ruffles a lot of feathers among people like you.

        • Zachary Lucido

          If you want to condescend, it is important to make at least the least bit of sense. If you are comparing and contrasting things, like when you say anything about the gays, it is on YOU to show there’s a difference between the gays and strait men/ lesbians and strait women. Try to account for gender. Gay typically refers to men only, so it should be expected that they will be more promiscuous. Our culture clearly encourages men to pursue sex. Gender roles are messed up. Now stop confusing clubs and bars, there’s a difference between them.

          My goodness, did you even look at that study? It is a mess. Homosexuals aren’t compared to heterosexuals, they are compared to married couples. There are gay single parents out there. And then you look at things like when the kids first had sex? Sex is going to come up a lot in a same sex house hold because ‘why do I have 2 dads?’ is going to come up. I would expect them to view sex as not shameful but dangerous. Horrible, horrible study.

          • thebigdog

            What the hell are you talking about? Put the Appletini down and try to make sense like a normal person.

            • Zachary Lucido

              What went over your head? I thought I was keeping it simple. You are making accusations about gays and couldn’t argue the point when it was brought up that strait men do the same things you gripe about us doing,, then the study you cited was poorly conducted. Tell me where I’m loosing you.

  • What we must demand of people who have a dysfunctional sexuality is for
    them to go treat it. Then they won’t have any more perverted desires in
    that respect, if successful. But, as I said, because the Church is plainly ignorant in
    terms of clinical psychology, it cannot treat deep psychological
    problems in the area of sexuality, although the Church can be beneficial
    at times. What the Church can do is to demand that such people get
    treatment elsewhere. And the Church and this Pope are clearly not doing
    this. A visible failure in their responsibility to guide people who have
    deformed minds regarding sexuality.

    • Patrick

      “What we must demand of people who have a dysfunctional sexuality is for
      them to go treat it. Then they won’t have any more perverted desires in
      that respect, if successful.”

      Should we also say that people with a temper must go and take the never-get-angry-unreasonably pill?

      There is no “treatment” of the sort you are talking about.

      You cannot cure gambling addiction, to use your example. You cannot make someone who is dangerously tempted by the thrill of gambling simply stop feeling that. It does not go away. The treatment for gambling addiction is to help them not succumb to that temptation.

      You may as well say that teaching braille is bad because it is not simply telling blind people to go get the “stop being blind now” treatment. Teaching braille is part of the treatment for blindness. It helps them manage their condition.

      It is not responsible to tell people to go receive a non-existent treatment.

      But please, do tell me about the “caffeine addict mafia”, since even you say we should treat people with same sex attraction the same way we treat other people who are victims of a disordered inclination and you are quite eager to talk about the “gay mafia.”

      • “What we must demand of people who have a dysfunctional sexuality is for
        them to go treat it. Then they won’t have any more perverted desires in
        that respect, if successful.”

        Patrick said: Should we also say that people with a temper must go and take the never-get-angry-unreasonably pill?

        I don’t think so. Just as I don’t think that profound psychological problems like homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia can be treated with a pill. What they can be treated with is with therapy and other concerted actions.

        Patrick said: “There is no “treatment” of the sort you are talking about.”

        Given that you show complete ignorance of psychology, therapy, and how it works, I don’t think you are in a position to determine what therapy can treat.

        Patrick said: “You cannot cure gambling addiction, to use your example. ”

        You certainly can. Once the person resolves the underlying psychological problems that produce this compulsive desire, the desire goes away. And as other examples, you can treat anorexia, you can treat depression (without drugs), you can treat suicidal states (without drugs), and any other way the mind gets sick and/or perverted. The human mind is treatable.

        “It is not responsible to tell people to go receive a non-existent treatment.”

        I’m not suggesting they do that. I’m arguing for real treatments.

        “But please, do tell me about the “caffeine addict mafia”, since even you
        say we should treat people with same sex attraction the same way we
        treat other people who are victims of a disordered inclination and you
        are quite eager to talk about the “gay mafia.””

        The gay mafia refers to how homosexuals and bisexuals form corrupt power networks in institutions/companies/bodies, because of a nasty need for control and power, and to protect their own concerning any of their corrupt, harmful, and criminal actions. It’s the same with pedophile mafias (and the Church had a cross between the two – the Catholic Church has been corrupted by disgusting homosexuals, who surely helped its homosexual pedophiles, along with the help they got from other heterosexual aiders and abettors).

        Your “homosexuality is the same as a drug addiction problem ” strawman is pitiful. But I guess it’s the only one you’ve got.

        • Patrick

          You said: “I don’t think so. Just as I don’t think that profound psychological problems like homosexuality, pedophilia, and zoophilia can be treated with a pill. What they can be treated with is with therapy and other concerted actions.”

          Just remember that treatment and cure are not interchangeable.

          You said: “Given that you show complete ignorance of psychology, therapy, and how it works, I don’t think you are in a position to determine what therapy can treat.”

          Not only is that an evasion of the issue, and a presumption on your part, but it doesn’t matter if I can fully understand the treatment.
          If your fail-safe cure-forever treatment for all profound psychological problems works, I would simply pass it along to every psychologist and psychiatrist I could find. And I live within walking distance of a University with extensive doctoral programs in those fields.

          I don’t need to know how it works for it to work, right? We just need to get your cure into the hands of people who can understand and implement it.

          So please, don’t be so stingy with something that can increase the life expectancy of people suffering from schizophrenia by 12 to 15 years! Tell us!

          You said: “You certainly can. Once the person resolves the underlying psychological problems that produce this compulsive desire, the desire goes away. And as other examples, you can treat anorexia, you can treat depression (without drugs), you can treat suicidal states (without drugs), and any other way the mind gets sick and/or perverted. The human mind is treatable.”

          You switched definitions of “treatable” half way through the
          paragraph!
          Depression is absolutely treatable. But the treatment
          is not something you go and do and are done with and the problem is just gone. The treatment is an ONGOING process that MANAGES the condition.
          I’m saying this as someone with an immediate family member who suffers from depression severe enough that non-drug treatments simply were not enough to manage the symptoms. A man with a Masters Degree in psychology, who is married to a woman with a Doctorate and who is a professional counselor, no less!

          I’ve said it several times and I’m going to keep saying it:
          Treatment does not always mean cure!

          Stop using them interchangeably.

          You said: “I’m not suggesting they do that. I’m arguing for real treatments.”

          But you say treatment in the sense of “cure” and in many cases, that treatment simply DOES NOT EXIST for them to receive!

          But if the cure you are talking about is real, the world at large hasn’t found out about it yet, so I exhort you to please, please, tell us
          what it is. Tell the world.

          Stop saying “go get treatment” and tell us what this treatment is that they should go get! There’s many of them that urgently want it, and the current state of scientific knowledge hasn’t found them, so please, stop keeping it a secret.

          You said: “The gay mafia refers to how homosexuals and bisexuals form corrupt power networks in institutions/companies/bodies, because of a nasty need for control and power, and to protect their own concerning any of their corrupt, harmful, and criminal actions.”

          So, a conspiracy theory. Gotcha.
          Just a suggestion, any time you’re
          saying an entire class of people are motivated by “a nasty need for control and power” and are “corrupt,” stop talking consider
          that you might be demonizing people or falling victim to propaganda.

          You said: “Your “homosexuality is the same as a drug addiction
          problem ” strawman is pitiful. But I guess it’s the only one
          you’ve got.”

          As an individual with a *psychological* dependency on caffeine, I assure you I would truly welcome your surefire one-shot cure for psychological problems.

          • Alessandra said: “Given that you show complete ignorance of psychology, therapy, and how it works, I don’t think you are in a position to determine what therapy can treat.”

            Patrick said: “Not only is that an evasion of the issue, and a presumption on your part, but it doesn’t matter if I can fully understand the treatment.”

            Did I presume right or wrong? Where does your knowledge of psychotherapy come from?

            I think it certainly matters when you show complete ignorance about the subject and claim to know what it can or can’t do.

            Patrick said: “Treatment does not always mean cure! Stop using them interchangeably.”

            I think there is no psychological problem that can’t be cured. It doesn’t mean that there it is always possible to treat the problem in practice because the proper treatment can involve many actions which aren’t often available in practice.

            Given that you understand nothing of what causes psychological problems in the first place, such as homosexuality or depression, nor do you know how to treat anything, maybe you should diminish your ignorance of what therapy can do and how it works before you pretend to know what can be treated or cured.

            “But if the cure you are talking about is real, the world at large hasn’t
            found out about it yet, so I exhort you to please, please, tell us
            what it is.”

            I think specialized psychotherapists along with a healthy environment is the way of the treatment.

            You said: “The gay mafia refers to how homosexuals and bisexuals form corrupt power networks in institutions/companies/bodies, because of a nasty need for control and power, and to protect their own concerning any of their corrupt, harmful, and criminal actions.”

            Patrick said: “So, a conspiracy theory. Gotcha.”

            Your denial of reality doesn’t change it.

            “Just a suggestion, any time you’re saying an entire class of people are motivated by “a nasty need for control and power” and are “corrupt,” stop talking consider that you might be demonizing people or falling victim to propaganda.”

            Just a suggestion, next time you try to lie about and cover up real problems involving LGBTP people, you might be part of the problem. I’ve had to deal the workings of gay mafias in more than one environment. It’s very real. And here you are denying it. Who are you trying to protect? What is your agenda? And isn’t it obvious which group you belong to?

            Alessandra said: “Your “homosexuality is the same as a drug addiction problem ” strawman is pitiful. But I guess it’s the only one
            you’ve got.”

            Patrick said: “As an individual with a *psychological* dependency on caffeine, I assure you I would truly welcome your surefire one-shot cure for psychological problems.”

            “Surefire” and “one-shot” are your words, not mine. Are you purposefully trying to lie about what I said?

            What you can try and you should try is to go do therapy with a very good therapist. Or don’t you think you are ever responsible for looking into your psychological problems?

            That’s exactly the mentality of the homosexual agenda: No one is ever responsible for treating their deformed, unhealthy, and psychologically dysfunctional minds.

            And that’s exactly the opposite of what people should do.

            • Patrick

              Alessandra said: “Did I presume right or wrong? Where does your knowledge of psychotherapy come from?”

              Evading the fact that I pointed out an evasion on your part isn’t a very good way to make a point.

              But I’m curious, where does YOUR knowledge of psychotherapy come from?

              Alessandra said: “I think it certainly matters when you show complete ignorance about the subject and claim to know what it can or can’t do.”

              I was trying to be polite by not accusing you in turn of “complete ignorance of the subject.”
              Particularly in that your position seems to directly contradict the
              general consensus among professionals and researchers in the field in question.

              Maybe return that courtesy and try a strategy that doesn’t involve simply declaring something to be true and accusing anyone who disagrees of “complete ignorance.”
              It’s bordering on arguing by namecalling.

              Alessandra said: “I think there is no psychological problem that can’t be cured. It doesn’t mean that there it is always possible to treat the problem in practice because the proper treatment can involve many actions which aren’t often available in practice.”

              So when I tell you that even when people with schizophrenia go get treatment as you recommend, about 75% of people with it still have ongoing disability and relapses. Only 42% have a good long-term outcome after the first episode, and it only gets worse after subsequent episodes. (I can give you sources for that information if you like, too.)

              But I fully expect you’ll simply shift the goalposts and change your tune from “they should go get treatment” to “they weren’t getting the RIGHT treatment” while still actively avoiding answering my requests for what the right treatment is.

              Alessandra said: “Given that you understand nothing of what causes psychological problems in the first place…”
              Ah, baseless insults! I wondered when things would fall to that level.

              Alessandra said: “…such as homosexuality or depression, nor do you know how to treat anything, maybe you should diminish your ignorance of what therapy can do and how it works before you pretend to know what can be treated or cured.”

              So you’re going to tell us your credentials now? Please do.

              Alessandra said: “I think specialized psychotherapists along with a healthy environment is the way of the treatment.”

              That’s not a treatment. That’s “go get treatment” rephrased.

              Going to a psychotherapist is not a treatment, a psychotherapist ADMINISTERS a treatment. And please elaborate on “a healthy environment” that gives AT LEAST ONE TRAIT of that environment that MAKES it healthy. “Healthy” doesn’t count. Nor “conducive to treatment” nor other synonyms.

              What you’ve just presented as a treatment is like a recipe for cake that consist of “Step One: Get the ingredients. Step Two: Make a cake with them.”

              Alessandra said: “Your denial of reality doesn’t change it.”

              Your insistence on a conspiracy theory doesn’t make it real.

              The fun thing about argument by assertion is that any other assertion is just as valid!

              Alessandra said: “And here you are denying it. Who are you trying to protect? What is your agenda? And isn’t it obvious which group you belong to?”

              I am obviously a part of the Catholic Church, yes. It was the constant quotation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that gave it away, wasn’t it?

              And my agenda is to counter the dangerous misinformation about psychological disabilities that you’re spreading. That, and utilizing a teaching moment to explain to people what the facts of Catholic teaching are.

              But I have little doubt you’ll be accusing me of being personally responsible for scandals that happened before I was even born, soon.

              How many times do I have to refer to homosexual attraction as disordered to make you realize I am not, nor ever will be, a member of GLAAD or some comparable organization?
              How many times do I have to say we have to show people with that disorder that there is hope for them in the Church before you stop claiming I’m saying we should just leave them to suffer?

              Alessandra said: “”Surefire” and “one-shot” are your words, not mine. Are you purposefully trying to lie about what I said?”

              I said the treatments are not guaranteed to work for all conditions, and often do not guarantee lifelong remission.
              YOU DISAGREED VOCALLY.

              I said it was not surefire and was not one-shot, though in a more verbose way. You then said I was wrong.
              Ergo…

              Alessandra said: “What you can try and you should try is to go do therapy with a very good therapist. Or don’t you think you are ever responsible for looking into your psychological problems?”

              That’s not a treatment, that’s a referral. You said you knew a treatment.
              Is it possible you aren’t the expert in psychotherapy you claim to be?

              And should the mild caffeine dependency ever become disruptive or an occasion to sin, I will certainly seek all the therapy that is economically feasible. As it stands, it only raises its head in high-stress or high-anxiety situations, which are pretty much only situations in which caffeine is not readily available to me because I don’t keep a supply available. It is simply a holdover from my college days when I was reckless in my overuse of it. It’s a temptation that is only fleeting and has become even less compelling the longer I resist it successfully, though I’m sure in times of stress I will always have that momentary pang of desire for a coffee.

              Just a note, I was asking you to tell me the cure not because I thought I was not responsible for my own care, but because you were making claims as if you had personal knowledge of one.

              As it stands I simply offer the discomfort of wanting a coffee as a sacrifice and it fades long before I have even an opportunity to act on it, because the one precaution I do take is not having a coffee machine or caffeinated soda in the house, workplace, or car. Luckily the cost of coffee from a coffee shop is far more unpleasant than simply not having coffee, so that’s not a risk factor either.

              I’m managing the condition well enough that most people would be loathe to even call it an addiction anymore (though at one time it was much more pronounced), but if you can tell me a course of treatment (an actual treatment, mind you), I’ll gladly thank you and make the inconvenience go away for good.
              I do suspect that a therapist would just say “If it’s not causing distress or interfering with your life, just keep avoiding the opportunity to give in to the temptation,” though.

              Alessandra said: “That’s exactly the mentality of the homosexual agenda: No one is ever responsible for treating their deformed, unhealthy, and psychologically dysfunctional minds.

              And that’s exactly the opposite of what people should do.”

              Newsflash: I am not part of the homosexual agenda. I want them to manage their condition the best they can. I agree that people are responsible for their own care so long as their condition does not deprive them of the lucidity to do so. I just don’t go making hasty promises about cures that will wipe out temptation entirely and permanently like you repeatedly have on this very page.

              • Alessandra said: “Did I presume right or wrong? Where does your knowledge of psychotherapy come from?”

                Patrick said:”Evading the fact that I pointed out an evasion on your part isn’t a very good way to make a point.”

                Ah! You evaded answering my question. Patrick you can evade all you want. It’s plain to see you have no knowledge on the subject.

                Don’t let that stop you from you spending your life proclaiming you do while showing you don’t.

                • Patrick

                  You think you’re being clever by accusing me of anything I point out that you’re doing as if that means you didn’t do it.

                  It’s not clever. It makes you look like a troll who’s only trying to anger people and doesn’t have any real statements to make.

                  But if you want my actual credentials, tell me yours first.

                  I have the sneaking suspicion that that won’t make you look good, since you weren’t even familiar with the Recovery Model.

  • Patrick said:
    Furthermore, there are plenty of LGBT individuals who don’t have “deep
    psychological and ethical problems” and live perfectly chaste, virtuous
    lives. You just don’t HEAR about it.
    ==========

    Going through life with a sexually perverted and dysfunctional mind, and refusing to seek to treat it is not in any way virtuous.

    Would you claim a person with a pedophilia problem doesn’t have the responsibility to go treat their psychological problems? What about someone with a gambling addiction?

    I can’t think of anything more perverted than people who have a perverted mind now declaring they are not responsible for treating it. This is one of the core fundamentals of liberal ideology. Instead of demanding that people take responsibility for every kind of sexual perversion that exists, they want to legitimize it and enforce it as normal.

    As it is the destruction of society, it is the destruction of any church.

    • Patrick

      You’re injecting some sort of alternate argument and arguing against that instead of what I was saying.

      There is no treatment that will free a human from temptation. No one is free of temptation. Not even Jesus was free of temptation.

      You know full well I was talking about people who have the disordered inclination, and therefore experience that particular temptation, and that’s what I was meaning by “LGBT individuals” especially because I specifically went out of my way to clarify that that is what I was referring to.

      “Would you claim a person with a pedophilia problem doesn’t have the responsibility to go treat their psychological problems? What about someone with a gambling addiction?”

      Have I not repeatedly and specifically used alcohol addiction as another example?

      Tell me what the treatment to cure alcoholism is. I’d love to have such a miracle that I could hand out to all the people suffering from it in the world.
      There isn’t one. There are treatments to manage it. There are techniques to stay sober.
      Just like there are techniques to help someone with same sex attraction to not succumb to that temptation.

      There is not take-the-temptation-away pill. There is no mantra that will massage it away if you just repeat it enough times.

      “I can’t think of anything more perverted than people who have a perverted mind now declaring they are not responsible for treating it.”

      Who are you even talking to now?

      I have been specifically saying that people with same-sex attraction, who are able to live healthy, fruitful, faithful lives within the vocation the Church has provided them and without succumbing to the temptations they experience should be shown as role models to others who feel those temptations that they CAN be part of the Church. That they CAN withstand temptation. That they CAN carry the cross they have been given. It is not hopeless, they can be given the strength they need to resist temptation and live a good, healthy life that isn’t just a pit of misery, sorrow, and isolation.

