"Who am I to judge?" redux
#61
I find it amusing that this thread is basically two straight people debating about the psychological & neurological properties of an absent minority. SSA-burdened people might as well be mute laboratory testing subjects here. It's the same trend as in secular politics. Liberals say "oh, those poors gays! we have to help them achieve equal rights and dignity!" and conservatives say "oh, those poor gays! so trapped in their degenerate, sinful, immoral lifestyle! we must pray for them and reeducate them!" Meanwhile, the actual human beings who might be affected by all their bureaucracy and new laws are silent. There's something strange and unsettling about being a statistic, you know?

Of course, no one wants to be dragged into a public discourse just for the sake of being there. The "token gay" on a talk show would make me into an animal in the zoo. ACatholicThinker, I believe you take this subject in a little too "cold" of a fashion. Perhaps this is your temperament, and your scholastic approach, and I just have my own ways of approaching things... but that's the impression I get. This is all rather clinical, yes?

Vox, as much as I love you, I am scandalized by your use of the black-man-in-white-face-paint metaphor for this discussion. I do not at all agree with such a comparison. People of African descent are born that way and there is absolutely no way to change it, so racism is inherently disgusting. People with same-sex attractions, however, are born human beings, not part of a unique sexual caste or something. However deep the psychological roots of our problem may go, and however much they may mitigate our culpability, the fact remains that no one is "born this way". There is a certain merit in speaking of gay/homosexual people, sadly, precisely because of how ingrained the psychology has gotten... but there's a way out of that self-identification, if not a way out of the attractions themselves.
Reply
#62
(03-26-2014, 08:02 AM)Heorot Wrote: I find it amusing that this thread is basically two straight people debating about the psychological & neurological properties of an absent minority. SSA-burdened people might as well be mute laboratory testing subjects here. It's the same trend as in secular politics. Liberals say "oh, those poors gays! we have to help them achieve equal rights and dignity!" and conservatives say "oh, those poor gays! so trapped in their degenerate, sinful, immoral lifestyle! we must pray for them and reeducate them!" Meanwhile, the actual human beings who might be affected by all their bureaucracy and new laws are silent. There's something strange and unsettling about being a statistic, you know?

Of course, no one wants to be dragged into a public discourse just for the sake of being there. The "token gay" on a talk show would make me into an animal in the zoo. ACatholicThinker, I believe you take this subject in a little too "cold" of a fashion. Perhaps this is your temperament, and your scholastic approach, and I just have my own ways of approaching things... but that's the impression I get. This is all rather clinical, yes?

Vox, as much as I love you, I am scandalized by your use of the black-man-in-white-face-paint metaphor for this discussion. I do not at all agree with such a comparison. People of African descent are born that way and there is absolutely no way to change it, so racism is inherently disgusting. People with same-sex attractions, however, are born human beings, not part of a unique sexual caste or something. However deep the psychological roots of our problem may go, and however much they may mitigate our culpability, the fact remains that no one is "born this way". There is a certain merit in speaking of gay/homosexual people, sadly, precisely because of how ingrained the psychology has gotten... but there's a way out of that self-identification, if not a way out of the attractions themselves.

The analogy has nothing to do with "born that way" or not (I have never heard of a gay gene); it has to do with being told to hide away to avoid discrimination. (and "scandalized"? What sin is my having used that analogy making you want to commit?)

As to straight folks talking about homosexuals, homosexuals are MORE than welcome to jump in here. I wish they would. But I can't say nothing when hearing homosexuals being advised to shut up and sit in a closet. One doesn't have to be homosexual to care about homosexuals.

 
Reply
#63
(03-26-2014, 08:10 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: The analogy has nothing to do with "born that way" or not (I have never heard of a gay gene); it has to do with being told to hide away to avoid discrimination. (and "scandalized"? What sin is my having used that analogy making you want to commit?)

The scandal proceeds from the association of blacks-told-to-hide-themselves with homosexuals-told-to-hide-themselves. Since blacks are born that way, and gays are not born that way, making the connection between the two is inevitably going to make homosexuals wonder if they were born that way. Once that connection is made, any sort of unchastity may be licensed because "it's who I really am". Now, I myself did not take scandal in the sense of being put into a proximate occasion of sin... I did not use the proper word, and I apologize. I really meant "shocked", I suppose.

Quote:As to straight folks talking about homosexuals, homosexuals are MORE than welcome to jump in here. I wish they would. But I can't say nothing when hearing homosexuals being advised to shut up and sit in a closet. One doesn't have to be homosexual to care about homosexuals.