      They NEED to hear that message. They need to know there is a place for them in the Church. They need to be told that the disorder they were born with is not a one-way ticket to Hell.

      • “There is no treatment that will free a human from temptation.”

        Here is your fallacy: because humans can have some kinds of temptation, it does not follow that they are obliged to have every kind of temptation. No human being needs to have a homosexuality problem, or a pedophilia problem, or a zoophile problem. That’s not how people are born. And all of these can be treated.

        Twisted and perverted desires are produced, they are a result of other underlying dynamics in a person’s mind. You change the dynamics, and you change the desires produced. Having a particular type of psychological dysfunction means that this person’s mind will produce certain kinds of desire.

        You argument is that every human being who has psychological problems can never treat them. That is hogwash – that shows you have no understanding of how psychology or therapy works. Psychological problems can be treated. You’re stuck with a Middle Ages kind of thinking where no one had basically any knowledge of psychology or psychological disorders. Psychological problems that produce warped desires can be treated.

        I asked you: “Would you claim a person with a pedophilia problem doesn’t have the responsibility to go treat their psychological problems? What about someone with a gambling addiction?”

        And you didn’t answer. What is your answer?

        Patrick said: “Have I not repeatedly and specifically used alcohol addiction as another example?”

        Are you aware that alcohol is a drug and that it creates a physical addiction? Are you aware that having a homosexuality problem does not involve taking any drugs? Your analogy to alcohol or heroin or any other kind of drug addiction is just nonsense. Homosexuality is not a drug problem – it is a profound psycho-social problem.

        “I can’t think of anything more perverted than people who have a
        perverted mind now declaring they are not responsible for treating it.”

        Patrick said: Who are you even talking to now?

        I am talking about the people who are pushing an agenda to normalize homosexuality, to divulge the false idea that people are born with a homosexual problem and that it is biologically determined, and to claim that a homosexuality problem cannot be treated. These are all perverted ideas.

        “I have been specifically saying that people with same-sex attraction, who are able to live healthy, fruitful, faithful lives”

        And I have pointed out that this is wrong.

        It is not healthy to have a homosexuality problem, just as it is not healthy to have any other kind of psychological dysfunction. People with psychological problems need to go treat them, especially the problems related to sexuality. And “faithful”? There goes language in the hand of the gay apologists.

        “That they CAN withstand temptation. That they CAN carry the cross they have been given.”

        And in that you are misleading them. It is quite wrong to think that people are not responsible for at least trying to resolve their dysfunctional minds that are producing perverted desires. The issue is not to sit there resisting like an idiot, which most sexually perverted people don’t even try to do (I’m talking about society at large). And even for those who try to resist, it just means that sooner or later the overwhelming majority will not resist and will do harm and violence to others. (Have you not followed the Catholic Church’s abuse scandal where most of the perpetrators were homosexuals? Do you have any idea of how much sexual harassment and other perverse sexual conduct LGBTs do in society?). What we must demand of people who have a dysfunctional sexuality is for them to go treat it. Then they won’t have any more perverted desires in that respect.

        You want a world full of pedophiles, homosexuals, and zoophiles. You want people with a deformed psychology to do nothing about it. That’s horrendously irresponsible.

        I want a world where all these people go treat their psychological problems and resolve them. And then everyone is a healthy heterosexual as each and every baby was born to be.

        “They need to be told that the disorder they were born”

        Do you work for GLAAD? The idea that a baby is born with a homosexuality problem is propaganda. It has no scientific or empirical basis.

        http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/not-born-lgbt/

        • Patrick

          I apologize, my response ended up being so long-winded I felt I needed to break it in half to make it easier to read. This is the second half, in case the software displays it first.

          You said: “”I
          have been specifically saying that people with same-sex attraction,
          who are able to live healthy, fruitful, faithful lives”

          And
          I have pointed out that this is wrong.

          It
          is not healthy to have a homosexuality problem, just as it is not
          healthy to have any other kind of psychological dysfunction.”

          Now,
          let’s quote ALL of my statement instead of cutting it off at a point
          that makes it seem like I was advocating something different than
          what I was.

          “I
          have been specifically saying that people with same-sex attraction,
          who are able to live healthy, fruitful, faithful lives within the
          vocation the Church has provided them and without succumbing to the
          temptations they experience should be shown as role models to others
          who feel those temptations that they CAN be part of the Church.”

          Are
          you saying that I am wrong in saying they can live the vocation the
          Church has for them? Because that is what I was saying. I was saying
          they can live as faithfully as any of us other sinners.

          And
          you’re equivocating “healthy” too.
          It is healthy for a
          schizophrenic to do the best they can to manage their condition. It
          doesn’t mean they are in perfect health, but considering their
          unfortunate condition, it is, in fact, a healthy lifestyle for them.

          You
          said: “People with psychological problems need to go treat them,
          especially the problems related to sexuality.”

          Again you say
          “go treat them” as if I hadn’t already explained that there isn’t
          just some switch for a doctor to flip and make any psychological
          problem just dry up and blow away.

          You said: “And “faithful”? There goes language in the
          hand of the gay apologists.”
          No “gay apologetics” here. The
          Catholic Church says “These persons are called to fulfill God’s
          will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the
          sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter
          from their condition.”
          I am saying it is, in fact, possible for
          them to faithfully live the vocation the Church has for them.

          To save a lot of large blocks of quotes in a post that is already
          far too long, I’ll just respond to your next paragraph by pointing
          out again that treatment is not some cure-all pill or mantra that
          fantastically makes any psychological problem vanish forever.
          If
          I’m wrong, tell me what the cure is. Don’t claim it exists. Tell me
          what the procedure or chemical is that so infallibly solves any
          disorder. I’ll spread the word and quality of life will increase
          dramatically worldwide.

          You said: “You
          want a world full of pedophiles, homosexuals, and zoophiles. You want
          people with a deformed psychology to do nothing about it. That’s
          horrendously irresponsible.”

          Now you’re just lying about me
          to my face.
          But if it makes you feel better I will declare that I
          do NOT “want a world full of pedophiles, homosexuals, and
          zoophiles.” I do NOT “want people with a deformed psychology to
          do nothing about it.”

          You really need to understand the
          difference between saying we do not have a cure for something and
          saying that people shouldn’t try to do anything to manage
          disorders.
          I am saying the first one, not the second. And I will
          keep explaining this until you stop misrepresenting me.

          You
          said: “I want a world where all these people go treat their
          psychological problems and resolve them.”

          And I want a world where no one ever again dies of hunger or
          curable disease and caffeine isn’t addictive and schizophrenia can be
          cured. I want a world without diabetes or cancer or baldness. I want
          a world with no unjust war and free lasagna on Fridays that never
          makes you fat. I want a world where children are never bullied or
          coerced.
          But it’s not that simple.
          The world you say you want
          because “go treat their psychological problems and resolve them”
          is about like saying you want a world where paraplegics just go get
          their paralysis treated and be able to walk again. It would be LOVELY
          and I would certainly favor a world where people did not need to
          suffer from such things, but that is not the world we live in and we
          cannot just play pretend and say it is.

          I said: “It is not hopeless, they can be given the strength they
          need to resist temptation and live a good, healthy life that isn’t
          just a pit of misery, sorrow, and isolation.

          They NEED to hear that message. They need to know there is a place
          for them in the Church.”

          You didn’t answer. What is your
          answer?

          “”They need to be told that the disorder they were born”

          Do you work for GLAAD? The idea that a baby is born with a
          homosexuality problem is propaganda. It has no scientific or
          empirical basis.”

          Again with the cutting-off of my sentence before the part that is
          the real point of it!

          No, I do not work for GLAAD. And for the
          sake of getting somewhere in this discussion I will retract the words
          “they were born with” and repeat the statement.

          They need
          to know there is a place for them in the Church. They need to be told
          that the disorder is not a one-way ticket to Hell.

          What is
          your answer now?I apologize, my response ended up being so long-winded I felt I needed to break it in half to make it easier to read.

          You said: “”I
          have been specifically saying that people with same-sex attraction,
          who are able to live healthy, fruitful, faithful lives”

          And
          I have pointed out that this is wrong.

          It
          is not healthy to have a homosexuality problem, just as it is not
          healthy to have any other kind of psychological dysfunction.”

          Now,
          let’s quote ALL of my statement instead of cutting it off at a point
          that makes it seem like I was advocating something different than
          what I was.

          “I
          have been specifically saying that people with same-sex attraction,
          who are able to live healthy, fruitful, faithful lives within the
          vocation the Church has provided them and without succumbing to the
          temptations they experience should be shown as role models to others
          who feel those temptations that they CAN be part of the Church.”

          Are
          you saying that I am wrong in saying they can live the vocation the
          Church has for them? Because that is what I was saying. I was saying
          they can live as faithfully as any of us other sinners.

          And
          you’re equivocating “healthy” too.
          It is healthy for a
          schizophrenic to do the best they can to manage their condition. It
          doesn’t mean they are in perfect health, but considering their
          unfortunate condition, it is, in fact, a healthy lifestyle for them.

          You
          said: “People with psychological problems need to go treat them,
          especially the problems related to sexuality.”

          Again you say
          “go treat them” as if I hadn’t already explained that there isn’t
          just some switch for a doctor to flip and make any psychological
          problem just dry up and blow away.

          You said: “And “faithful”? There goes language in the
          hand of the gay apologists.”
          No “gay apologetics” here. The
          Catholic Church says “These persons are called to fulfill God’s
          will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the
          sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter
          from their condition.”
          I am saying it is, in fact, possible for
          them to faithfully live the vocation the Church has for them.

          To save a lot of large blocks of quotes in a post that is already
          far too long, I’ll just respond to your next paragraph by pointing
          out again that treatment is not some cure-all pill or mantra that
          fantastically makes any psychological problem vanish forever.
          If
          I’m wrong, tell me what the cure is. Don’t claim it exists. Tell me
          what the procedure or chemical is that so infallibly solves any
          disorder. I’ll spread the word and quality of life will increase
          dramatically worldwide.

          You said: “You
          want a world full of pedophiles, homosexuals, and zoophiles. You want
          people with a deformed psychology to do nothing about it. That’s
          horrendously irresponsible.”

          Now you’re just lying about me
          to my face.
          But if it makes you feel better I will declare that I
          do NOT “want a world full of pedophiles, homosexuals, and
          zoophiles.” I do NOT “want people with a deformed psychology to
          do nothing about it.”

          You really need to understand the
          difference between saying we do not have a cure for something and
          saying that people shouldn’t try to do anything to manage
          disorders.
          I am saying the first one, not the second. And I will
          keep explaining this until you stop misrepresenting me.

          You
          said: “I want a world where all these people go treat their
          psychological problems and resolve them.”

          And I want a world where no one ever again dies of hunger or
          curable disease and caffeine isn’t addictive and schizophrenia can be
          cured. I want a world without diabetes or cancer or baldness. I want
          a world with no unjust war and free lasagna on Fridays that never
          makes you fat. I want a world where children are never bullied or
          coerced.
          But it’s not that simple.
          The world you say you want
          because “go treat their psychological problems and resolve them”
          is about like saying you want a world where paraplegics just go get
          their paralysis treated and be able to walk again. It would be LOVELY
          and I would certainly favor a world where people did not need to
          suffer from such things, but that is not the world we live in and we
          cannot just play pretend and say it is.

          I said: “It is not hopeless, they can be given the strength they
          need to resist temptation and live a good, healthy life that isn’t
          just a pit of misery, sorrow, and isolation.

          They NEED to hear that message. They need to know there is a place
          for them in the Church.”

          You didn’t answer. What is your
          answer?

          “”They need to be told that the disorder they were born”

          Do you work for GLAAD? The idea that a baby is born with a
          homosexuality problem is propaganda. It has no scientific or
          empirical basis.”

          Again with the cutting-off of my sentence before the part that is
          the real point of it!

          No, I do not work for GLAAD. And for the
          sake of getting somewhere in this discussion I will retract the words
          “they were born with” and repeat the statement.

          They need
          to know there is a place for them in the Church. They need to be told
          that the disorder is not a one-way ticket to Hell.

          What is
          your answer now?

  • MarcAlcan

    Instead of SSA (same sex attraction) then perhaps (SASG- sexual attraction to the same gender)?

  • MarcAlcan

    Christopher Damian, instead of trying to get approval for a disorder and defining yourself by that disorder, why not just say you are a human being. No heterosexual goes around proclaiming I am heterosexual. You inclination is a cross. A rather huge cross. But first and foremost you are a human being. There is no need to defend a disorder.

    • Patrick

      From what I can gather, he isn’t trying to defend the disorder, but simply saying that good can come of publicly showing that the disorder is not all powerful and that people can follow the Church’s calling for people who experience it WITHOUT living a life of loneliness and misery.

      Down Syndrome is not a gift, but sometimes helping someone with Down Syndrome can be a gift, because it teaches humility and charity, for instance.

  • kmk

    Christopher Damiam, I suggest using literal words instead of your revocabularizing since this tends to confuse things. You desire anal sex (please do not delete this). What is wrong with this desire is that you desire something selfish for yourself which is not in keeping with God’s will that we serve others.
    You missed out in your Bachelor’s degree something that is very simple and basic and beautiful. To love others is to want the best for others. Please stop trying to distort Catholicism to your way of thinking.

  • MMC

    It’s good you speak of language. We all need to finally decide which word means what…and make it UNIVERSAL not particular to each person so as to lessen confusion. Let’s stick to SSA being someone who has the disordered inclination of attraction to the same sex but is choosing the right road of chastity. Let’s stick to friendship as good old fashioned friendship. Let’s dump “gay” since that’s the enemy’s attempt to call something evil good. Let’s call those who engage in same sex acts homosexual. And for goodness sake…would you all finally realize that God has never nor ever wanted ANYONE to experience SSA. It is NOT God’s implicit will…it is not ‘good’ in any sense of the word. We serve a God of Hope and Healing…so it baffles me when those with SSA are perfectly comfortable living a broken life. Do the hard work. Work with a Christ centered counselor who deals with reparative therapy i.e. Voice of the Voiceless and become who GOD made you to be. Saying that God thinks it’s good and fine for you to be hunky dory with disordered desires is blasphemy. Freedom awaits you after the fight for truth, wholeness and healing. God bless~

    • Patrick

      “It’s good you speak of language. We all need to finally decide which word means what…and make it UNIVERSAL not particular to each person so as to lessen confusion.”

      Unfortunately, that is simply not how language works. Language is a tool of imperfect beings with limited, subjective perceptions of objective reality. It cannot be more objective than those using the words are.
      It’s just one of those struggles of the human condition.

      “Let’s stick to SSA being someone who has the disordered inclination of attraction to the same sex but is choosing the right road of chastity.”
      Except that is not precise. Same sex attraction is still present in those who act upon same sex attraction, so saying the term is not applicable to them is counter intuitive.

      “Let’s dump “gay” since that’s the enemy’s attempt to call something evil good.”

      Well, historically it was a mildly derogatory term for gay people applied to them by others, much like “pansy.”
      Pansies are a perfectly good flower, there’s nothing inherently wrong with them, but it was still used as a disphemism for homosexuals for quite a while.

      “Let’s call those who engage in same sex acts homosexual.”

      And how do you propose making those who feel the term “homosexual” doesn’t involve acts necessarily tow that line? How are you gonna make them them define the word the same way as you when they firmly believe you are the one adding in unnecessary conditions to the term?

      “And for goodness sake…would you all finally realize that God has never nor ever wanted ANYONE to experience SSA. It is NOT God’s implicit will…it is not ‘good’ in any sense of the word.”

      God never wanted anyone to be blind, either, but even that can be used to create good. By teaching humility to those of us who interact with blind people, for instance. Teaching us to care for others. Just because something is not good does not mean it cannot teach good if it is handled properly.

      “We serve a God of Hope and Healing…so it baffles me when those with SSA are perfectly comfortable living a broken life.”

      Because God can heal more people by giving you the strength to lift a cross and inspire others to faith than by simply taking the cross away.

      We can hope for a cross to be removed, but it is not our place to say that god must remove it if it is his will that he should instead give us the strength to lift it, either personally, or by providing others to help us.

      Not even Jesus was free from temptation.

      “Do the hard work. Work with a Christ centered counselor who deals with reparative therapy i.e. Voice of the Voiceless and become who GOD made you to be.”

      So, are you suggesting that those who’s temptation does not cease did not “do the hard work”?
      Would you say the same of alcoholics, even though typically their temptation persists lifelong and the “hard work” is that they remain sober, not some mantra that can spit out a miracle to-order like some kind of sorcerous vending machine if you repeat it 100,000 times?
      Miracles are God’s to perform, not ours.

  • Vladimir

    Hi Christopher,
    if you really wish to change your same sex attraction, look for help with the Christian Healing Ministry in Jacksonville, Fla. They pray and offer consultations on any situation people may have and are known for many inner healings of, also, homosexual people. Frncis and Judith MacNutt are a possible way to healing. If God wanted people to be homosexual, He would not condemn it in His Word, the Bible. That is not His plan for us. He has got much better plans for us. Satan has also his plans for people, but what do we see coming out his plans? Destruction on all levels of life and nature. May God bless you. Vladimir from Slovakia

  • “You have no idea what’s happening. I compare it all the time.”

    Patrick said: If you treat it as a moral evil when you treat the others as
    problematic disorders, you aren’t comparing them. You’re PRETENDING to compare them and then treating them differently.

    You are not being truthful about what think or say. There is very much a moral dimension to having a pedophilia problem or a zoophilia problem or an adultery problem or a promiscuity problem or a porn problem. Just like there is a moral dimension to having a homosexuality problem. The attitudes and thoughts that a person has regarding their deformed mind is part of that moral dimension.

    I treat all of these as problematic disorders having many moral evils.

    Furthermore, you apparently do not know what the word “compare” means. “Compare” means taking two things and seeing what is similar and what is different about them. Any two things can always be compared. You, yourself, and anybody else can compare homosexuality to pedophilia, for example, or to anything else. I’m not pretending to compare anything. I have taken all these disorders and have compared them, and I have also compared homosexuality with drug addictions. And the result of the comparisons is not the same. Are you in high school? How do you explain that you don’t know the meaning of such a basic word as “compare?”

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “You are not being truthful about what think or say. There is very much a moral dimension to having a pedophilia problem or a zoophilia problem or an adultery problem or a promiscuity problem or a porn problem. Just like there is a moral dimension to having a homosexuality problem. The attitudes and thoughts that a person has regarding their deformed mind is part of that moral dimension.

      I treat all of these as problematic disorders having many moral evils.”

      The disordered inclination is a physical evil (as are quadraplegia or hurricanes or congenital predisposition to diabetes).

      Committing sins inspired by a disordered inclination is a moral evil.

      If you treat a psychological disorder as a moral evil, you are just flat wrong, from a Catholic perspective.

      A schizophrenic needs help, not condemnation. It is a physical evil (even if it sometimes inspires moral evil…though usually the
      individual is not thinking clearly enough to understand what they are doing is sinful, so it is often only a venial sin)

      A blind person needs help, not condemnation. That is a physical evil, though it does not typically inspire moral evil, like some.

      A person with homosexual inclinations needs help, not condemnation. It is a physical evil, even if it often inspires moral evil. In fact, the tendency toward moral evil it creates makes the need to help them even more vital, so they can be given (and will be in a state willing to accept) guidance on the matter.

      Treating the inclination as proof of sinfulness is like treating tuberculosis (another physical evil) as proof of sinfulness.

      If you don’t treat them as people who are suffering and in need of compassionate assistance, then you need to review what the Church calls on us to do for the sick and suffering. You’re turning your back on them and isolating them from the community they need to help them.

      Alessandra said: “Furthermore, you apparently do not know what the word “compare” means.
      “Compare” means taking two things and seeing what is similar and what is different about them.”

      Seeing what is different between two things is known as “Contrasting” them, not “comparing.” Can you say, “contrast”? I knew you could!
      Don’t try to play a game of pedantic condescension against me. You’ll lose.
      It’s not something I’m proud of, but it is a skill that comes quite naturally to me if I let it.

      • A person with homosexual inclinations needs help, not condemnation. It is a physical evil, even if it often inspires moral evil.
        ================
        Sheer nonsense.

        There is no scientific or empiric evidence for any biological cause to homosexuality, but it seems you are particularly ignorant of what science says on the matter. Here’s a nice recap:

        http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/not-born-lgbt/

        And just out of curiosity, did the Church ever affirm that homosexuality is a physical and not psychological evil? What part of the body does the Church claim is diseased? Can you point me to the actual publication?

        “The disordered inclination is a physical evil (as are quadraplegia or hurricanes or congenital predisposition to diabetes).”

        Hurricanes?!!! LOL

        You’re outdoing your previous lunacy… please continue! We’ve gone into amusing territory! Newsflash: Catholic Church proclaims homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, pedophilia are like hurricanes!

        • Patrick

          Alessandra said: “There is no scientific or empiric evidence for any biological cause to homosexuality, but it seems you are particularly ignorant of what
          science says on the matter.”

          I never said that there is a biological cause to homosexuality. You misunderstood. I’m telling you right now.

          Isaid the disordered inclination is a physical evil because THAT IS CHURCH TEACHING.

          Physical evil is a THEOLOGICAL concept. It is an evil that results from an imperfect world and imperfect human nature, as distinguished from a moral evil, which is a deliberate sinful act.
          It is not a claim that something is biological in origin. Many things that are biological in origin are metaphysical evils. Jellyfish stings, for instance.

          Alessandra said: “And just out of curiosity, did the Church ever affirm that homosexuality is a physical and not psychological evil?”

          Now you’re just making up terms!

          Physical evil is, according to CatholicCulture.Org “Privation of a natural good desired by a human being.”

          “Psychological
          evil” is not a theological concept. Any psychological evil would
          fall within the category of physical evil.

          Alessandra said: “What part of the body does the Church claim is diseased?”

          Now you’re just showing you don’t know what the Church teachings on physical evil, metaphysical evil, and moral evil are.

          Alessandra said: “Newsflash: Catholic Church proclaims homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, pedophilia are like hurricanes!”

          Now, I could take a strategy from your play book and act like you were actually making that claim, but I’m not going to be intellectually dishonest like that.

          Homosexual inclinations: Physical evil.
          Homosexual acts: Moral evil.
          Porn: Moral evil.
          Promiscuity: Moral evil.
          Pedophilic inclination: Grave physical evil.
          Pedophilic acts: Extremely grave moral evil.
          Hurricanes: Metaphysical evil.

          Now I’ll add some extra examples.

          Blindness: Physical evil.
          Excessive desire for chocolate: Mild physical evil
          Assault: Moral evil
          Poisonous plants: Metaphysical evil
          Predatory carnivores preying on humans: Metaphysical evil

          Yes I was ambiguous and presented hurricanes as if they were in the same category as physical evils, and I apologize.

          The point, however, was to distinguish between moral evils and non moral evils. And in that regard, both physical and metaphysical evils are accurate items to contrast from them.

          If a hurricane blows a tree down on you and breaks your leg, that is a metaphysical evil causing a physical evil. If seeing a group of mercenaries massacre innocent civilians gives you Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, that is a moral evil that
          incidentally also causes a physical evil.

          If you need another lesson on Church teachings, I will happily oblige.

          Oh, and just to refocus on the subject:
          If you think the inclination (sans action upon that inclination) toward homosexual acts is a moral evil, you are outright saying the Church is wrong.

  • Patrick said: It is healthy for a schizophrenic to do the best they can to manage their condition. It doesn’t mean they are in perfect health, but considering their unfortunate condition, it is, in fact, a healthy lifestyle for them.

    Alessandra said: “People with psychological problems need to go treat them, especially the problems related to sexuality.”

    Patrick said: “Again you say “go treat them” as if I hadn’t already explained that there isn’t just some switch for a doctor to flip and make any psychological problem just dry up and blow away.”

    Psychological treatment does not involve any little switch like you imagine – that is a very misinformed and incorrect notion of therapy. Therapy is a profoundly transforming experience, when done well. And it is not something you do in 15 minutes – contrary to your clownish depictions of it.

    Let me repeat this: you have no idea what psychotherapy entails. First, because a good part of therapy deals with investigation. It entails getting to know how a person functions psychologically, and what is causing many problems. Second because it deals with understanding and working with those problems.

    “It is healthy for a schizophrenic to do the best they can to manage
    their condition. It doesn’t mean they are in perfect health, but
    considering their unfortunate condition, it is, in fact, a healthy
    lifestyle for them.”

    Look at the level of nonsense! A person who has a schizophrenic condition is profoundly ill. and they are suffering tremendously. They need treatment. Only someone completely ignorant and irresponsible could say their problem is menial or that it should not be treated and cured.

    You equate health to the most profoundly ill state!

    To speak plainly, I think you should go investigate your homosexuality problem with a good therapist (along with your caffeine dependency problem) and see what you might find out. I guarantee that if you found a good therapist, you’d be amazed at what you’d learn about how your own psychology works. However, it takes a certain kind of know-how to be able to find a good therapist -not an easy task by all means- so that’s that.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “Psychological treatment does not involve any little switch
      like you imagine – that is a very misinformed and incorrect notion of
      therapy. Therapy is a profoundly transforming experience, when done
      well. And it is not something you do in 15 minutes – contrary to your
      clownish depictions of it.”

      Wow.

      The “switch” was my characterization of the way you were presenting therapy, not a representation of how I thought it worked.

      My “clownish” depictions have been when I paraphrased YOUR misrepresentation of therapy.

      Stop skimming what I write and respond to my actual statements, please.

      Alessandra said: “Let me repeat this: you have no idea what psychotherapy
      entails. First, because a good part of therapy deals with investigation. It entails getting to know how a person functions psychologically, and what is causing many problems. Second because it deals with understanding and working with those problems.”

      That’s weird, because all your previous descriptions presented it as “go
      to therapy and the problem will go away.” Funny how suddenly it’s more complicated now that I’ve demonstrated that your claims were
      oversimplified.

      Alessandra said: “Look at the level of nonsense! A person who has a schizophrenic condition is profoundly ill. and they are suffering tremendously. They need treatment. Only someone completely ignorant and irresponsible could say their problem is menial or that it should not be treated and cured.”

      THEN I’TS A GOOD THING I NEVER ONCE SAID THAT!

      Pay attention! Schizophrenia should absolutely be treated, but you insist on flip-flopping the definitions of “treatment” virtually every sentence.

      There is no reliable, consistent, lifelong cure for schizophrenia, and no single approach is effective for all patients. Sometimes it can be put into remission and doesn’t come back. Sometimes no amount of treatment will make it go away for good. What is called for is managing the condition via treatment!

      If you don’t even know what the word “management” means in the context of therapy, you have no place implying I am ignorant of the field.

      But
      back on the subject of schizophrenia, the current consensus on the
      best approach to treatment is the Recovery Model.

      I’ll indulge my condescending side (since you felt it appropriate do
      insult me) and explain what that is on the educated guess you don’t
      know.

      The Recovery Model is an approach where treatment and recovery are a
      process, not an outcome.

      But you wouldn’t have already said things that contradict that approach
      to therapy for schizophrenia if you were as knowledgeable about the
      subject as you claim every few sentences.

      Alessandra said: “You equate health to the most profoundly ill
      state!”

      Health-Y. Health-Y.
      It is healthy for someone
      with a problem to get treatment for it, right?
      Isn’t it?
      It’s unhealthy for them not to manage their symptoms, right?
      If you agree, then you are agreeing to what I said!

      Stop arguing with some fantasy of what you think I might say and read what I’m
      actually saying.

      “To speak plainly, I think you should go investigate your homosexuality
      problem with a good therapist (along with your caffeine dependency problem) and see what you might find out.”

      Um… I hate to break it to you, but I have no homosexual inclinations. It’s not even a temptation. Your approach of “Assume all people who disagree are
      GLAAD button men without even bothering to determine what precisely they disagree about” seems to have failed you.
      You are contradicting Catholic Church teaching and misrepresenting the facts of psychological (and psychiatric) treatment to make it seem like you just “go and get treatment” like you go to the store and buy eggs (and you even disagree with me when I say it is not like a vending machine or a magic pill!)

      And I have to confess I implied my caffeine dependency was more severe than it actually is for the sake of argument. While it was bad when I was in college and doing unhealthy things like staying up all night to study, for close to a decade (aside from one six-month or so period of falling off the wagon) it has only been a momentary pang in times of high stress.
      That last remainder of the addiction has not disappeared or faded further, and at this point the only treatment necessary is to not have a caffeinated beverage within arms reach when I might be stressed out, because the temptation fades before I can actually go obtain one. All it is now is a reminder of vigilance and compassion, and a momentary frustration that I have little difficulty offering up as a sacrifice. Recovery and the lasting effects are a learning experience that have made me a more compassionate person, even if it is a somewhat trite example of a personal journey. “I used to drink too much soda, and now I don’t! And it was never even an occasion for sin but a utilitarian short-cut that backfired!” Not the stuff of motivational speeches by any means.

      If the addiction ever became a problem again, I would have no difficulty finding a referral to a good therapist, seeing as nearly every member of my family has multiple degrees in psychology, is a professional counselor, goes to therapy for a long-term disorder, or some combination of those.

      Didn’t expect my issues with your characterization of treatment was because I grew up reading college psychology textbooks, did you? Maybe you shouldn’t have jumped on the “You’re ignorant!” strategy so hastily.

      • “because I grew up reading college psychology textbooks,”

        What an expert! LOL You got me fooled there!

        You’re very good in misrepresenting what I think, that’s for sure. And making one false assumption after another too. Is this a result of all that reading or something else?

        • Patrick

          I’m somehow not surprised you have a disdain for reading.

          Like how you think that when I say “treating psychological disorders isn’t as simple as you are claiming” somehow means I think it’s simpler than the claim that I am saying is oversimplified.

          I have been consistently, constantly arguing in favor of treatment and giving them hope. You have been interpreting my “They need treatment” as “No one should every get any treatment for anything.”

          And I’ve been calling you out every time you do it.

          Reality isn’t subjective. Misrepresenting my point doesn’t change what my point actually is.

  • Patrick said: So when I tell you that even when people with schizophrenia go get
    treatment as you recommend, about 75% of people with it still have
    ongoing disability and relapses. ”

    Given that it seems you have read something somewhere (what’s your source?) about schizophrenia, what happened to the other 25%?

    Patrick said: “But I fully expect you’ll simply shift the goalposts and change your tune from “they should go get treatment” to “they weren’t getting the RIGHT treatment” while still actively avoiding answering my requests for what the right treatment is.”

    Oh, so you are ignorant about the fact that therapy can involve thousands of different forms of treatment and that unless a person get the appropriate treatment, it’s not going to work?

    And you are now going to say that I was advocating for people to get the wrong treatment? LOL

    Patrick you are descending fast into something that resembles great stupidity. I’m sure it’s not, but it just looks like it from where I’m standing.

    • Patrick

      Patrick said: So when I tell you that even when people with schizophrenia go
      get treatment as you recommend, about 75% of people with it still have ongoing disability and relapses. ”

      Alessandra said: Given that it seems you have read something somewhere (what’s your source?) about schizophrenia, what happened to the other 25%?

      Psst. When only 25% of individuals have the condition go away and stay away, that is perfectly compatible with my consistent statement that a cure is not always possible.

      You invented this “He’s saying cures are never possible” strawman. I never said that and I never will. My posts are still right here, you can go back and read them word for word if you want. Every time you claimed I was saying no cures are possible I IMMEDIATELY explained how that was not at all what I was saying. But you just kept on pretending because it was easier for you to argue against or because you never actually used enough critical reading skills to realize what I was actually saying.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20704164?dopt=Abstract
      And there’s the abstract for the source of that particular statistic. You’re welcome. Note that a scholarly paper in a scholarly, peer reviewed journal is not “just something I read somewhere.”

      Patrick said: “But I fully expect you’ll simply shift the goalposts and change your tune from “they should go get treatment” to “they weren’t getting the RIGHT treatment” while still actively avoiding answering my requests for what the right treatment is.”

      Alessandra said: “Oh, so you are ignorant about the fact that therapy can involve thousands of different forms of treatment and that unless a person get the appropriate treatment, it’s not going to work?”

      Nope,
      I was pointing out that your claim changed suddenly as soon as I
      provided evidence that your initial claim was faulty.
      You just blithely said “go get treatment” as if it were just some simple
      action and you even disagreed with me when I said it was not as simple as that.
      Now all of the sudden you’re acting like you never said that at all even though you spent half the day defending it.

      • Patrick said: “You invented this “He’s saying cures are never possible” strawman. I never said that and I never will.”

        Didn’t you say that people cannot successfully treat and cure their homosexuality problem?

        • Patrick

          NO! I never said that! Not once! Not ever!

          I took issue with the fact that you were acting like treatments and cures are the same thing. I took issue your dangerous conflation of remission and cures. I took issue with your claim that anyone who gets treatment will have every aspect the problem cease permanently, ignoring all the situations where the treatment works, but must be maintained for life to keep its effectiveness.

          I’m sure remission is possible in some cases. I am sure proper care and treatment can successfully manage the condition in the rest.
          I am even sure that God, if he so desires, can miraculously enact a cure.

          You were presenting the situation as “Go to therapy, get cure, recovery done: no more temptations ever.” And I protested that was horribly oversimplified.

          I would really appreciate it if you stopped trying to ascribe other people’s arguments to me simply because they disagree with you on something and I disagree with you on something else.

          • Patrick said: You were presenting the situation as “Go to therapy, get cure, recovery
            done: no more temptations ever.” And I protested that was horribly
            oversimplified.

            No, that’s not what I was presenting. You misinterpreted it that way. My point is that we live in a culture where people are systematically normalizing homosexuality and saying it does not need to be treated and cured. That is what people like Damian and Scalia and GLAAD and the APA are pushing for.

            Thus my insistence that what people with a homosexuality problem need to do is exactly to take responsibility for their deformed and perverted mind and go treat it, aside from resolving all their moral evilness which goes along with their underlying psychological dysfunctions.

            • Patrick

              Alessandra said: “No, that’s not what I was presenting. You misinterpreted it that way.”

              Then why did you defend that position each time I criticized it for an entire day of posting back and forth?
              Why didn’t you just correct me in the first place?
              Why did you instead decide to accuse me of claiming things shouldn’t be treated when I never even said anything vaguely resembling that?

              You could have saved us both a lot of frustration if you had just let me know I misunderstood you.

              Alessandra said: “My point is that we live in a culture where people are systematically normalizing homosexuality and saying it does not need to be treated and cured.”

              And you kept accusing me of agreeing with that even when I repeatedly said they absolutely should receive treatment?
              I said a cure shouldn’t be taken for granted, but there should STILL be treatment.
              Then you said I was arguing against treatment.
              Then I corrected you.
              Then you claimed it again.
              Then I corrected you again and tried to explain why.
              Then you claimed it AGAIN!

              Can you see where my frustration is coming from?

              “Thus my insistence that what people with a homosexuality problem need to do is exactly to take responsibility for their deformed and perverted mind and go treat it, aside from resolving all their moral evilness which goes along with their underlying psychological dysfunctions.”

              And apparently because I find it callous and disrespectful to use terms you know to be hurtful to describe a disorder, you decided I must believe the exact opposite of you in regards to treatment? Is that what happened?

              Or was it because I pointed out the inconsistency when you claimed we should treat it like any other disorder but also continually insist we treat it differently than any other disorder? That’s what started this whole debate, remember?

  • Alessandra said: “I think specialized psychotherapists along with a healthy environment is the way of the treatment.”

    Patrick said: That’s not a treatment. That’s “go get treatment” rephrased. Going to a psychotherapist is not a treatment, a psychotherapist ADMINISTERS a treatment.

    ==============

    What is the treatment that people do with pscyhotherapists, Patrick? Therapy. You don’t realize how stupid your question is, do you?

    Do you know what psychotherapy is and how it works? Please explain it. Otherwise don’t complain if I point just how ignorant you are about the subject.

    =================
    Patrick said: And please elaborate on “a healthy environment” that gives AT LEAST ONE TRAIT of that environment that MAKES it healthy. “Healthy” doesn’t count. Nor “conducive to treatment” nor other synonyms.

    It’s an environment where the individual is surrounded by others where they can establish positive and healthy relationships, in addition to a moral way of living. Education is important as well. Ignorance doesn’t help when people need to work through being sexually perverted and dysfunctional.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “What is the treatment that people do with pscyhotherapists, Patrick? Therapy. You don’t realize how stupid your question is, do you?”

      “Hey, Becky, what’s the recipe for this great cake?”
      “Well, Joe, you bake it.”
      “Bake what, in what proportions, and how?”
      “You just bake it! Duh! What a stupid question!”
      “But, like, for how long and at what temperature?”
      “You’re so stupid! Just bake it!”

      Alessandra said: “Do you know what psychotherapy is and how it works? Please explain it. Otherwise don’t complain if I point just how ignorant you are about the subject.”

      Ladies first.

      Yes I’m evading. I’m doing it because it’s funny seeing you squirm away from answering the very same questions you demand of me.

      Alessandra said: “It’s an environment where the individual is surrounded by others where they can establish positive and healthy relationships, in addition to a moral way of living. Education is important as well. Ignorance doesn’t help when people need to work through being sexually perverted and dysfunctional.”

      Alright, you finally got up the gumption to give an answer that involved ANY specifics AT ALL! Now we can finally make progress!

      Yes, I’d say that’s certainly a healthy environment. Dun-dun-duuuuun!