I'd leap in more, but I do find this subject tiresome after weeks and weeks on end. You have your convictions; ACatholicThinker has his. You both have pretty much irreconcilably different personalities. It just goes on in circles. :P
Reply
#64
(03-26-2014, 08:16 AM)Heorot Wrote:
(03-26-2014, 08:10 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: The analogy has nothing to do with "born that way" or not (I have never heard of a gay gene); it has to do with being told to hide away to avoid discrimination. (and "scandalized"? What sin is my having used that analogy making you want to commit?)

The scandal proceeds from the association of blacks-told-to-hide-themselves with homosexuals-told-to-hide-themselves. Since blacks are born that way, and gays are not born that way, making the connection between the two is inevitably going to make homosexuals wonder if they were born that way. Once that connection is made, any sort of unchastity may be licensed because "it's who I really am". Now, I myself did not take scandal in the sense of being put into a proximate occasion of sin... I did not use the proper word, and I apologize. I really meant "shocked", I suppose.

I think you're making a mounain of a molehill and reading way too much into the analogy. You could put any group in there that's been told to be ashamed; it doesn'tmatter.

Besides which, a lack of chastity can't be "licensed" just because someone is convinced he's "born that way" or even if someone IS "born that way." There are genes related to alcholism, I believe, but the person who has them would still be sinning by drinking to excess.

Reply
#65
(03-26-2014, 02:27 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: OK, numbers:

Study Wrote:http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf

Finally, a meta-analysis of 22 American-based studies, those done with national samples as well as local or regional representative samples, suggested that 30-40% of girls and 13% of boys experience sexual abuse during childhood. An international meta-analysis of 169 studies found that lifetime prevalence rates of sexual abuse for females is 25% and for males is 8%. This same study found that rates for North America range from 15-22%...

...It is well known that many more girls than boys are the victims of sexual abuse. This statistic is confirmed regardless of the inform ation that is used. Across different types of research—all reliable studies conclude that girls experience more sexual abuse than do boys. Studies have found that the percent of victims who are female range from 78% to 89% 

Vox, you are making a serious & fundamental error in your data analysis here.

The absolute number of molested girls vs. the absolute number of boys says nothing whatever in itself regarding the correlation of homosexual behavior with pedophilia or pederasty.  It would if the proportions of practicing homosexuals (I've made it plenty clear up to this point I'm only speaking of people that engage in homosexual behavior) was approximately equal to the number of heterosexuals - but that is not at all the case.  Last I heard, people living in the homosexual lifestyle are 2-3% of the population (a far cry from "10%", of course).  If we put the number at 2% then if molestation were *fifty times more common* among the homosexual population the number of boys & girls molested would be about the same.  (Assuming homosexuals molested boys and heterosexuals girls - not a valid assumption, I think.)

Regardless of your other points (some of which I'll acknowledge), there is no doubt you're misunderstanding something significant here.


Quote:
Study Wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571
Arch Sex Behav. 1978 May;7(3):175-81.
Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.
Groth AN, Birnbaum HJ.
Abstract


A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

In other words, male pedophiles who victimize boys are very typically NOT turned on by adult men. That is to say, they're not "homosexual" in the sense of being men attracted to men.

First, it is apparent that pre-pubescent boys are not "similar" to men.  It is pederasty that is prevalent in homosexual culture, something attested to, again, by countless sources regarding many different cultures and time periods.  There's a big problem with terminology, though: pedophilia and pederasty are frequently conflated.  (For example, again, in the priestly "pedophila" scandals, over 80% of the victims are post-pubescent boys.  80%.  Thus, this is/was a pederasty scandal.)

You have one study above.  Here a reference to another, previously posted here by me, with no comment from you:

http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

"Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C."

There was more evidence of this sort in the same post.

Why are the results of one apparently to be ignored and another apparently regarded as plain truth?  (You made no response to my comments about the intense bias of political correctness in the more modern studies.  The bias is so intense that results that contradict the party line simply aren't allowed to exist.  For example, LifeSiteNews ran many stories a couple years ago about the meticulous study that demonstrated that adopted children of gay couples are more likely to turn out gay themselves.  The author, of course, got enormous hate mail, nearly had his career ruined, etc.  Yet, the study was the more objective and thorough of its kind and the results have been vindicated.)