      Though I suspect if I’d said the same thing to you, you’d say that any environment in which they are suffering from a disorder is fundamentally unhealthy and accused me of saying no one should ever seek treatment for anything under any circumstances, and that my response was proof that I’m some double agent for the “gay mafia.”

      How are you going to spin me agreeing with you on that being a healthy environment? Will you suddenly equivocate everything you said to claim you meant something else for fear of not disagreeing with me?

      All this time, my primary objection has been your implication that permanent cures for any psychological condition one cares to mention are not only completely reliable in all cases (except schizophrenia where you define “always curable” as 25% chance of not having long-lasting disability and recurrence of symptoms), but also easy and readily available.

      If I was misunderstanding you on those, you should have said so right at
      the beginning instead of defending the positions I thought you were taking all day.

      My secondary objection was that you have a tendency to treat anyone who
      you even suspect might have the particular disorder of homosexual
      inclinations as an insidious and conniving enemy, rather than someone
      in need of people who can help them “establish positive and healthy
      relationships.”
      You very clearly DO NOT treat people with same sex attraction the same
      way you treat schizophrenics. You treat the latter as people with a
      disability, and the former as an evil cabal instead
      of people who also need compassion and help.

      • Alessandra said: “Do you know what psychotherapy is and how it works?
        Please explain it. Otherwise don’t complain if I point just how
        ignorant you are about the subject.”

        Patrick said: “Ladies first. Yes I’m evading. I’m doing it because it’s funny seeing you squirm away from answering the very same questions you demand of me.”
        It’s funny to see you squirming away at the same time that you try to falsely claim that I’m the one evading the question so that you don’t have to acknowledge you can’t answer.

        ==================

        “My secondary objection was that you have a tendency to treat anyone who
        you even suspect might have the particular disorder of homosexual
        inclinations as an insidious and conniving enemy, rather than someone
        in need of people who can help them “establish positive and healthy
        relationships.”
        You very clearly DO NOT treat people with same sex attraction the same
        way you treat schizophrenics. You treat the latter as people with a
        disability, and the former as an evil cabal instead
        of people who also need compassion and help.”

        Schizophrenics don’t form any kind of mafia in any institution and corrupt the institution from within, like LGBTs do. They don’t form political groups in society to make people think that being mentally ill is healthy – like your ignorant propaganda. No one in society, except you perhaps, is claiming that schizophrenia is healthy and shouldn’t be treated because treatment is not always successful. Schizophrenics don’t degrade human beings with a perverted form of sexuality; they don’t spread deadly STDs; they don’t sexually harass people at work, at educational environments, at churches, and socially; they don’t molest and abuse children; they don’t sexually traffic people; they don’t try to destroy marriage; they don’t cover up the sexual abuse, harassment, and all other harm that any schizophrenic might do, because they don’t organize to do harm. Schizophrenics are people who are mentally ill. People with a homosexuality problem are sexually perverse, deformed, and dysfunctional, but are in touch with reality. They are completely responsible for all the harm and evil they do. Schizophrenics don’t spend millions of dollars promoting an evil and perverted sexuality as normal in the world. They are corrupting youth, perverting their minds with their nasty agenda. Schizophrenics don’t claim to have been born that way so everybody has to accept them as healthy.

        You just want to run away from facing all the harm and violence that LGBTPs do in society. And that is against Catholic teaching. You don’t help perverts by failing your responsibility to hold them accountable for all the evil they do in society. Your deliberate blindness to all the harm that LGBTs do in society is what makes it possible for them to do so much harm. All you do is to lie about the multiple ways LGBTs are evil and do harm, starting with their systematic practice of creating gay mafias. Lying about the evil that LGBTs do is not a part of Catholic teaching, is it? Apparently you think it is.

        You go against Catholic teaching in all you are doing here.

        • Patrick

          Alessandra said: “It’s funny to see you squirming away at the same time that you try to falsely claim that I’m the one evading the question so that you don’t have to acknowledge you can’t answer.”

          You insist you are knowledgeable about psychotherapy but you weren’t even familiar with the Recovery Model.

          That calls your implied credentials into question.

          Where’s your expertise come from?

          I can keep asking for as long as it takes, and every time you refuse to answer it calls your credibility into question anew.

          I know your strategy is to get me to give an answer first and then simply deride it as if your expertise were so much greater without ever even giving your own credentials, and I’m not going to make it that easy for you to be intellectually dishonest.

          Alessandra said: “They don’t form political groups in society to make people think that being mentally ill is healthy – like your ignorant propaganda.”

          You misread what I said. I said seeking treatment is healthy. I said maintaining treatment is healthy.
          Do you disagree?
          Seeking and receiving treatment, even for conditions that are only cured in 25% of cases is healthy, right?
          People who aren’t healthy SHOULD get treatment, right? It is the most healthy thing they can do, isn’t it?
          Yes?

          Alessandra said: No one in society, except you perhaps, is claiming that schizophrenia is healthy and shouldn’t be treated because treatment is not always successful.”

          I said that GETTING TREATMENT is healthy.

          I’m really trying not to lose my temper with you, but it is really hard when you would prefer to just skim a few key words from what I said and then INVENT an argument that uses them and attribute it to me instead of ACTUALLY READING WHAT I SAY.

          They should get treatment even if there isn’t a reliable cure.
          They should get treatment even if there isn’t a reliable cure.
          They should get treatment even if there isn’t a reliable cure.
          They should get treatment even if there isn’t a reliable cure.
          They should get treatment even if there isn’t a reliable cure.

          Now can you stop claiming I said the opposite of that?

          Alessandra said: “Schizophrenics are people who are mentally ill. People with a homosexuality problem are sexually perverse, deformed, and dysfunctional, but are in touch with reality.”

          So now YOU”RE saying that gay people ARE NOT disordered?

          Furthermore, how do you expect to convince them to get treatment if you can’t write a paragraph without all but calling them “Nazi demon hellbeasts” or “inhuman monsters”?

          Alessandra said: “You just want to run away from facing all the harm and violence that LGBTPs do in society.”

          People who are treated badly tend to treat others badly in kind. The solution is to help them from early on and protect them from being called “disgusting” or “deformed” so they don’t see us as an enemy later on.

          And no matter how much rhetorical sleight of hand you try to use, the Catechism says I (and I quote) “must” show them respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

          So even when I am trying to combat problems they cause, I still have to do so in a manner that shows respect, compassion, and sensitivity to my opponents.

          Loving your enemies is hard, but it’s how Christians have to do things.
          Sometimes the right way isn’t easy.

          • “I know your strategy is to get me to give an answer first and then
            simply deride it as if your expertise were so much greater without ever
            even giving your own credentials, and I’m not going to make it that easy
            for you to be intellectually dishonest.”

            Running away again! With all your psychology textbook expertise! Looks like before you call other people “intellectually dishonest” you need to take a little look in the mirror.

            Why are you so afraid of what I have to say about your answer? Are you afraid of the derision because your answer is so ignorant?

            I mean, if you had a knowledgeable answer, no derision would stick. On the other hand, if you’re just spewing ignorance here, you have a lot to fear about the derision coming, because it’s well deserved.

            • Patrick

              I’m not afraid. I just know that no matter WHAT answer I give, you’ll pretend to be more qualified and throw more veiled insults at me.
              Why would I walk into that trap?

              And if it’s not a trap, feel free to demonstrate that by giving me your credentials. I will then apologize for my suspicions and tell you mine in turn.

              There you go. I’ve told you exactly what to do to not only get the answer from me, but an apology on top of it!

              Would you really like to hear my answer?

              • Kindergarden…

                • Patrick

                  If you want my answer, you know what to do to get it.

                  I am fully willing to tell you, I just will not walk into an amateurish debate trap, so all I need is one simple show of good faith on your part and I’ll tell you.

                  Are you afraid to actually hear my answer or something?

  • Alessandra said: “Let me repeat this: you have no idea what psychotherapy
    entails. First, because a good part of therapy deals with investigation. It
    entails getting to know how a person functions psychologically, and what
    is causing many problems. Second because it deals with understanding
    and working with those problems.”

    Patrick said: “That’s weird, because all your previous descriptions presented it as “go
    to therapy and the problem will go away.” Funny how suddenly it’s more
    complicated now that I’ve demonstrated that your claims were
    oversimplified.”

    So you assumed incorrectly that I meant it was just a switch! I’m used to talking to people who understand that therapy is complex, so there is no need to repeat all its inherent characteristics every time one speaks of it. Sorry, the only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you love to make totally incorrect assumptions about what I think.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “So you assumed incorrectly that I meant it was just a switch!”

      You kept treating it like it was and I kept saying it was not like a switch.
      You kept disagreeing with me when I said it was not like a switch. For an entire day.
      You kept insisting I was wrong when I said it was not like a switch.

      THEN you started claiming I was saying it was like a switch when I had been insisting the EXACT OPPOSITE THE WHOLE TIME.

      If I misunderstood you, you should have SAID SO instead of defending the point you “weren’t making” all day!

      Alessandra said: “I’m used to talking to people who understand that therapy is complex”

      In every single one of my posts my primary criticism of what you were saying is that therapy is MORE complex than you were acting like.

      When I keep saying “It’s not that simple” over and over, that means I am aware that it is complex, right?
      I’m outright saying it IS complex. I have been since the beginning.

      YOU DISAGREED WITH MY STATEMENTS THAT IT IS COMPLEX.

      I have been repeatedly telling you that my issue was that you were presenting therapy as some simple thing.

      How in the world do you think my complaints that “therapy is more complex than that” mean that I think it’s simple?

      How is what I”m saying getting turned into the opposite statement in your head before you respond to it?

      • Alessandra said: “So you assumed incorrectly that I meant it was just a switch!”

        Patrick said: “You kept treating it like it was”

        No. I repeatedly said that people who have a homosexuality problem need to investigate it and treat it. There is no mention of “switch” or any such claim.

        So you distorted what I wrote every single time to mean it was just a “switch.” And you refuse to acknowledge it. I didn’t know being intellectually dishonest is Catholic teaching…

        • Patrick

          You repeatedly simply said “go get treatment” as the solution to the issue, even when asked what treatment you were referring to.

          I apologize for misunderstanding you, but it would have saved a lot of frustration if you had told me the first time, instead of defending the point that apparently wasn’t being made.

          Now can I get an apology for your continued insistence that I was against treatment when I corrected you and explained I was in favor of treatment every single time you said it (at least half a dozen different times over multiple days, including after you had replied to the posts I corrected you in)?

          • You repeatedly simply said “go get treatment” as the solution to the
            issue, even when asked what treatment you were referring to.
            =============
            I said it was psychotherapy. And I asked you if you even know what that is. And you refuse to answer.

            • Patrick

              Yes, after DAYS of being pressured to give an actual answer.

              Prior to that you just kept saying “go get treatment” and it would be “resolved.”

              Considering I was talking about concepts used in psychotherapy and cited actual peer-reviewed journals regarding treatment of psychological disorders, and have mentioned that I have family members RECEIVING it, I think it’s a fairly safe assumption I am at least passingly familiar with the concept.

              You, on the other hand, have cited only your own posts on your own personal blog, and keep talking about versions of therapy that don’t closely resemble any standard approach currently in use.

              And I’d just like to point out that I did NOT refuse to answer about my credentials on the subject. I would happily tell you, you just have to answer the question I specified first. It’s not even a right-or-wrong question and you don’t have to answer “correctly.”

              If you truly do want to know my credentials, just tell me what yours are and I’ll share mine. I’m ready and waiting.

              • Prior to that you just kept saying “go get treatment” and it would be “resolved.”
                ===========
                No, I never said this. I said they need to go get treatment in order to resolve it. You’re lacking intelligence to understand the difference. You have tried to distort what I said from the very beginning.

                “You, on the other hand, have cited only your own posts on your own
                personal blog, and keep talking about versions of therapy that don’t
                closely resemble any standard approach currently in use.”

                You don’t even understand what I’m talking about most of the time. You have no idea what all the approaches to therapy are and who uses them.

                • Patrick

                  Alessandra said: “No, I never said this. I said they need to go get treatment in order to resolve it. You’re lacking intelligence to understand the difference. You have tried to distort what I said from the very beginning.”

                  Insults aren’t a very Christian way of having a discussion.

                  And if you would like I could make a list of all the times you claimed that, with quotes, sorted by time. It would be rather time consuming, but I am willing to put in the effort if necessary.

                  Alessandra said: “You don’t even understand what I’m talking about most of the time.”

                  You thought my switch metaphor was representing my
                  belief on how it worked even though I was clearly referring to your statements, and again even after I clarified.

                  You accused me several times of being against treatment of any kind, even after I had repeatedly told you I was absolutely in favor of treatment.

                  You even accused me of being gay and working for some gay lobby group when I was clearly declaring support for the Catholic Church’s position on the issue in every way.

                  People in glass houses should not throw stones.

                  Alessandra
                  said: “You have no idea what all the approaches to therapy are and who uses them.”

                  I’ve demonstrated a better working knowledge of it than you have, no offense.
                  I’ve even told you a slight *fraction* of where I know it from. The tip of the iceberg, so to speak. And I’ve told you the tiny, simple step for you to take for me to tell you the rest. Not even inconvenient, just a little show of good faith.

                  From what little you’ve said, I can’t even be sure you’ve ever even read a single book on the subject. There’s studies you refuse to give any identifying information on, but that’s hardly a basis for a claim of expertise.

                  • Alessandra said: “No, I never said this. I said they need to go get
                    treatment in order to resolve it. You’re lacking intelligence to
                    understand the difference. You have tried to distort what I said from
                    the very beginning.”

                    Patrick said: “Insults aren’t a very Christian way of having a discussion.”

                    Being dishonest about what I am saying – that is, lying- is not Christian at all. I’d be happy to see you start behaving like a Christian, but it’s not happening…

                    Patrick said: “From what little you’ve said, I can’t even be sure you’ve ever even read a single book on the subject.”

                    From the height of your kindergarten textbook knowledge, that settles it for you then.

                    Patrick said: ” I’ve demonstrated a better working knowledge of it than you have, no offense.”

                    LOL

                    • Patrick

                      Alessandra said: “Being dishonest about what I am saying – that is, lying- is not Christian at all. I’d be happy to see you start behaving like a Christian, but it’s not happening…”

                      Calling people stupid is an insult even if you phrase it as “lacking in intelligence.” Even if you think they’re wrong, making random declarations of someone else’s stupidity is still an insult, and it is not a valid form of reason or logic.

                      And trust me, I know insults like an AA member knows booze.

                      Charity and patience. Charity and patience.

                      Alessandra said: “From the height of your kindergarten textbook knowledge, that settles it for you then.”

                      I was giving a tiny taste of my qualifications, starting with the least relevant.

                      My offer to tell you my full credentials on the subject still stands.

                      Do you want to hear it?

                      If you do, all you have to do is say where yours came from. Just stop evading the subject and I’ll give you the answer you demand so fervently.

                      I’ve even given you specific studies that are related to the subject, with a full scholarly-level bibliography entry for them.

                      You’ve… quoted yourself. And then laughed at how ignorant people are for not accepting your say-so as fact when you very carefully avoid ever referencing any source aside from your own assertions.

  • Patrick said: Physical evil is a THEOLOGICAL concept. It is an evil that results from
    an imperfect world and imperfect human nature, as distinguished from a
    moral evil, which is a deliberate sinful act.
    ==============
    Therefore, for a person with a homosexual or bisexual or pedophilia or zoophilia problem to not go to treat their sexually perverted mind that produces physical evil is a deliberate act (in case psychological treatment and other beneficial actions may be available in that’s person’s environment). It is sinful.
    Telling people they are not responsible for treating their sexually perverted minds is a sin. It’s what you are doing.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “Therefore,
      for a person with a homosexual or bisexual or pedophilia or zoophilia
      problem to not go to treat their sexually perverted mind that
      produces physical evil is a deliberate act (in case psychological
      treatment and other beneficial actions may be available in that’s
      person’s environment). It is sinful.
      Telling
      people they are not responsible for treating their sexually perverted
      minds is a sin. It’s what you are doing.”

      Lying about what I said don’t help your argument.

      They should get help. They should receive treatment.

      Keep reading those two sentences until you understand that you IMAGINED the idea that I’m saying they shouldn’t have treatment.

      I never said it and have corrected you every single time you’ve claimed I did.

      Acting on disordered inclination is sinful, and thus disordered inclinations
      should be treated as well as possible.

      Get that?

      Calling the disordered inclination a physical evil is not saying nothing can be done about it.

      Calling a spider bite a metaphysical evil is not saying nothing can be done about it.

      Stop arguing with the imaginary person who always says the diametric opposite of what you think and argue with what I am saying!

  • Pingback: Everybody Hurts | Spiritual Friendship()

  • Francis

    I have been closely following the discussion between Mr. Ruse and Mr. Damian and have found their debate to be very interesting and enlightening. I thank them for being charitable in their disagreements and for being honest in this debate. I think it is important to know that there are people out there who struggle deeply with their identity but who have also found a home in the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church. However, I cannot believe how uncharitable many of the comments are on here. Aren’t we Catholic?! And Patrick, I give you credit for enthusiastically engaging the entire comments section all at once! A tip of the hat to you for continually resorting to reason instead of blatant emotional hostility. I have learned something from your comments so I thank you for your clarity.

  • Patrick said: ” Tell me what the treatment to CURE alcoholism is. I’d love to have
    such a miracle that I could hand out to all the people suffering from it in the world.
    THERE ISN’T ONE. There are treatments to MANAGE it. There are techniques to stay sober.
    Just like there are techniques to help someone with same sex attraction to not succumb to that temptation. There is not take-the-temptation-away pill. There is no mantra that will massage it away if you just repeat it enough times.”

    Alessandra asked: Didn’t you say that people CANNOT successfully treat and cure their homosexuality problem?

    Patrick said: NO! I never said that! Not once! Not ever! I took issue with the fact that you were acting like treatments and cures are the same thing. I took issue your dangerous conflation of remission and cures. I took issue with your claim that anyone who gets treatment will have every aspect the problem cease permanently, ignoring all the situations where the treatment works, but must be maintained for life to keep its effectiveness.”
    =========================

    So you write that there is NO cure for alcoholism, only ways to manage it and present that as analogous to homosexuality – a very stupid claim, as already pointed out because alcoholism is a drug addiction problem, while homosexuality is dysfunctional and perverted sexual psychology problem involving no drug whatsoever.

    But you did write that alcoholism has NO cure. And that is what you presented as being EQUAL to homosexuality. And you said there are only techniques for someone not to succumb to their deformed homosexual attractions. Evidently you were claiming that their perverted and dysfunctional attractions and other sexual feelings remain forever. And then you claim that you weren’t saying there was no cure for having a homosexuality problem! Backpedal and contradict yourself away…

    So let me say it again: you are wrong. Homosexuality is nothing like alcoholism. If the underlying problems that are causing the homosexuality dysfunction are resolved, there is cure. There is no more “temptation”, inclination, or whatever name you want to give it. There is nothing homosexual to succumb to. The problem is resolved.

    Furthermore, when I say, each and every time, that if you resolve the underlying problems that are causing homosexuality, there is no more homosexuality problem, it doesn’t mean that I’m saying it entails flipping a switch, or that every person who has a psychological problem (of any kind) has the resources available to treat the problem. That’s your clownish interpretation of what I am saying. And it’s the only thing you did here from the very first time I said that people who have a homosexuality problem need to go treat it.

    ” I took issue with the fact that you were acting like treatments and cures are the same thing”

    I never did. Nowhere did I say that any treatment entails cure or are the same thing. You misinterpreted what I was saying from the very beginning and refuse to acknowledge it.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra
      said: “So you write that there is NO cure for alcoholism, only ways
      to manage it…”

      Which you initially disagreed with…

      Alessandra said: “…and you present that as analogous to homosexuality…”

      Because even the organizations trying to help people with homosexual inclinations to overcome them report that less than 1% of the people who come to them experience a change in orientation.

      There is the possibility of a miracle, but that’s not a treatment, that is divine
      intervention. That is something that is completely out of our
      hands.

      I also said they should seek treatment anyway, because recovery can happen with treatment even without a cure being possible. Even for alcoholism.

      Alessandra said: “But you did write that alcoholism has NO cure. And that is what you presented as being EQUAL to homosexuality.”

      I said they were COMPARABLE (you remember what you said that word means, right?) in that even if there is not a cure, recovery is still possible with treatment!

      Alessandra said: “And you said there are only techniques for someone not to
      succumb to their deformed homosexual attractions. Evidently you were claiming that their perverted and dysfunctional attractions and other sexual feelings remain forever. And then you claim that you weren’t saying there was no cure for having a homosexuality problem! Backpedal and contradict yourself away…”

      There you go claiming that the only treatments are a cure and only cures count as treatment again.

      Just as some schizophrenics will end up having to treat their condition continually for their entire life, some people with homosexual inclinations will need to keep treating that condition for the rest of their lifetime.

      Note that I just said treatment exists and should be used, just that there is not
      a reliable cure known to modern science.

      Alessandra said: “If the underlying problems that are causing the homosexuality dysfunction are resolved, there is cure. There is no more
      “temptation”, inclination, or whatever name you want to give it. There is nothing homosexual to succumb to. The problem is resolved.”

      Every organization trying to provide valuable treatment to people with homosexual inclinations disagrees with you.

      I’m curious where you got this “information” about therapy from. What are your credentials or what is your source for that information that none of the people providing the very treatments we’re talking about are aware of?

      Alessandra said: “Furthermore, when I say, each and every time, that if you
      resolve the underlying problems that are causing homosexuality, there is no more homosexuality problem, it doesn’t mean that I’m saying it entails flipping a switch, or that every person who has a psychological problem (of any kind) has the resources available to treat the problem.”

      So you are saying that some of them DO NOT have a cure available and will have to treat the condition for the rest of their life.
      In other words you are agreeing with what I just said.

      I said: ” I took issue with the fact that you were acting like treatments and cures are the same thing”

      Alessandra said: “I never did. Nowhere did I say that any treatment entails cure or are the same thing. You misinterpreted what I was saying from the very
      beginning and refuse to acknowledge it.”

      I just want to know why you kept defending the claim you didn’t make for so many posts before letting me know I misunderstood. Why you still keep using the words virtually interchangeably even now that you say you don’t think they are, as well.

      • Alessandra said: “…and you present that as analogous to homosexuality…”

        Patrick said: Because even the organizations trying to help people with homosexual inclinations to overcome them report that less than 1% of the people who come to them experience a change in orientation.

        Can you detail what happened in any one of these cases? Why did they change?

        • Patrick

          Given the groups in question generally keep their records confidential to protect the privacy of their clients (and thus only present aggregate statistics regarding success), no, I couldn’t detail those cases. I’m not a mind-reader.

          I do know that some of the people who reported that result to the organizations at the end of their treatment later reported that either the change in orientation reversed itself or that they had only reported it changed out of pressure or enthusiasm or other reasons, when they quietly had still only been treating the condition but still felt the inclinations.

          A self-reported rate of between 0.4% and 1% experiencing even temporary change of orientation isn’t something I would go around advertising as a reliable cure. Maybe more science can find something there that can be used to get better results, but as it stands for now, that result is an exception rather than the rule.

          That is why we should focus on the Recovery Model rather than a “come get a cure” model.

          • Here’s my view: there needs to be a focus on investigating the people who have changed (both in and outside of therapy). Plus to continue to investigate what are the underlying problems that produce a homosexuality, a bisexuality, and a pedophilia problem. Second, more focus on how normalizing homosexuality corrupts society, human interactions, the church, and certainly research efforts.

            • Patrick

              Alessandra
              said: “Here’s my view: there needs to be a focus on investigating
              the people who have changed (both in and outside of therapy).”

              Sure,
              but until that happens you can’t just make up your own
              answers.

              Alessandra said: “Plus to continue to
              investigate what are the underlying problems that produce a
              homosexuality, a bisexuality, and a pedophilia problem.”

              All
              well and good.
              But that doesn’t mean we know of anything we could honestly present as a cure now, though. And recovery has to happen in
              the now, not in some ambiguous future.

              Alessandra said:
              “Second, more focus on how normalizing homosexuality corrupts
              society, human interactions, the church, and certainly research
              efforts.”

              Never anything wrong with more in-depth
              research.

              The fact remains, though, that we can only do now
              what current research has made possible. We haven’t got the benefit
              of a time machine, so we have to make due with what we have until we can get more.

              • But that doesn’t mean we know of anything we could honestly present as a cure now, though.
                ==============
                Given that there are people who have changed and resolved their homosexuality problem, and are speaking out about it, speak for yourself. It means you don’t know. Given that no one knows what has been the outcome of all the people who have done therapy, because the majority of them are doing therapy individually and have no link to any organization, you certainly cannot say that there is no cure today.

                And the garbage of the people in GLAAD and the APA are pushing for complete ignorance on the subject, given how ideologically corrupt they are. Whenever homosexuals infiltrate an institution, they always corrupt it. Just like they did in the Catholic Church.

                It’s not because it’s difficult for a person with a pedophilia problem to be cured that society is going to let them form pedophile mafias and normalize pedophilia, and act out their pedophilia – like society is doing with LGBs.
                Telling LGBTPs that they can just resist temptation is profoundly
                dishonest. They can’t. Their minds are warped and perverted – that’s always the state of their mind. But that’s not even the question because the majority of LGBTPs don’t want to resist anything.

                Look at these Catholics with a homosexual problem claiming that because they don’t do sodomy, they shouldn’t have to treat their deformed minds and should be free to act out their perverted homosexuality towards other people as long as there is no sodomy involved. Then we have countless cases of sexual harassment, abuse, cover-ups, porn, STDs, etc., involving these people.

                It’s obvious that people with a perverted mind are going to want to other people accept them and bow down to them instead of holding them accountable. LGBTPs have a better chance at resolving their deformed
                psychologies through therapy with what is known today than resisting all the perverted thoughts and dynamics and
                desires that their minds produce constantly if they keep insisting they are normal and don’t need to treat anything.

                • Patrick

                  Alessandra said: “Given that there are people who have changed and resolved their homosexuality problem, and are speaking out about it, speak for yourself.”

                  Given that they are not even a statistically significant portion of the people who received the treatment they are claiming had that effect, it would be dishonest to present that treatment to people as if it were a cure.

                  You know about professional ethics, right? Surely that was included in your mysterious, unidentified source of knowledge about therapy?

                  Alessandra said: “It means you don’t know. Given that no one knows what has been the outcome of all the people who have done therapy, because the majority of them are doing therapy individually and have no link to any organization, you certainly cannot say that there is no cure today.”

                  It certainly means there is no KNOWN cure.
                  If there was, we’d KNOW it. Thus the term, “known cure.”

                  If a medicine had a 0.4% chance of success, the conclusion would be “this is indistinguishable from a placebo and cannot ethically be presented as a cure when we know it generally won’t do anything of the sort.”

                  Calling it a cure means you’re lying to 99.6% of the people you’re recommending it to. The recovery model would be honest and provide hope and treatment to ALL of them, whether they are part of the half of a percent it will achieve full remission in or not.

                  Alessandra said: “Telling LGBTPs that they can just resist temptation is profoundly dishonest. They can’t. Their minds are warped and perverted – that’s always the state of their mind.”

                  Ah, there you go lying about me claiming there shouldn’t be therapy again. It took, what, 48 hours from the last time I repeatedly corrected you on the point over and over and over for you to start again?

                  That’s not what the Recovery Model of treatment is.
                  You should know this with all this expertise you claim to have on the subject of therapy.
                  It’s not even a difficult concept. It’s been in common use in many, many forms of therapy for many, many different problems since before I was even born!

                  Alessandra said: “Look at these Catholics with a homosexual problem claiming that because they don’t do sodomy, they shouldn’t have to treat their deformed minds and should be free to act out their perverted homosexuality towards other people as long as there is no sodomy involved.”

                  Just because they haven’t been cured doesn’t mean they aren’t receiving treatment!
                  Just because there isn’t a known, reliable cure doesn’t mean they *shouldn’t* receive treatment!
                  They should get treatment.
                  I believe they should get treatment. I have told you more than a dozen separate times that they should get treatment.

                  Stop claiming we’re against treatment. The Church even has groups dedicated to helping those people GET the treatment they need. It just doesn’t include a dishonest promise of a cure that may only pan out for one in every two hundred of them. It includes a promise of RECOVERY. If you don’t know why that’s important, you don’t understand much of anything about therapy or psychology, or psychiatry, or mental disorders.

                  Alessandra said: “It’s obvious that people with a perverted mind are going to want to other people accept them and bow down to them instead of holding them accountable. LGBTPs have a better chance at resolving their deformed psychologies through therapy with what is known today than resisting all the perverted thoughts and dynamics and desires that their minds produce constantly if they keep insisting they are normal and don’t
                  need to treat anything.”

                  You keep forgetting that I am IN FAVOR OF TREATMENT in all cases for these individuals.
                  I just don’t want them to give up because they won’t necessarily get a permanent cure, or even a complete one (since neither you, nor anyone else can seem to present even a battery of treatments that have better than a 1% chance of achieving a full cure…though given how many of the people report their orientation changed, but later say it didn’t stick, I should probably say remission rather than cure anyway).
                  They should be focused on Recovery. The Recovery Model allows for cures. If the individual is cured, that’s great. If not, they are still recovering as best as possible.

                  Simple, elementary level concepts about therapy here.
                  If I take your word for it regarding your education on the topic, the only conclusion is that you already know about all this, but are deliberately lying for some reason.
                  Alternately, you don’t know as much about this as you’d like us to believe. I can’t really see another possibility.

                  • Alessandra said: “It means you don’t know. Given that no one knows what has been the outcome of all the people who have done therapy, because the majority of them are doing therapy individually and have no link to any organization, you certainly cannot say that there is no cure today.”

                    Patrick said: It certainly means there is no KNOWN cure.

                    Wrong again. There are people who claim to have been cured. That is known. And some explain why. So it is known by certain people – albeit perhaps not in the most analyzed or detailed way. Clearly, what happened to them is something you know nothing about. But that’s you. Not everyone else.

                    And why don’t you know more about it? Because the garbage of LGBTPs, their activists, lobbyists, and academic supporters are basically sabotaging every investigation and research effort on the matter in order to normalize homosexuality.

                    “Given that they are not even a statistically significant portion of the people who received the treatment they are claiming had that effect, it would be dishonest to present that treatment to people as if it were a cure.”

                    It depends on what you mean. It would be dishonest to say there is a guarantee of cure – but nobody is saying that. It is honest to say it can be cured however.

                    Second, you are assuming that the therapies were the same. I doubt that first of all. Second, even if some were similar, then the question is: why did it work for one individual and not for another? What are the differences in the individual profiles?

                    I have nothing against telling people that there is no guarantee that doing any kind of therapy is going to solve their homosexuality problem. I do think that the problem can be solved with the right therapy and other environmental elements though.

                    The problem I see is that you are saying there is no cure (which is what you said: “no known cure”), and obviously that will discourage people from doing therapy, and then society will not develop knowledge in understanding causes, diagnoses, treatments, etc. etc. It’s a vicious circle. Also, part of what is required is exactly studying what doesn’t work, with therapy and aside from therapy. You can’t develop treatments if you don’t investigate.

                    “If a medicine had a 0.4% chance of success, ”

                    A chemical medicine is always the same. Therapy is always different and individual. If one medicine has a 0.4% of success and another medicine has a 100% chance of success, and you give both medicines the same name, and say they both have a 0.4% chance of success, the mistake is yours.

                    Third, society needs to be aware of how much harm and violence LGBTPs are doing. And to stop with the enabling, promotion, and impunity. Which is what you are doing.

                    • Patrick

                      Alessandra said: “Wrong again. There are people who claim to have been cured. That is known.”

                      1) A large proportion of them later said their inclinations returned, or admitted they were only claiming to be cured because they were too ashamed to admit they hadn’t.

                      2) Just because we know of people who have been cured doesn’t mean we know what the cure IS. That’s what a known cure means. It means we know of a cure, not of a cured individual. And a battery of treatments that has so few successes that they make up a statistically insignificant portion of the people receiving the treatment is NOT a cure. For all we know, not one of the things that were part of the treatment actually caused the cure. For all we know it was some outside factor, or a genuine miracle from God. If you can’t say with certainty what the cure is, it’s not a known cure.

                      Alessandra said: “And some explain why.”

                      Correction, they speculate as to why. If the results aren’t reproducible, we don’t know what caused it and we have to keep studying until we figure it out.

                      Get that? We should keep looking, but we don’t currently know. That’s how knowledge works. At first we don’t have it, but then we look and eventually we start to figure it out. It would be a lie to say we had it in the first place, though.

                      Alessandra said: “Clearly, what happened to them is something you know nothing about. But that’s you. Not everyone else.”

                      Clearly it’s not something anyone knows with any degree of certainty, or else the results would have been replicated with a statistically significant success rate, which they haven’t.

                      Alessandra said: “It depends on what you mean. It would be dishonest to say there is a guarantee of cure – but nobody is saying that. It is honest to say it can be cured however.”

                      It would be more honest to tell them that with treatment they can recover whether they are likely to be cured or not. That would give them a healthy expectation and an attitude of hope. They are going to hear about the success rate of less than 1% eventually, but if they are already committed to recovery rather than just gambling on a cure, they will be more likely to stick to the treatment they need.

                      But based on how you talk about treatment, it seems that in your mind a treatment that controls a condition but doesn’t cure it is the same as not having any treatment at all.

                      Alessandra said: “Second, you are assuming that the therapies were the same. I doubt that first of all.”

                      I don’t need to. NO approach to treatment has shown better than a 1% rate of changed orientation (even in the short term). Even approaches that involved numerous forms of therapy. None of that has made any difference so far.
                      We legitimately do not know what has caused the change in those who report it, but it is so rare that we cannot safely conclude that any of the current forms of treatment had a positive effect on the rate at which a person reports a cure.

                      This is probably partially due to there being a large number of people who claim to be cured purely because they feel pressure to show results, but haven’t actually been. Throws all the numbers and research off on a goose chase of investigating false positives.

                      Alessandra said: “Second, even if some were similar, then the question is: why did it work for one individual and not for another? What are the differences in the individual profiles?”

                      Exactly the right question. It just happens to be one that no therapists or counselors or psychologists or psychiatrists have been able to find the answer to yet.
                      The answer is not known yet (note the word “yet”). Which is what I’ve been saying!

                      Alessandra said: “I have nothing against telling people that there is no guarantee that doing any kind of therapy is going to solve their homosexuality problem. I do think that the problem can be solved with the right therapy and other environmental elements though.”

                      And eventually we may be able to figure it out. Then when we know it, it will become a KNOWN cure. At that point there WILL be a known cure.
                      Until a known cure exists, there is no known cure.
                      That’s how it works.

                      Alessandra said: “The problem I see is that you are saying there is no cure (which is what you said: “no known cure”)…”

                      You know there’s a difference between saying “There is no cure.” and “There is no cure that we have properly identified and shown has a good likelihood of working on you.” right?

                      I did not say there is no cure. I said we do not currently KNOW of any reliable, or even predictable cure. We do not know of any approach to, or series of, or series of combined with medication, or any of that… that results in a statistically significant improvement in the number of people who report changed orientation.
                      For all we know the cure we think we’ve found has been genuine cases of divine intervention.
                      That’s not something we can give someone with any amount of therapy, no matter how much we study it.

                      Until we KNOW, we can’t say we know. It’s dishonest and it sets them up to fail.

                      A recovery approach, on the other hand, works perfectly well even if the odds of a total and permanent cure are low, and thus treatment will need to continue for life.
                      One thing people in Recovery Model approaches
                      to therapy regularly report is that the approach gives them hope and motivation to continue that a “do this until cure happens” approach fails to.

                      But why am I having to explain basic concepts of psychotherapy that have been in use for several decades to you? I thought you said you were the expert and I was the one who didn’t know any of it?

                      “You can’t develop treatments if you don’t investigate.”

                      Well, it’s a good thing for me I have been consistently in favor of that investigation then. You might not have noticed because you were busy responding to some GLAAD talking point that nobody here proposed.

                      Alessandra said: “A chemical medicine is always the same.”

                      Wrong. Medication for depression, for instance. Even when taken as a supplement to therapy, there is a reason we have so many different kinds of anti-depressants. They effect different people differently.
                      There’s a reason medicines are tested for effectiveness in terms of the statistical increase in positive outcomes vs. placebo, not just “we gave it to a bunch of people and they got better.” It’s not just how much better, but how often it actually had the desired effect, how often it has serious side effects that another drug for the same thing might not have with that individual, and what the base rate of increased positive outcomes for people who simply know they are getting any form of treatment (even if it’s secretly just saline solution or sugar).

                      Alessandra said: “If one medicine has a 0.4% of success and another medicine has a 100% chance of success, and you give both medicines the same name, and say they both have a 0.4% chance of success, the mistake is yours.”

                      Even when one facility is administering the same treatments to everyone, the success rate is that bad.
                      Even combining all the facilities with different approaches, the success rate is still that bad.

                      If there was a treatment with a 100% success rate, we would have isolated it within WEEKS of the second or third consecutive periods of treatment.
                      A 100% success rate is REALLY EASY to identify with proper statistical analysis. The kind that ALL therapists and counselors are required to have learned before they could even get their licenses to practice.