What I'm wondering is if you consider homosexual actions gravely disordered and sinful why would you apparently be surprised that they are correlated with other disordered, immoral sexual behavior?  Isn't that actually *logical*? 


Quote:The definition of "homosexual" is someone who is attracted to someone of his own sex. People who are attracted primarily or only to members of their own sex exist. In order to speak of such people, words are necessary. The word used to describe such people is, per the dictionary, "homosexual." And the index of the Catechism on the Vatican's own website DOES use the word:

Vatican Website Index to the Catechism Wrote:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar...ndex/d.htm
Index to the Catechism on the Vatican's website


unjust discrimination against homosexuals, 2358

Your definition of "homosexual" is above.  It's not everyone's definition, and it's not the world's definition: to the world a "homosexual" is a person who is attracted to his own sex and either does engage or plans to engage in homosexual relationships.

That is why most, if not all, of the orthodox (not just Traditional) Catholic and other Christian writing on the subject tends to describe individuals who suffer from SSA but do not engage it as just that - sufferers of SSA.  For example, that is certainly the case for LifeSiteNews, which has been probably my main source of information on the homosexualist movement in the last decade or so.

Now, in the other column, you clearly have a point that the Vatican uses the word as you do. 

You also have a point that terminology only goes so far, and perhaps I've put a bit too much emphasis on it.  Again, your terminology is not what I'm used to seeing out of Catholic sources.


Quote:There are lots more, but, really, this weird hang-up about using the word "homosexual" (especially when it comes from people who have no problem calling homosexuals "sodomites" (whether they engage in sodomy or not), sods, fags, queers, it -- well, it's weird. It's senseless. It's a distraction, a time-suck to have to go over and over it. If a person can be "Italian" or "blonde" or "schizophrenic," then why not "homosexual" if he --- IS a homoseuxal?

Who calls practicing gays "sodomites"?  I haven't.  I don't use that word either because it's a label for a whole person that does imply holistic judgement.

Again, though, to me - and I'm far from alone - a "homosexual" is someone in the lifestyle.

But, you're right, enough about that.  I fold on this one.


Quote:Sure, and you're not seeing me arguing against hope for change. So I'm again not sure of what you're trying to say to me.

I somehow got the impression that you see homosexuality as immutable.  I'm happy I was wrong.


Quote:But you're incorrect about that. Pedophilia and homosexuality are NOT "tightly correlated." And most victims of childhood sexual molestation are female -- the overwhelming majority of them are.

I will assert that the homosexual lifestyle and, at least, pederasty are tightly correlated.  There is a massive amount of evidence to that.  Some has been posted here with no comment.


Quote:Having "Respect, compassion, and sensitivity" for people, to me, includes -- and quite obviously so -- not telling people to shut up and hide in closets, not telling them they don't exist, not assuming they engage in this sin or that sin, not calling them names, not shunning them, not acting as if I've been given the authority to judge their souls, engaging in any necessary fraternal correction in the right way, not scapegoating them, etc. And it a person in question has a disorder, either being quiet about it if you know nothing about it, or, better, learning about it so you can speak to them with understanding and give good advice if asked for it.

Quite a lot of straw men there!  What do any of these things have to do with me, with anything I've said here?


Quote:If the above "confuses" people somehow, if it makes some people flee this forum in outrage, it says much, much more about the ones running off in a huff than it does me. I believe what the Church teaches, but if someone mistakes Church teaching as requiring foaming at the mouth about "sods" and leaping to conclusions about every homosexual he encounters, then he's simply wrong in his understanding of Church teaching -- as in, he's missing the Gospel message itself.

I guess there are aspects I'm not allowed to get into (forbidden topics).  Some of your actions on the forum may have led people to believe that homosexual *behavior* is not condemned, or that the distinction between orientation and behavior is not always made clear.  I think most of those things had a lot of subjectivity in the mix, and are rather difficult to untangle.  And I only read a bit about it myself.


Quote:In any case, I'm not going to jump on the Fred Phelps bandwagon so the toxic types will subscribe and donate to the place. I have to face Lord Christ one day. If I am being denounced for believing what the Catechism of Christ's Church teaches and loving homosexuals instead of treating them like the source and summit of all evil, then I will just have to be denounced and forsaken and have a forum of 100 instead of 13,000. I mean, really, I can do no other. I'd likely go hungry, but at least I could sleep at night.

Phelps?  That man of blind hatred?  How'd he get into this discussion?

Ok: It's true I don't know much (anything) about a lot of people that left the forum.  Please don't assume I was offering some sort of defense for them in general. 

I probably should have never mentioned this particular aspect.  I was out of line because I'm not really prepared to defend the implicit assertion.

...

I think about my own judgement every single day.  I know in my heart I do not sin against people who suffer from SSA in any way.  I have not said a single thing here to suggest that to any good Catholic.

I think it needs to be pointed out, for prudence, that catechisms are not infallible.  As was widely publicized, a recent catechism contained a blatant heresy regarding the Old Covenant being salvific, which was removed after a campaign led by Robert Sungenis.  For this reason alone, I do think a Traditionalist who understands the crisis in the Church and its root causes needs to view modern catechisms with some trepidation.  (Dutch Catechism, anyone?!  Unitarians would have been at home with it.)

I have one final thought: Should we treat the disorder of pedophilia the same as SSA?  Pedophiles (and I don't know of a way to distinguish orientation from action), of course, also suffer from a disorder.  It's well-known that many of them, perhaps most, do not wish to have the desires they do.  It's some kind of deep-seated psychological disorder.  I think it may be even harder to rid than SSA.  A question is suggested: Should they "come out", too?  On national TV?  And should they be applauded for it?  If not, why not?
Reply
#66
(03-27-2014, 10:54 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Vox, you are making a serious & fundamental error in your data analysis here.

The absolute number of molested girls vs. the absolute number of boys says nothing whatever in itself regarding the correlation of homosexual behavior with pedophilia or pederasty.  It would if the proportions of practicing homosexuals (I've made it plenty clear up to this point I'm only speaking of people that engage in homosexual behavior) was approximately equal to the number of heterosexuals - but that is not at all the case.  Last I heard, people living in the homosexual lifestyle are 2-3% of the population (a far cry from "10%", of course).  If we put the number at 2% then if molestation were *fifty times more common* among the homosexual population the number of boys & girls molested would be about the same.  (Assuming homosexuals molested boys and heterosexuals girls - not a valid assumption, I think.)

Regardless of your other points (some of which I'll acknowledge), there is no doubt you're misunderstanding something significant here.

Actually, I wasn't doing any data analysis myself; I was just posting one study. But as the second study shows, men who are attracted to boys are typically not attracted to grown men. Pedophilia seems to be its "own thing."


Quote:First, it is apparent that pre-pubescent boys are not "similar" to men.  It is pederasty that is prevalent in homosexual culture, something attested to, again, by countless sources regarding many different cultures and time periods.  There's a big problem with terminology, though: pedophilia and pederasty are frequently conflated.  (For example, again, in the priestly "pedophila" scandals, over 80% of the victims are post-pubescent boys.  80%.  Thus, this is/was a pederasty scandal.)

EXACTLY. There's a huge difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia, the latter of which both heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in. It was homosexual ephebophilia that made up the majority of the clergy abuse cases in the Church.

Quote: You have one study above.  Here a reference to another, previously posted here by me, with no comment from you:

http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

"Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C."

There was more evidence of this sort in the same post.

You're missing the obvious point:  there is no breakdown in that article between pedophilia and ephebophilia. Calling sexual acts with 17 year old boys or girls "pedophilia" is dishonest. It's what the media did to our priests, and is what that article is doing to homosexuals.

Quote: Why are the results of one apparently to be ignored and another apparently regarded as plain truth?  (You made no response to my comments about the intense bias of political correctness in the more modern studies.  The bias is so intense that results that contradict the party line simply aren't allowed to exist.  For example, LifeSiteNews ran many stories a couple years ago about the meticulous study that demonstrated that adopted children of gay couples are more likely to turn out gay themselves.  The author, of course, got enormous hate mail, nearly had his career ruined, etc.  Yet, the study was the more objective and thorough of its kind and the results have been vindicated.)

I totally buy into the probabilty that studies that don't suit homosexualist activsts (as differentiated from mere homosexuals) are going to get quashed. There's no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever.

Quote: What I'm wondering is if you consider homosexual actions gravely disordered and sinful why would you apparently be surprised that they are correlated with other disordered, immoral sexual behavior?  Isn't that actually *logical*? 

No, it isn't. Pedophilia is one thing. Bestiality is another thing. Homosexuality is another thing. Straights wanting threesomes are another thing. And there's no necessary "mix" of any of the above.

Quote:Your definition of "homosexual" is above.  It's not everyone's definition, and it's not the world's definition: to the world a "homosexual" is a person who is attracted to his own sex and either does engage or plans to engage in homosexual relationships.