                      Alessandra said: “Third, society needs to be aware of how much harm and violence LGBTPs are doing. And to stop with the enabling, promotion, and impunity. Which is what you are
                      doing.”

                      By saying it’s a disorder that requires treatment whether a cure can be relied upon or not? Even if we never find a cure, treatment would still be needed. That seems to be a step more hardcore about treatment than YOU.

                      Or is it just because I don’t succumb to the deadly sin of wrath? Reason and logic work better. Always.
                      Plus they aren’t sins, so there’s that.

                    • So much nonsense into one comment!

                      Patrick said: “But based on how you talk about treatment, it seems that in your mind a treatment that controls a condition but doesn’t cure it is the same as not having any treatment at all.”

                      Most people with a deformed and dysfunctional mind will act out and do harm because of it, sooner or later. And that is not controlling their minds.
                      ================

                      Alessandra said: “Second, you are assuming that the therapies were the same. I doubt that first of all.”

                      Patrick said: I don’t need to. NO approach to treatment has shown better than a 1% rate of changed orientation (even in the short term).

                      You don’t know that. You have no idea what the approaches used were and for whom. A baseless claim.

                      ===================

                      Alessandra said: “A chemical medicine is always the same.”

                      Patrick said: Wrong. Medication for depression, for instance.

                      You misunderstood my point. A Prozac pill has always the same chemical configuration. If you change its chemical configuration, you give it another name. You don’t pretend a Plavix pill (blood thinner) is the same medication as a Prozac pill. You are too stupid to realize that you are calling all therapeutic treatments by the same name (“therapy”) and pretending they are all the same. They are not. Just like a Plavix pill is not the same treatment as a Prozac pill simply because they are both pills.

                      ===================

                      Alessandra said: “If one medicine has a 0.4% of success and another medicine has a 100% chance of success, and you give both medicines the same name, and say they both have a 0.4% chance of success, the mistake is yours.”

                      Patrick said: “Even when one facility is administering the same treatments to everyone, the success rate is that bad.
                      Even combining all the facilities with different approaches, the success rate is still that bad.”

                      You have no idea who the majority of therapists working with people who have a homosexuality problem are.

                      You have no idea what each individual therapy involved.
                      If one therapist successfully treated one individual and another therapist did not, in no way does the second case invalidate the first. The success rate of the first case is 100% and not 1% as you claim.

                    • Patrick

                      I apologize in advance for any weird line-breaks, but text pasted into the comment box from a word processor turns out really weird sometimes.

                      Alessandra said: “Most people with a deformed and dysfunctional mind will act out and do harm because of it, sooner or later. And that is not controlling their minds.”

                      So now you are saying treatment for schizophrenics who can’t obtain a cure (or for whom control of symptoms is the best modern medicine can manage) is useless? That anything short of an absolute cure (which isn’t a sure thing, as evidenced by only 25% of sufferers being cured demonstrates) is no good?

                      No, I know you’re not saying that. You just didn’t think through what you were saying hard enough to realized the unintended implications of your argument.

                      Also, as a side point: If it is a mental dysfunction that is causing their behavior, then it is the disorder causing that dysfunction that is responsible, not the victim of that dysfunction.
                      But go ahead and call them all criminals some more, I’m sure they’ll listen to your recommendations for treatment if you call them that enough times.

                      Alessandra said: “You don’t know that. You have no idea what the approaches used were and for whom. A baseless claim.”

                      Every organization or group of scientists or therapists has reported a success rate of changing orientation of 1% OR LESS.
                      EVERY ONE.
                      NO APPROACH tried so far has had a better success rate than that, and most have had worse.

                      I know it’s painful to realize that there are some disabilities and
                      disorders we simply do not have the ability to reliably cure with
                      current science, but as someone with multiple diabetic relatives and multiple relatives with clinical depression, I had to come to terms with that fact a long time ago and accept that for now, managing symptoms and preventing disruptive effects is the best we can do for some things.

                      But you know what? I’ll do better than that. I’ll tell you a little story about where some of my familiarity with the subject comes from.

                      A relative of mine (who has since passed away), struggled against same sex attraction his entire life. He stayed faithful and met with his priest daily for support, and did everything he could to live a chaste life, following the vocation God offered him. He did what he could to suppress the temptation, as well as to resist it without exception.
                      He spent his entire life fighting it and trying to be cured, but in the end time ran out before he could find that particular treatment that would take the temptation away.
                      And before you say it, he didn’t go campaigning about it or even talk about the subject. I didn’t even find out until I was an adult, and it was his sister who told me. He never spoke a word about it in my presence.

                      It sure looks like he did everything exactly the way you and I and everyone else say he should have. He still had to carry that cross until he was finally freed from this world and its struggles.

                      And here’s another bit of food for thought: How long does it take for a course of treatment for this condition take? How many times can an individual try in their finite lifespan? Most of the ones I’ve heard of take years, so it’s not possible for someone to try 100 different kinds of treatment to hope for that 1%.

                      Alessandra said: “You misunderstood my point. A Prozac pill has always the same chemical configuration.
                      If you change its chemical configuration, you give it another name.
                      You don’t pretend a Plavix pill (blood thinner) is the same
                      medication as a Prozac pill. You are too stupid to realize that you are calling all therapeutic treatments by the same name (“therapy”) and pretending they are all the same. They are not. Just like a Plavix pill is not the same treatment as a Prozac pill simply because they are both pills.”

                      No, you misunderstood MY point.

                      Prozac, despite always having the same chemical configuration, has different effects on different people. We aren’t all clones, as you so aptly said.
                      Plavix (clopidogrel bisulfate) doesn’t work the same way for everyone who needs a blood thinner.

                      Why do you think there even ARE multiple kinds of depression medications and why do you think doctors are so careful to
                      find out if the initial one is working as desired or if they need to
                      transition the patient to another one?

                      Besides, you were the one using “go get treatment” as a catch-all term for countless experimental forms of therapy before, not me. In fact, when I asked for more specifics, you refused to give any and started throwing insults.

                      Alessandra said: “You have no idea who the majority of therapists working with people who have a homosexuality problem are.”

                      I know that many, many of them (if you want a referral I can name a few), report good levels of success in helping sufferers treat the condition, but that 1% or less of the people undergoing their treatments report a change in orientation.

                      Refuse to believe it if you want, but these organizations and what they do is something I’ve been studying and watching developments in for near on a decade of my adult life.
                      Specifically because of the relative I mentioned before (as well as another, who because she was treated like, well, like a mafia member because of her orientation, she gave up on even trying to change, since the same people saying she needed to were also treating her the worst. Sadly I did not know about that situation until the damage was done and she had cut ties), and because I get intensely frustrated at people who give hope of a permanent cure to struggling young people, who when they don’t get that miracle, give up and run the other direction to embrace their orientation rather than continue to treat it.

                      Alessandra said: “The success rate of the first case is 100% and not 1% as you claim. If one therapist successfully treated one individual and another therapist did not, in no way does the second case invalidate the first.”

                      I’m talking about the SAME therapist treating over TWO HUNDRED people, and having TWO report a cure. He also
                      reported that a vast majority were more able to shut down the
                      disruptions their inclinations had on their life, but according to
                      you that success is just a matter of time until they become mob
                      bosses running protection rackets or something.

                    • Every organization or group of scientists or therapists has reported a success rate of changing orientation of 1% OR LESS.
                      EVERY ONE.
                      ====================
                      You are intent on spreading absolutely false propaganda. The majority of therapists working with homosexuality problems has never filed any study report. How ignorant are you? You have no idea who they are or how they work. In fact, the majority of therapists don’t file “reports” as you claim.

                      “I’m talking about the SAME therapist treating over TWO HUNDRED people, and having TWO report a cure.”

                      Fine, but that is ONE therapist only. Not more, nor less. And you are apparently generalizing their experience without knowing what the majority of therapists do, how they work, or what results they have had.

                      ===============
                      “Specifically because of the relative I mentioned before (as well as
                      another, who because she was treated like, well, like a mafia member
                      because of her orientation, she gave up on even trying to change, since
                      the same people saying she needed to were also treating her the worst.
                      Sadly I did not know about that situation until the damage was done and
                      she had cut ties), and because I get intensely frustrated at people who
                      give hope of a permanent cure to struggling young people, who when they
                      don’t get that miracle, give up and run the other direction to embrace
                      their orientation rather than continue to treat it.”

                      While I see no point in giving any false hope to people, what is clear is that you are not in any way concerned with the harm and damage that people with a homosexuality problem do in the world. What do you care if homosexuals form gay mafias in institutions? You’re just colluding with them. What do you care if they sexually harass people? You want to shove them in positions of power claiming falsely that they are innocent little lambs who don’t have a perverted mind. What do you know about the harm and violence that homosexuals and bisexuals are doing to others?

                      Apparently nothing.

                      Do you think your relative or any other homosexual like the author here or anywhere else is going to come tell you of any harm and/or violence they are doing or have the intention of doing because of their sexually perverted mind?

                      How many such reports have you received with your disgustingly blind approach? There are millions of LGBTs in the world – how many have reported to you their gay mafias and sexual harassment and molestations?

                      Contrary to your distorted claims, I’m acting based on a concern about real harm and violence that you just love to sweep under the rug – and that is one reason the Catholic Church has become such a corrupt institution (along with society).

                      Its members have very little moral courage and increasingly resemble a morally corrupt social club with a little religion sprinkled on top.

  • Alessandra said: “You just want to run away from facing all the harm and violence that LGBTPs do in society.”

    Patrick said: People who are treated badly tend to treat others badly in kind. The solution is to help them from early on and protect them from being called “disgusting” or “deformed” so they don’t see us as an enemy later on.

    =================

    So are you saying the Germans tried to annihilate the Jews as a reaction to how badly the Jews had previously treated the Germans?

    No, no, no. History is filled with groups of people who do harm to others because of their perverse minds without having ever being harmed themselves. That is the more realistic depiction of the LGBTPs in society today. LGBTPs are doing great harm and violence in society because they are treated well, coddled, and they have privilege and a warped mind. You are spreading homosexuality propaganda when you pretend that all the harm and violence they do is a reaction to being harmed. The majority of LGBTPs that is doing harm has never been harmed. And that, aside from their sexually perverted mind, is why they are disgusting. And are you saying it’s wrong to call the Nazis disgusting or deformed? Why would that be? Why is it wrong to call someone who is perverted and wants to normalize that perversion disgusting?

    People doing harm in the areas of sexuality and relationships do it because of lack of accountability, inaction, and collusion from others in society. That is what the whole Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal was about. Don’t you call homosexuals who abuse boys “deformed?” Don’t you call LGBTPs who want degrade sexuality in every possible way “deformed”? Coddling evil people is evil itself. Not speaking the truth is a sin. The only way you are not going be the “enemy” of a person bent in being perverted is by going along with the deformed society they want to institute. That’s what the Church scandal was about: cowardice in the face of evil and harm.

    Where do we see any Catholic taking concrete action against LGBPTs producing pornography, for example? Or for sexually harassing others? Or for spreading STDs? You even to refuse to say these people are disgusting. That’s how much you are tacitly endorsing them and all the harm they do.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “So are you saying the Germans tried to annihilate the Jews as a reaction to how badly the Jews had previously treated the Germans?”

      …seriously?

      I am saying gay kids who were beaten up and verbally abused by poor Christians, and who had the repeated reports of bullying thrown out without investigation by the Christian administrators of the Christian private school will grow up to hold a grudge. The man I know who that happened to certainly did, and I wish I could go back in time and save him both that harm and thus also his reaction to it, even though I didn’t even live in the same city as him until years later.

      Also, just a thought: How many of them do you think you’ll persuade to do the right thing by comparing them to Nazis? Especially when the first thing that will occur to the gay person is that Nazis rounded up gays and sent them to concentration camps?

      I don’t think you’ll ever persuade a single one of them to do anything but dislike you even more. You’re hurting your own cause.

      Alessandra said: “You are spreading homosexuality propaganda when you pretend that all the harm and violence they do is a reaction to being
      harmed.”

      I never said it all was. No group’s acts of violence can be entirely attributed to one single cause, no matter what the composition of the group.

      I am saying they would not see Christians as their enemy if they didn’t experience so much mistreatment by Christians who let their tempers get the better of their morals.

      Alessandra said: “The majority of LGBTPs that is doing harm has never been
      harmed.”

      1) There is no possible way you could know that. There have been no
      studies to that effect, or I certainly would have heard about them,
      and you could not possibly know “the majority” of them personally
      well enough to evaluate it yourself.

      2) Last time I saw a study about bullying, 90% of children who identified as gay reported being bullied, which was three times as many as the student bodies at large. Unless you’re saying most of this crime committed by gay people you’re talking about is done by 10% of them, a tiny minority, you should revise that
      statement.

      Alessandra said: “And are you saying it’s wrong to call the Nazis disgusting or deformed?”

      I’m pretty sure “deformed” would just confuse people, and I would probably call their actions “horrible” personally, maybe even “tragic beyond comprehension.”

      But you’ve been on the internet a while, you should know comparing people to Nazis will never win an argument with anyone under any circumstances. Especially not people in a group that was directly imprisoned by Nazis in the Holocaust. That only makes everyone who reads it want to side with the person you’re arguing against.

      Alessandra said: “Why is it wrong to call someone who is perverted and wants to normalize that perversion disgusting?”

      Because Catholics are required to treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
      “Love thy neighbor” and all that. Or “Love thine enemy” if you’d prefer to consider them enemies (which you seem to).
      We have to bring them to the truth WHILE STILL being respectful and kind. Matthew 7:13-14 is relevant here.

      Alessandra said: “Don’t you call homosexuals who abuse boys “deformed?””

      I would call them sinners in desperate, urgent need of help from the Church and the community, and who should be held accountable according to the law. It makes me feel almost as much pity for them as for their victim. Yes, I get angry too, but going ballistic doesn’t solve anything, and it doesn’t save souls.

      Alessandra said: “Don’t you call LGBTPs who want degrade sexuality in every
      possible way “deformed”?”

      Again, sinners who need salvation, not a socially acceptable target to vent spleen at. They need help, not cruelty.

      Alessandra said: “Not speaking the truth is a sin.”

      And so is speaking it in a way that is not respectful, compassionate, and sensitive.
      The gate is narrow, the path is not easy. We have to both speak the truth AND
      do so in a loving, compassionate, caring, gentle way. If we don’t, the message will not be received and it’s no better than if we never said it at all. Worse, even, because it can make them obstinate in their sin when they would otherwise have been open to the truth.

      Alessandra said: “You even to refuse to say these people are disgusting.
      That’s how much you are tacitly endorsing them and all the harm they
      do.”

      It is possible to actively oppose something without going into a frothing rage and saying intentionally hurtful things. It is possible to love your enemy.
      In fact, it’s required.

      Blinding rage is not the solution to anything. Wrath is a sin too, after all.

      • Alessandra said: “And are you saying it’s wrong to call the Nazis disgusting or deformed?”

        Patrick said: I’m pretty sure “deformed” would just confuse people, and I would probably call their actions “horrible” personally, maybe even “tragic
        beyond comprehension.”

        But would you say it is wrong to call the Nazis disgusting? If so, what is wrong with it?

        • Patrick

          I already just gave you my answer by telling you the words I think are much more appropriate.

          Also, no comments on loving thine enemy? I thought that would have gotten SOME kind of response from you.

          • What is wrong with calling Nazis disgusting?

            You gave no answer whatsoever.

            • Patrick

              Shouldn’t we normally use the most appropriate words for things?

              • Why isn’t it appropriate to call Nazis disgusting?

                • Patrick

                  Most appropriate.

                  Why would we not use the most maximally applicable and appropriate word for something when it is available and known to us?

                  What motivation would you have for intentionally using a sub-optimal word?

                  • So you can’t state a single reason why calling the Nazis disgusting is wrong. Neither can you give a single reason why saying LGBTs have a deformed and dysfunctional mind is wrong.

                    • Patrick

                      I am saying it is a poor choice of words because there are fundamentally better options.

                      And you’re still comparing people who have no intention of rounding up Jews (or any other group) and packing them on trains going to death camps to Nazis.

                      Propagandistic is about the most generous word I can use to describe that. Or maybe hyperbolic to the point of absurdity.

  • Alessandra said: “The majority of LGBTPs that is doing harm has never been
    harmed.”

    1) There is no possible way you could know that. There have been no studies to that effect, or I certainly would have heard about them, and you could not possibly know “the majority” of them personally well enough to evaluate it yourself.
    ===================
    What I meant is: The majority of LGBTPs that are doing harm and violence are not doing it because any conservative was a bully at school. Or because anyone said the truth about them being perverted and harmful.

    There are studies that show that the majority of bisexuals are closeted and were closeted in school. So there was never any bullying for them. And they do enormous harm and violence. There goes your nonsense.

    Likewise for all the other closeted LGs and Trans and Pedophiles in school as well.

    The study that liberals are too unconscionable to do is to examine how many of the LGBTP kids were promoting their perverted homosexuality, or porn, or promiscuity/hookup agenda – which is doing a lot of harm- while claiming to be little victims. Plus if you ask around how many of them tried to act out homosexually or to sexually harass or to seduce other kids, you will find out that the overwhelming majority of LGBTPs is involved in doing harm to others.

    Lastly, it is extremely rare for an adult LGBT to be bullied by a Christian today. However, LGBTPs are currently committing millions of acts of harm and violence to other LGBTs (aside from harming heterosexual children and adults).

    The reason is not because anyone is bullying these LGBT perpetrators, but because they are perverted and think they can do harm and violence with impunity. And the majority thinks that their homosexuality is normal. And impunity is mostly what they obtain, given how much society is coddling homosexuals and bisexual perpetrators, pretending they are victims.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “What
      I meant is: The majority of LGBTPs that are doing harm and violence
      are not doing it because any conservative was a bully at school. Or
      because anyone said the truth about them being perverted and
      harmful.”

      Are you psychic? Can you read minds? Have you even
      spoken to people to ask why they feel the need to fight back?

      If
      you have no way of knowing their motivations, how can you so
      confidently declare what their motivations are or are not? Even on an
      individual level, much less make declarations about “most” of
      them.

      Alessandra said: “There are studies that show
      that the majority of bisexuals are closeted and were closeted in
      school. So there was never any bullying for them. And they do
      enormous harm and violence. There goes your nonsense.”

      Funny,
      the guy I’ve mentioned a couple times so far?
      Beaten up repeatedly
      for being gay YEARS before he came out.
      Furthermore, how are they
      three times more likely to be bullied than other students if simply
      being in the closet gives magical anti-bully force
      fields?

      Alessandra said: “The study that liberals are
      too unconscionable to do is to examine how many of the LGBTP kids
      were promoting their perverted homosexuality, or porn, or
      promiscuity/hookup agenda – which is doing a lot of harm- while
      claiming to be little victims. Plus if you ask around how many of
      them tried to act out homosexually or to sexually harass or to seduce
      other kids, you will find out that the overwhelming majority of
      LGBTPs is involved in doing harm to others.”

      It’s amazing
      how you already know the results of a study you yourself say hasn’t
      ever been done yet. I guess you CAN see the future! What are the
      exact percentages, I’m curious.

      Alessandra said:
      “Lastly, it is extremely rare for an adult LGBT to be bullied by a
      Christian today.”

      Rare is a subjective term. It’s happened
      within a mile of my home in the last few years, and I’m not exactly
      in a high-crime area. And by “bullied” I mean felony assault that
      the FBI concluded was motivated by the victims perceived sexual
      orientation.

      Alessandra said: “The reason is not
      because anyone is bullying these LGBT perpetrators, but because they
      are perverted and think they can do harm and violence with
      impunity.”

      You mean like the straight “Christian” who
      was so convinced he could commit felony assault against a gay guy
      with impunity that he did it in plain view of a police station with a
      dozen witnesses?

      Alessandra said: “And impunity is
      mostly what they obtain, given how much society is coddling
      homosexuals and bisexual perpetrators, pretending they are
      victims.”

      You seem to be acting like they are communally
      guilty of a crime any of them commit, but communally free from
      bullying so long as any one of them were not bullied.
      What’s the
      deal with that? It’s almost like you’re looking for excuses to despise them.

      • Patrick said: Funny, the guy I’ve mentioned a couple times so far? Beaten up repeatedly for being gay YEARS before he came out.

        So if everyone thought he was heterosexual, he wasn’t being bullied for having a homosexual problem.
        =====================

        Alessandra said: “The study that liberals are
        too unconscionable to do is to examine how many of the LGBTP kids
        were promoting their perverted homosexuality, or porn, or
        promiscuity/hookup agenda – which is doing a lot of harm- while
        claiming to be little victims. Plus if you ask around how many of
        them tried to act out homosexually or to sexually harass or to seduce
        other kids, you will find out that the overwhelming majority of
        LGBTPs is involved in doing harm to others.”

        Patrick said: It’s amazing how you already know the results of a study you yourself say hasn’t ever been done yet. I guess you CAN see the future!

        I guess I can see the present and make a good guess of a study outcome based on a lot of other evidence. And I guess I know that today there are a very large number of LGBTPs involved in doing harm and violence to others. There is a ton of evidence regarding the behavior of LGBTPs in society right now. This particular study has not been done, but it is exactly what is required.

        • Patrick

          Alessandra said: “I
          guess I can see the present and make a good guess of a study outcome
          based on a lot of other evidence.”

          Guesses aren’t
          statistics. There’s a reason psychologists actually do scientific
          studies and publish the results in peer-reviewed journals so the
          results can be replicated by other groups of psychologists.

          If
          guesses were just as good, we wouldn’t have to go to all that
          “science” trouble.

          Alessandra said: “This
          particular study has not been done, but it is exactly what is
          required.”

          Why is it required If you already know the
          results? I thought you could just look at the data and just make a
          guess that’s just as accurate and precise? Why bother with the study
          if your guesses are just as good?

          • Some people are capable of inference based on various sets of evidence. You just hate reality, so don’t bother.

            “Why is it required If you already know the results?”

            Because then we have a formalized investigation on the ugly reality you are trying to deny. And when people like you try to lie and mislead society, we have a nice little study to show how disingenuous you and your homosexuality agenda are.

            • Patrick

              Alessandra said: “Some people are capable of inference based on various sets of evidence.”

              Then tell me why you think the study is necessary if you can just “infer” the answer with perfect reliability.
              I’m listening.

              Alessandra said: “Because then we have a formalized investigation on the ugly reality you are trying to deny. And when people like you try to lie and mislead society, we have a nice little study to show how disingenuous you and your homosexuality agenda are.”

              1) That would be completely unnecessary if you could simply “infer” things with the level of accuracy you claim. We’d just ask you questions instead of paying scientists.

              2) Yeah, me and my “people with homosexual inclinations are called to chastity and should seek treatment and moral support from the Church, while not engaging in homosexual acts because that would be a grave sin” agenda.

              I still don’t get why you are going into a rage over someone largely agreeing with you and merely trying to improve your arguments so you don’t make us all look like fools. Or correcting you on objectively false things so you don’t make us all look like liars.
              Or pointing out that we should love our enemies because it’s what the one true faith requires of us.

  • Alessandra said: “What I meant is: The majority of LGBTPs that are doing harm and violence
    are not doing it because any conservative was a bully at school. Or because anyone said the truth about them being perverted and harmful.”

    Patrick asked: Are you psychic? Can you read minds? Have you even spoken to people to ask why they feel the need to fight back?

    ===================
    They are not fighting back, Patrick, they are perpetrating violence because they are perverse individuals with power.

    And, yes, there is a lot of research on why people do harm and violence, including some on LGBTPs, that examines the reasons and motivations. Why does a homosexual professor sexually harass a student? It’s not because the victim ever did anything to the professor and the professor is fighting back. It’s not because there was a kid who was a bully to the professor when they were kids. You need to go read research that examines the reasons why people do harm to others. A homosexual professor sexually harasses a student because they have a perverted mind and the power to do it. The same for seminarians or clergy or pastors or missionaries sexually harassing other individuals, for example. And yes, I have spoken to a lot of people, and I have read much more research than you have.

    Why do homosexual men join an organization like NAMBLA? It’s not because they were bullied as kids by Christians. It’s because they are bent on sexually abusing kids for their own gratification. Although some were abused themselves as kids – but not because they had a homosexual problem. Why do millions of LGBs perpetrate interpersonal violence to other LGBs? It’s not because of some little Christian kid that bullied them, it’s because they are morally and psychologically deformed and society refuses to acknowledge all the deep psychological and moral problems with LGBs spinning a false narrative of victimhood. Why do so many LGBTPs produce and consume adult pornography? It’s not because they were bullied in school. It’s because they have a sexually perverted mind and nobody is holding them accountable (especially concerning the adult porn). The same for child porn. I could go on regarding just about every type of harm and violence.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “They are not fighting back, Patrick, they are perpetrating
      violence because they are perverse individuals with power.”

      By “fighting back” I was referring to their political campaigns and such, primarily. I apologize for the ambiguity.

      But again, I’d like to know how you’ve studied each and every one of them so well you can say with such absolute certainty exactly why each and every one of them that has committed a crime has done so.

      Really, I don’t need to know, because I know you haven’t. I know you’re just
      engaging in outgroup-homogeneity bias and making assumptions.
      I have just realized I have been beating around the bush too much on
      that particular point, so I’ll try to be more upfront about it in the future.

      Alessandra said: “And, yes, there is a lot of research on why people do harm
      and violence, including some on LGBTPs, that examines the reasons and
      motivations.”

      If you can link me to some of that, I’m quite interested in reading it. Thanks in advance.

      Alessandra said: “Why does a homosexual professor sexually harass a student? It’s not because the victim ever did anything to the professor and
      the professor is fighting back.”

      Have you ever heard about how victims of violent child abuse are more likely to abuse their own children as a result? That’s been studied for several decades.
      Obviously it was not the perpetrator’s children who abused him (or her) when he (or she) was a child, those children weren’t even born yet. But nonetheless it is at least partially a result of their own victimization, even at the hands of others.

      Alessandra said: “It’s not because there was a kid who was a bully to the
      professor when they were kids.”

      But it could very well be (in part) because the PROFESSOR was bullied as a child. Most bullies have a history of being bullied that pre-dates their own bullying of others. A significant majority. Surely someone with as much study of psychology as you imply you have would already be aware of that extremely well-documented phenomenon.

      Alessandra said: “And yes, I have spoken to a lot of people, and I have read
      much more research than you have.”

      What percentage of people would you say you’ve spoken to, and how many more would you need to form a representative sample?
      Let’s make it easy and say just to two-sigma certainty. Heck, for the sake of argument let’s say your sample is randomly selected even.
      Easy question for someone familiar with psychology, psychiatry, or sociology to answer.

      And how much research have you read? Also, at what point did you read my mind to figure out how much I’ve read so you could know you’ve read more?
      Oh, you were just trying to imply you were more of an authority without actually establishing any credentials. Disappointing.

      Alessandra said: “Why do homosexual men join an organization like NAMBLA?”

      How many actually do? Here’s a hint, it’s a far, far smaller fraction than the number of hate crimes against gay people that you called “a tiny, tiny number.”

      The only reason we’ve ever even heard of NAMBLA is because of misleading
      vividness. It’s disturbing, so it makes news. Well, it MADE news…twenty years ago. Since then it’s just been people referring to them to scaremonger. Might as well talk about the Branch Davidians though. It’s about as timely.

      According to the San Diego Union-tribune, an undercover investigator got access to their membership roles. There were only 1100 people. And that was BEFORE the group thankfully started falling apart due to constant undercover police infiltration.
      My HIGH SCHOOL had twice as many people in it! I’d be hard-pressed to find a town in Kansas with fewer people!

      There are more hate crimes based on sexual orientation than that EVERY YEAR, and those are only about 20% of hate crimes committed.

      Alessandra said: “I could go on regarding just about every type of harm and
      violence.”

      But your “It didn’t have anything to do with bullying even though almost all of them WERE bullied and I have no direct insight into the motivations involved.” approach won’t get any more valid through repetition.

      Those studies you mentioned about the reasons why LGBT people commit violent acts, though… if you could identify those so I could read them, that WOULD help your case. Makes me wonder why you haven’t…

      • But again, I’d like to know how you’ve studied each and every one of
        them so well you can say with such absolute certainty exactly why each
        and every one of them that has committed a crime has done so.
        ===============
        As I said, because there are countless studies examining why people do harm and violence of many kinds, why bystanders are passive, why people like yourself hate to face reality and keep going into denial your entire lives.

        You have read nothing, know nothing, and you don’t like to face reality. If you’d like to read studies, you can either search for them or enroll in a course to study the topic.

        Alessandra said: “Why does a homosexual professor sexually harass a
        student? It’s not because the victim ever did anything to the professor
        and the professor is fighting back.”

        Patrick said: Have you ever heard about how victims of violent child abuse are more likely to abuse their own children as a result?

        Have you ever heard that the majority of rapists were never raped?

        Have you ever heard that the majority of KKKers never suffered any violence?

        ==================

        Patrick said:There are more hate crimes based on sexual orientation than that EVERY YEAR, and those are only about 20% of hate crimes committed.

        =================

        As I said, a ridiculously tiny number for 300 million people, especially if compared to about at least one million crimes perpetrated by LGBs. That’s the level of your ignorance and denial!

        =============

        Patrick said: But your “It didn’t have anything to do with bullying even though almost all of them WERE bullied and I have no direct insight into the motivations involved.” approach won’t get any more valid through
        repetition.

        There weren’t almost all bullied. That’s your ridiculous inflation. And people like me who have studied why people perpetrate several kinds of violence do have a lot of insight into the motivations involved. Just because you are ignorant about the topic doesn’t mean I or anyone else is.

        • Patrick

          Alessandra said: “If
          you’d like to read studies, you can either search for them or enroll
          in a course to study the topic.”

          So you don’t even know
          any of them well enough to be able to even find the names of the specific ones you’re talking about, is what you’re
          saying.

          Alessandra said: “As
          I said, a ridiculously tiny number for 300 million people, especially
          if compared to about at least one million crimes perpetrated by LGBs.
          That’s the level of your ignorance and denial!”

          What?
          I was pointing out that even that “ridiculously tiny number” is
          almost 50% higher EVERY YEAR than the highest known total membership
          of NAMBLA, but you keep talking about people joining it as if it’s
          happening all the time when just the MARCHING BANDS of the local high schools of just my little city of about 300 THOUSAND people here
          would outnumber their total worldwide membership. Don’t try to change
          the subject while still replying to what I was saying on that
          subject.

          Alessandra said: “There weren’t almost all
          bullied. That’s your ridiculous inflation.”

          I already told
          you about a study that found that NINE OUT OF TEN of them reported
          being bullied that year.
          I thought you read these studies. Or were
          you just trying to give the impression you’re more of an expert? That
          would explain all the insults you’re throwing.

          Alessandra
          said: “Just because you are ignorant about the topic doesn’t mean I
          or anyone else is.”

          Yep, reading those statistics on
          bullying sure made me ignorant. And not reading them sure counts a s
          “studying” for you.

          So, how about that two-sigma
          certainty? How large a sample would you need for that?
          This is
          first-week-of-class material.
          I know, because I covered it in the
          first week of class.
          You know statistics courses
          are a required part of any psychology curriculum, don’t you?

          • Alessandra said: “If you’d like to read studies, you can either search for them or enroll in a course to study the topic.”

            Patrick said: So you don’t even know any of them well enough to be able to even find the names of the specific ones you’re talking about, is what you’re saying.

            Who would have thought that I chose not to waste time with an ignorant little kid who can’t read a single article on his own… so far-fetched…

            • Patrick

              I’ll be happy to read them. It just is really strange that you can’t even remember the name of a single one of them, or which journals they were published in, or who the lead researcher was, or ANY details whatsoever. It’s almost as if you didn’t actually read them in the first place, and are just repeating what you heard somewhere…

              I just think it’s strange that you keep talking about studies but have only ever cited yourself as a source, whereas I’ve cited actual peer-reviewed journals, and even provided a link directly to them.

              And yet you accuse me of being too lazy to look up the research.
              When of the two of us, only I have demonstrated that I have looked up any research at all.

              • It’s so strange I don’t waste my time posting articles on this thread while talking to an ignorant little kid. You can’t imagine how much you’ve demonstrated about your superior knowledge of the research that you can’t even find on your own…

                No, you’re not lazy at all…

  • Alessandra said: “The reason is not because anyone is bullying these LGBT perpetrators, but because they are perverted and think they can do harm and violence with impunity.”

    You mean like the straight “Christian” who was so convinced he could commit felony assault against a gay guy with impunity that he did it in plain view of a police station with a
    dozen witnesses?

    ==============

    There is a tiny, tiny number of crimes like this. In comparison, there are thousands and thousands of LGBs committing felony assaults on other LGBs. Constantly, and mostly with impunity. And it’s not because anyone is bullying them. It’s because they are slime of people and liberals keep talking about them as if they were little victims of conservatives instead of holding them accountable for their crimes and their perverted minds.

    Which is the group that most perpetrates violence against LGBT individuals?

    LGBT individuals themselves.

    “Although accurate data is difficult to obtain, trends suggest that as many as half of lesbian relationships experience some form of abuse (Brand & Kidd, 1986; Nadoff, 1987; Renzetti, 1992, 1996; Taylor& Chandler , 1995). Greenwood et al. (2002) reported on a
    sample of 2,881 male cohabitants during the past five years and found a higher rate of violence than in cases of heterosexual relationships. Letellier (1994) found that gay men are more likely to be killed by their partners than a stranger.” And that certainly means any little Christian stranger.

    http://drgehart.com/page3/page5/files/Peterson%20GLBT%20DV.pdf

    http://www.rit.edu/cla/criminaljustice/sites/rit.edu.cla.criminaljustice/files/docs/WorkingPapers/2009/2009-16.pdf

    http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nb2h5bg#page-1

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “There is a tiny, tiny number of crimes like this.”

      I’m sure you haven’t bothered to look up the rates of that sort of crime. I have.

      Alessandra said: “And it’s not because anyone is bullying them.”

      Care to tell me what form of telepathy you used to be so confident of that
      statement?
      Because I can easily show that most gay people are bullied as children, and far more than is typical for children to be bullied.
      Logically speaking, unless only the tiny non-bullied
      minority of gay people are committing all these crimes you’re talking
      about, then most of them would be committed by people who were
      bullied (typically more often and with greater severity than other
      children). That’s enough that you would need to look at more data to
      be so confident none of it is related to that bullying. Especially
      because there is plenty of science showing victims of bullies/child
      abuse/etc. tend to be more likely to commit the same acts later on.
      People learn to be bullies by being bullied.

      Alessandra said: “Which is the group that most perpetrates violence against
      LGBT individuals?

      LGBT individuals themselves.”

      So it’s okay for straight people to engage in violence against them as
      long as it’s LESS?
      Aren’t we supposed to be holding ourselves to a higher standard than that?

      Also you’re pretty badly mangling those statistics by treating rates of domestic violence as rates of general violence and domestic violence as the same as domestic violence resulting in death, and so on. As someone with training in statistics, I just can’t help but wince at how badly-formed that argument is.

      Surely there’s actually comparable numbers that could be used, right? You use those kinds of non-comparable statistics together and you’ll start getting compared to Paul Cameron, and then to his support of internment camps or extermination of LGBT people. It’s best to just use good statistics in the first place and avoid that kind of headache.

      • Alessandra said: “There is a tiny, tiny number of crimes like this.”

        Patrick said: I’m sure you haven’t bothered to look up the rates of that sort of crime. I have.

        Yes, I have. Try to prove me wrong and I’ll be happy to prove you wrong.

        • Patrick

          Yet you refer to things that are documented to be far less common as being more common occurrences. You either didn’t look up one or you didn’t look up the other.

          • Where’s the proof, Patrick?

            • Patrick

              I thought you said you looked up the numbers.

              Surely you can look at two numbers and say which one is larger, yes?

              In 2011 there were 1572 hate crimes in which the victim was targeted because of sexual orientation. That’s directly from the FBI, and it’s the FBI that does investigation of hate crimes.

              1572 is greater than 1100. There’s your proof.

              • A tiny, tiny number compared to the millions of crimes perpetrated by LGBTs to other LGBTs. Who does the bulk of abuse towards LGBTs in society? The garbage of LGBTs who think homosexuality is normal.

                Not little conservative Christians who understand homosexuality is deformed and dysfunctional, but who are incessantly attacked with the “homophobic” smear, or being “emotionally hostile” to perverted homosexuals.

                In short, conservatives who are sane and wholesome and refuse to accept this garbage of homosexual agenda normalizing homosexuality are largely non-violent. And LGBTs who think homosexuality is normal, live to do harm and violence in society, to LGBTs and to heterosexuals.

                • Patrick

                  You were the one talking about people joining NAMBLA as if it were commonplace while simultaneously calling a vastly more frequent occurrence irrelevant because it was so infrequent.
                  I didn’t say a thing about that except to correct you.

                  And why are you talking about normalization of homosexuality as if it were something I supported?
                  I’ve told you time and time again that it is a disorder that should be treated.

                  Stop attributing their arguments to me.
                  Just because I disagree with you about some things doesn’t mean I agree with just anybody who also coincidentally disagrees with you about something else.

                  • And why are you talking about normalization of homosexuality as if it were something I supported?
                    ==============
                    Because although you don’t support it 100%, there are problems with your position that end up supporting or enabling millions of LGBTs to do harm and violence in society. And, as I have said, I am critical of the CC’s position.