It's the dictionary definition and the definition used by scientists and, as show in an earlier post, by the Vatican itself. It's good enough for me.

Quote: That is why most, if not all, of the orthodox (not just Traditional) Catholic and other Christian writing on the subject tends to describe individuals who suffer from SSA but do not engage it as just that - sufferers of SSA.  For example, that is certainly the case for LifeSiteNews, which has been probably my main source of information on the homosexualist movement in the last decade or so.

Now, in the other column, you clearly have a point that the Vatican uses the word as you do. 

You also have a point that terminology only goes so far, and perhaps I've put a bit too much emphasis on it.  Again, your terminology is not what I'm used to seeing out of Catholic sources.

I just think it muddies the waters to have long debates about whether or not to use what I see as a perfectly good word -- "homosexual" -- to describe people who fit the dictionary definition. The word says nothing whatsoever about whether the person so-called is an active homosexual, it isn't implying that's all there is to know about that person, it doesn't imply anything about whether or not that person will always be a homosexual, etc.

Quote:Who calls practicing gays "sodomites"?  I haven't.  I don't use that word either because it's a label for a whole person that does imply holistic judgement.

Again, though, to me - and I'm far from alone - a "homosexual" is someone in the lifestyle.

But, you're right, enough about that.  I fold on this one.

Some -- blessedly few, relatively speaking -- on this forum have, and tons, tons more on other Catholic forums and in Catholic com-boxes have. And it simply isn't fair or right or necessarily true. AND it ignores the heterosexual sodomites out there.


Quote:I somehow got the impression that you see homosexuality as immutable.  I'm happy I was wrong.

That so freaks me out! I wonder why you'd think I thought that! Nowhere have I ever said or intimated that. In fact, I've done the opposite by focusing a lot of the typical family dynamic that helps form homosexuals, along with worrying about what I guess will be an explosion in the numbers of homosexuals in the near future because of all the fatherless homes we have out there.


Quote:I will assert that the homosexual lifestyle and, at least, pederasty are tightly correlated.  There is a massive amount of evidence to that.  Some has been posted here with no comment.

I'd say that when post-pubescent teenaged boys are tampered with, it's a homosexual problem (and not one of "pedophilia"). I also think that teenaged girls are used sexually by straight men over the age of majority, and that this problem is not at ALL rare (and also isn't "pedophilia"). As to which orientation has folks who are more apt to take advantage of post-pubescent teenagers, in terms of percents, I simply don't know. But I do know that just as there are straight men who'd want nothing to do with a 16 year old girl, there are homosexual men who'd want nothing to do with 16 year old boys.

Quote:
Quote:Having "Respect, compassion, and sensitivity" for people, to me, includes -- and quite obviously so -- not telling people to shut up and hide in closets, not telling them they don't exist, not assuming they engage in this sin or that sin, not calling them names, not shunning them, not acting as if I've been given the authority to judge their souls, engaging in any necessary fraternal correction in the right way, not scapegoating them, etc. And it a person in question has a disorder, either being quiet about it if you know nothing about it, or, better, learning about it so you can speak to them with understanding and give good advice if asked for it.

Quite a lot of straw men there!  What do any of these things have to do with me, with anything I've said here?

A lot of that might not have anything to do with you, per se, or anything you've said. But I have had to argue against folks who do think that homosexuals should shut up, "stay in the closet," tell no one but their priests that they're homosexual, etc. On this very forum (maybe even in this very thread. Not sure). These things don't reflect the attitudes of most trad Catholics on this forum, thank God, but they are out there, and I find it very sad.

Quote:
Quote:If the above "confuses" people somehow, if it makes some people flee this forum in outrage, it says much, much more about the ones running off in a huff than it does me. I believe what the Church teaches, but if someone mistakes Church teaching as requiring foaming at the mouth about "sods" and leaping to conclusions about every homosexual he encounters, then he's simply wrong in his understanding of Church teaching -- as in, he's missing the Gospel message itself.

I guess there are aspects I'm not allowed to get into (forbidden topics).  Some of your actions on the forum may have led people to believe that homosexual *behavior* is not condemned, or that the distinction between orientation and behavior is not always made clear.  I think most of those things had a lot of subjectivity in the mix, and are rather difficult to untangle.  And I only read a bit about it myself.