                    • Patrick

                      I’d like to point out that most of the “problems with my position” that you’ve talked about were directly contradictory to what I said, and I subsequently corrected you on them.

                      They have a disorder and they need treatment, both psychological (using a method that won’t leave them feeling disenfranchised or hopeless if it doesn’t have results as fast as they’d like) and spiritual (helping them to live their vocation with chastity until such time as their inclination is put into remission, assuming it is in their finite lifetime).
                      They need our help and they need to know we aren’t an enemy. They need to know we absolutely disapprove and condemn acts of violence against them, so they can trust us to give them the help they need. They need to know we have no intention of attacking them, and just want to help.

                      We need to show them respect, compassion, and sensitivity, (just like we are called to do for EVERYONE) even–and especially–when it is hard, because their experiences have hurt them in the past and they will be afraid to reopen old wounds.

                      We can’t bring an injured lamb into the fold by shouting and hollering and waving violently at it, but by gently approaching it and giving it time to trust us, then carrying it safely home where we can tend to it’s injury.

                    • It’s your framing of people with a homosexuality problem as a “lamb” that is particularly disingenous. Lambs are innocent and the very symbol of innocence. People with a homosexuality problem have a perverted mind and can be perverted in every which way, including violent. This is the reality that you insist on ignoring. You want harmful people inside the Church, who lie, do harm to others, sexually harass, abuse, and denigrate humans and sexuality. They merit no respect whatsoever for the harm they are doing.
                      You just have the most cowardly position. Your position is to enable people to do harm by being in denial of their reality. You are completely lacking in ethics when it comes to confronting people who are doing harm in the spheres of sexuality.

  • Paul Sho

    God did not make anyone homosexual or gay.

    As a result of Original sin
    committed freely by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we all now live
    with a fallen nature, in a fallen (disordered) world, ruled by fallen
    (malevolent) angels.

    This fallen nature, fallen world and fallen angels
    constitute the source of homosexuality and other sins (and every evil).
    No catholic or christian should label himself gay or homosexual. If you are struggling with same-sex attractions (which can lead to very grave sins) pray it away. No apologies.
    It is better to pray the gay away and enter heaven, rather than enter as a gay into hell fire.

    “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better to go to heaven with one hand than enter into hell with two hands”

    • Patrick

      You do realize that many of them are desperately, frantically trying to “pray the gay away,” right?

      That some of them want very little more than to no longer be faced with that particular temptation, and yet it persists.

      Your insistence that faith will simply eradicate all temptation is an insult to their faith and a trivialization of the pain they offer up in sacrifice since they cannot be so easily freed of it.

      • You do realize that many of them are desperately, frantically trying to “pray the gay away,” right?
        ===========
        Many? I doubt it. Society is moving to increasingly and aggressively normalize homosexuality – including the CC, by being largely corrupted by homosexual men who form gay mafias. And the homosexuals here and at First Things site, etc.

        • Patrick

          Virtually every gay person I’ve ever known went through a period when they urgently wanted some sort of faith-based solution that would free them of their unwanted temptations.

          They did exactly what the sort of thing they are told they are supposed to do and now you just sweep them under the rug and try to claim they don’t exist in any numbers worth even recognizing.

          You just WANT a reason to be angry at people. That’s obvious now. You just want a group you’re allowed to unload your wrath on.

      • Paul Sho

        Fair enough. Now give me examples of the prayers they have been using to pray the gay away. With these examples i will know how to respond.

        • Patrick

          Tell me which ones do the job and I’ll let you know if they were saying those ones or not. I’m not gonna let you shift the goalposts and mock and trivialize their urgent, desperate faith in God and his saving Grace just for some rhetorical sleight-of-hand that you can use to feel you “won” an argument.

          • Paul Sho

            Fair enough.
            1) Holy Mass in which the Christian immerses himself in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. Offering his body as the Lord Jesus offered(and offers) his body.
            2) Select a patron Saint that will walk along with you on your path – preferably one of the apostles and early disciples of our Lord Jesus.
            3) Have devotion to your guardian angel.
            4) Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
            5) Prayer to St. Raphael the Archangel
            For the last three prayers check: http://www.ewtn.com; http://www.catholic.org; http://www.popeleo13.com
            The last three prayers must be said at least once a day; every day. In spiritual life there are rarely knockout blows we fight every day.
            I wish you good luck and God’s blessings.

            • Patrick

              And how many days, give or take, would an individual need to repeat those prayers to “pray the gay away”? Or if it is a continuing process, how many days is it typically until the temptations are initially suppressed?

              • Paul Sho

                These prayers gives everybody, who says them with sincerity in the heart, the graces by which to express their sexuality according to the Will of God as stated in the Sacred Scriptures, and the Church Fathers. The prayers distance us from our temptations and make us superior to them. Believe me, when said every day, they work each and every time.
                What a Christian should never do is to say God made me this way and therefore I can do nothing about it. You can do plenty about overcoming temptations.

                The temptations may come but you will conquer them.

                • Patrick

                  Expressing your sexuality according to the Will of God as stated in the Sacred Scriptures, and the Church Fathers is NOT the same thing as making the temptation go away.

                  “Pray the gay away” means prayer will end the temptation.
                  That’s the promise a lot of young Catholics who realize their inclination hear, and when they try to practice it, and their temptations don’t ever go away, they think they are at fault.

                  When you imply that faith will make them free of temptation, temptation becomes proof in their minds that they aren’t capable of true faith, and they surrender.

                  That is the problem. You’re talking about overcoming continuing temptation, but you package it as if you’re talking about ending temptation entirely.

                  That’s what “cure” means. That’s what “away” means.

                  The people these articles are discussing are exactly the people who ARE doing everything in their power to overcome the temptation.

                  But then they just get told to “pray it away” as if they weren’t already praying desperately every single day for that ALREADY.

                  It’s an insult. It’s condescending. It’s disrespectful because it doesn’t even attempt to understand their situation before giving cookie-cutter advice they are already following. It’s insensitive because it says to them that if they were REAL Catholics, the problem would have just disappeared. It is the opposite of compassionate.


                  Short version:
                  They’re already doing what you said, and the “gay” isn’t going “away” no matter how hard they pray for it. It is condescending and presumptuous to just tell them to “pray it away.” It’s rude, disrespectful, and callous, and it directly violates the way we are called to treat these poor people, even if it was not intended that way.

                  • Paul Sho

                    You don’t desperately pray in the Presence of God. You pray quietly knowing fully well that the Lord will surely come to your aid. He will surely send his angels to help you and to accompany you on your journey.

                    I repeat myself:: any Catholic who labels himself gay or homosexual is walking towards a very deep precipice. Any Catholic who encourages or condones or abets anyone to label himself gay is equally walking towards a deep precipice.

                    My conscience is clear; you may dismiss my admonishments (based on Sacred scriptures and the Church Fathers) with flippancy and disdain but you will not be able to claim ignorance – visible or invisible.

                    • Patrick

                      If you are struggling with a constant temptation that you are afraid you might not have the strength to keep resisting, you pray with urgency. When you are desperate for a cure, you beg for the mercy of receiving it.

                      Somehow I knew you’d go for the “Well, if it didn’t work, it must be their fault for praying wrong” argument. That’s why I preemptively asked you which prayers, how often, and for how long.

                      And I’ll repeat myself, if they are identifying as gay in the same way an AA member identifies as an alcoholic (i.e. someone who admits they have a problem they are continuing to recover from), then what they are doing is being vigilant against temptation. And serving as a role model that that particular temptation is something that can be dealt with. They are proof that temptation is not all-powerful.

                      I am not dismissing your admonishments, I am trying to help you form them in a way that does not give false impressions to people who urgently need the full truth.
                      They need to be given hope in the context of recovery, not to be told that if they aren’t fully cured they are at fault for not being able to force God to grant one particular miracle instead of another.

                      When we request something, God doesn’t always say yes. Sometimes he says, “No, but here’s why you have the strength not to need it.”

                    • Paul Sho

                      If you say the prayer to St Michael the Archangel (the short version) and the prayer to St. Raphael the Archangel and the prayer to my Guardian Angel everyday, you won’t have problem overcoming temptations to homosexual thoughts and acts.
                      I am yet to see anybody do this without seeing the efficacious effects.
                      PS: this prayers take less than ten minutes to recite
                      .
                      No Catholic should label himself gay; it is a spiritually dangerous term.

                    • Patrick

                      There is a difference between overcoming temptations and being cured of them, and that is exactly one of the points I was making.

                      Teenagers who struggle with the temptation and want it to go away are told they will be “cured” if they pray hard enough, or have “true” faith. And they pray and pray and pray, but the temptations (which they have resisted and continue to resist) keep happening, and they conclude it is their fault for not being worthy of the cure they were told about.

                      That’s not speculation, multiple people I’ve spoken to gave exactly that account of what happened to them as teens. They (at least temporarily) lost their faith because the people they viewed as authorities on the subject said they’d stop having those temptations if they just had faith. When they didn’t get the result they blamed themselves, they thought either they weren’t worthy of God’s aid somehow because it didn’t come in the form they were told it would come in, or they thought they’d been lied to by the people they trusted most.

                      “Gay,” as far as the people who use it to identify themselves, only means they experience the inclination. It only is taken as an admission of acting upon it or desire to act upon it by other people. Just as “alcoholic” seems to be an acknowledgement of binge-drinking or the like to someone who isn’t aware that sober, recovering alcoholics still identify as alcoholics as a means of remaining vigilant against the temptation to consume alcohol.
                      It is not a sum total identification of themselves, just a statement of fact that they experience that particular trial in their life.

                      Reminding oneself that one is vulnerable to a particular sort of temptation is not an occasion to sin, it is vigilance against sin.

                      Furthermore, how are those teens in precarious situations supposed to know what they should do if they are prevented from having any good Catholic role models of people recovering from their same problem?

                    • Paul Sho

                      Can man be free of temptation as long as he is on this earth? Is it not enough to overcome sin and temptation everyday; day by day. This is how a true Christian lives: day by day with serenity.

                    • Patrick

                      You’re saying that like it’s not exactly what I was saying.

                      That IS what I was saying.

                      I was contrasting that with the “cure” rhetoric that implies that temptation can be entirely eliminated, and that if it hasn’t, it must be because the person isn’t truly faithful.

  • Alessandra said: “Wrong again. There are people who claim to have been cured. That is known.”

    Patrick said: 1) A large proportion of them later said their inclinations returned,
    or admitted they were only claiming to be cured because they were too
    ashamed to admit they hadn’t.

    You apparently are not aware of people who claim to have been cured and no longer have a homosexuality problem. Nothing returned, it got resolved. They claim they were not being insincere. These people exist. You’re talking about different people.

    Patrick said:2) Just because we know of people who have been cured doesn’t mean we
    know what the cure IS. That’s what a known cure means. It means we know
    of a cure, not of a cured individual. And a battery of treatments that
    has so few successes that they make up a statistically insignificant
    portion of the people receiving the treatment is NOT a cure. For all we
    know, not one of the things that were part of the treatment actually
    caused the cure. For all we know it was some outside factor, or a
    genuine miracle from God. If you can’t say with certainty what the cure
    is, it’s not a known cure.

    Patrick, you have never read or talked to a person who claims to have been cured of their homosexuality problem. YOU are ignorant. This doesn’t mean everyone is. You’re just repeating your ignorance as if it applied to everyone. If a treatment worked to cure someone, it is a cure. You’re just ignorant of what happened to that particular person. You fail to realize the enormous extent of your ignorance.

    “And a battery of treatments that has so few successes that they make up a statistically insignificant portion of the people receiving the treatment is NOT a cure. ”

    A cure doesn’t depend on number of successes, it depends on how it effective it is. If a set of treatments were effective to cure one person, that is a cure – there is no doubt about it. They were effectively cured. Period.

    “For all we know, not one of the things that were part of the treatment actually
    caused the cure.”

    For all YOU know, since you are completely ignorant about anything they have experienced or said. Having said that, as I said before, environment is always a big factor in any therapeutic outcome.

    Alessandra said: “And some explain why.”

    Patrick said: Correction, they speculate as to why. If the results aren’t reproducible, we don’t know what caused it and we have to keep studying until we figure it out.

    It’s your false claim that the results aren’t reproducible. Until you prove that the results aren’t reproducible, that’s your speculation. But then all this from someone who is too ignorant to explain what psychotherapy is and how it works. And who doesn’t realize people aren’t clones.

    • Patrick

      Alessandra said: “You
      apparently are not aware of people who claim to have been cured and
      no longer have a homosexuality problem. Nothing returned, it got
      resolved. They claim they were not being insincere. These people
      exist. You’re talking about different people.”

      I was talking
      about people who reported a change in their orientation after
      completing treatments (the 1% of people who underwent the treatments,
      remember?) and how many of them report they either exaggerated their
      success due to social pressure, or eventually their pre-treatment
      orientation returned.

      I specifically said “A large
      proportion,” which specifically addresses that it is not all of
      them, but a sub-set. Please try to read what I’ve written more
      carefully before informing me that a statement other than the one I
      actually said is wrong.

      Alessandra said: “Patrick, you have
      never read or talked to a person who claims to have been cured of
      their homosexuality problem.”

      There you go with those
      declarations of what I have or have not done again.
      I was
      specifically referring to high-profile cases of individuals who were
      public success-stories for the programs they went through, and in one
      case, even became the head of the very organization that performed
      that particular treatment regimen. And then later admitted that they
      either had only a temporary change or felt so guilty about the fact
      that it had not changed that they lied about it.

      There is
      something wrong when the people who are doing the right thing and
      seeking treatment are made to believe that if the treatment doesn’t
      work, it’s their fault, rather than simply not being a successful
      treatment in that case.

      Alessandra said: “If a treatment
      worked to cure someone, it is a cure.”

      And if we don’t know
      what part of the treatment–if it even was a part of the treatment
      and not something that the scientists aren’t controlling for—then
      we cannot say we know what the cure is.

      It is possible for
      something to exist and for us to not know it. Humans aren’t
      omniscient, after all.

      Alessandra said: “A cure doesn’t
      depend on number of successes, it depends on how it effective it is.
      If a set of treatments were effective to cure one person, that is a
      cure – there is no doubt about it. They were effectively cured.
      Period.”

      Anyone who had studied even the slightest bit of
      psychology, psychiatry, medicine of any kind, or even any form of
      science would know that results have to be reproducible or there is
      no way of knowing that the results weren’t a fluke or the result of
      some outside influence.

      If the statistics on the orientation
      of people before the treatment are indistinguishable from the
      statistics on the same people after, then the cure works on such a
      tiny, tiny fraction of people that it would be an extreme violation
      of professional ethics (not to mention a lie of omission at best) to
      tell everyone with the condition that they can be cured.
      If the
      cure works, but only on less than 1 in 100 people, you should not
      tell all 100 people they can be cured.

      You do know that even
      flu medicine or anti-bacterial treatments, or even diet-and-exercise
      programs work differently on each person, right? Why do you think
      chemotherapy sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t? By your logic, if
      it cures even one person, it should automatically cure every person
      it’s administered to, shouldn’t it? Or do you admit that cures for
      conditions aren’t remotely that simplistic?

      Alessandra said:
      “For all YOU know, since you are completely ignorant about anything
      they have experienced or said. Having said that, as I said before,
      environment is always a big factor in any therapeutic outcome.”

      We
      don’t know something just because we suspect it’s true. That’s not
      how truth works. Truth is objective.
      Until we can find out what is
      CREATING the desired effect, we can’t say we know what did it. Merely
      having experienced the desired effect is not sufficient to identify
      the particular cause.
      You keep saying we need more science on it,
      but every time I also say the science on it is insufficient and that
      we need more, you accuse me of saying everything is
      hopeless.

      Alessandra
      said: “It’s your false claim that the results aren’t reproducible.
      Until you prove that the results aren’t reproducible, that’s your
      speculation.”

      The results of the treatment in terms of
      changing orientation (not in terms of helping them resist it, that’s
      an obvious success), but in terms of changing the orientation in
      particular, the results are statistically indistinguishable from a
      control group who had not had the treatment.

      I think you don’t
      realize what “reproducible” means in psychology. It doesn’t mean
      “has happened more than once,” but rather means that we know
      enough that we can show a statistically meaningful result so well
      that different groups in different places can perform the same
      actions and get the same results, thereby demonstrating the results
      were not a coincidence or an accident or due to poorly performed
      experimental controls.

      Alessandra said: “But then all this
      from someone who is too ignorant to explain what psychotherapy is and
      how it works.”

      I’ve told you repeatedly, I’d be happy to
      prove my credentials. You just have to give one tiny, simple show of
      good faith (that shouldn’t be inconvenient at all) and tell me from
      what source your knowledge of the subject comes.
      I WANT to tell
      you, but I insist on waiting to hear that one simple piece of
      information first. Mostly because you’ve dodged and deflected away
      from that question at least a dozen times here, and that strongly
      supports my suspicion that you’re just trying to claim to be more of
      an authority without any basis.

      Alessandra said: “And who
      doesn’t realize people aren’t clones.”

      Don’t you get
      it?

      People AREN’T clones. That is exactly the basis for my
      position.

      If a treatment only works on 1% of the people who
      get it, it’s only a cure for that 1% of the people.
      If you CAN’T EVEN
      IDENTIFY WHICH 1%, then you can’t go telling all 100% you have a cure
      for them.
      You would be LYING to 99% of them and knowing you’re doing
      it. You’ll be causing them to base their hope on something that will
      PROBABLY NOT HAPPEN instead of basing it on recovery, which can
      ALWAYS happen, whether they are the 1% it works on OR NOT.

      Do you want them to give up if it doesn’t work or keep trying and still be working at recovery when the science finally figures out the details enough to make a RELIABLE cure?

      • There is
        something wrong when the people who are doing the right thing and
        seeking treatment are made to believe that if the treatment doesn’t
        work, it’s their fault, rather than simply not being a successful
        treatment in that case.
        ====================
        No one is saying it’s their fault. If someone is saying this, then that’s wrong.
        ………………………..

        Comment regarding the majority of your comments here:

        All in all, instead of spending hours displaying that you don’t know what therapy entails here, you’d do better to educate yourself on what therapy is and how it works. It’s clear you don’t have a clue. You can spend your time replying to my every comment and displaying you don’t know the answer – but if you are really interested in this subject, and it seems you are – it would be a much better use of your time to go find the answer for yourself.

        But you don’t really want to do that, do you?

  • Pingback: Other Writings | Ideas of a University()

  • egalitrix

    One of the very few respectable articles I have read on this website.

  • JourneyForTruth

    Under this scheme, I would say that one should seek to stop being “homosexual” but not necessarily seek to stop being “gay.” No Damian THERE IS NO GAY GENE, you are not born to be gay it is developed genetic disposition that is influenced by friends and people you hang with.

    Saints are not perfect many had problems but lead saintly lives despite these problems.

MENU