There's only so many times I can copy-paste the Catechism's section on homosexuality and tell people, even in blinking text (which I have literally done!!!!), that that is what I believe. Some people just want to think ill of me for whatever reason or simply aren't bright enough to follow a conversation. There really is nothing I can do about that.

Quote:
Quote:In any case, I'm not going to jump on the Fred Phelps bandwagon so the toxic types will subscribe and donate to the place. I have to face Lord Christ one day. If I am being denounced for believing what the Catechism of Christ's Church teaches and loving homosexuals instead of treating them like the source and summit of all evil, then I will just have to be denounced and forsaken and have a forum of 100 instead of 13,000. I mean, really, I can do no other. I'd likely go hungry, but at least I could sleep at night.

Phelps?  That man of blind hatred?  How'd he get into this discussion?

Ok: It's true I don't know much (anything) about a lot of people that left the forum.  Please don't assume I was offering some sort of defense for them in general. 

I probably should have never mentioned this particular aspect.  I was out of line because I'm not really prepared to defend the implicit assertion.

He got into the discussion NOT because I think you think anything like him (please know that!), but because some of the things people have said - the "shut up and hide yourself away, talk to no one, , etc. stuff  --  is on that level. It hurts people. One of the survey returns I got is from someone with SSA who is both relieved that I talk about this stuff with clarity -- but is still too afraid to post here because of how some folks talk about homosexuals. That breaks my heart. There's someone out there, a Catholic striving to be chaste, who feels afraid to post even HERE, at the place some other forums call "Fag Central" because I disallow nastiness toward homosexuals. Where is this person supposed to go? Where is he supposed to find community and love? He is practically being SHOVED into "the gay lifestyle" (which not all homosexuals are into at ALL) because there seems to be no room for him in CHRIST'S Church. It kills me, ACT....

Quote:I think about my own judgement every single day.  I know in my heart I do not sin against people who suffer from SSA in any way.  I have not said a single thing here to suggest that to any good Catholic.

I think it needs to be pointed out, for prudence, that catechisms are not infallible.  As was widely publicized, a recent catechism contained a blatant heresy regarding the Old Covenant being salvific, which was removed after a campaign led by Robert Sungenis.  For this reason alone, I do think a Traditionalist who understands the crisis in the Church and its root causes needs to view modern catechisms with some trepidation.  (Dutch Catechism, anyone?!  Unitarians would have been at home with it.)

I have one final thought: Should we treat the disorder of pedophilia the same as SSA?  Pedophiles (and I don't know of a way to distinguish orientation from action), of course, also suffer from a disorder.  It's well-known that many of them, perhaps most, do not wish to have the desires they do.  It's some kind of deep-seated psychological disorder.  I think it may be even harder to rid than SSA.  A question is suggested: Should they "come out", too?  On national TV?  And should they be applauded for it?  If not, why not?

I think that "catechism" you're referring to wasn't a catechism but a document put out by the American Bishops. It was a TRAVESTY!

As to your last question, studies are showing the pedophilia is its own sort of disorder -- in true pedophiles, a sort of orientation in itself in that children are all they're interested in. I'd feel sorry for someone "cursed" (as it were) with that disorder if he knew that acting on it would be wrong and resolved to NEVER do so (and even then, I'd keep my kids away from him) -- or HER. There are many female pedophiles). But pedophiles aren't the ones that are trying to change the definition of marriage, and I've never met any (that I know of, anyway) who are Catholics wanting to follow Christ's teachings and remain chaste (I've never met a pedophile at all that I'm aware of). They make the news when some poor child is abused, but they don't make the news in terms of having activists disrupting Masses, boycotting St. Patrick's Day parades, using the power of law to force Christians to do things that go against their consciences, etc. So the topic doesn't come up in the same way homosexuality does. Homosexuality comes up a lot because of what the activist types are constantly doing (or trying to do), government responses to it all in various places in the world, how it's dealt with in our schools, etc. Just the way it is, alas. And I think -- or at least I pray to God -- that pedophilia is a much less common disorder than homosexuality.


   
Reply
#67
You appear to be agreeing (by silence) with most of what I've posted, so I have only a few, select comments below (and perhaps this thread should be moved to a forum other than 'News'):

(03-28-2014, 12:50 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: No, it isn't. Pedophilia is one thing. Bestiality is another thing. Homosexuality is another thing. Straights wanting threesomes are another thing. And there's no necessary "mix" of any of the above.

Yes, Vox, different types of sexual immorality are distinct and, just as I said, homosexual behavior is closely correlated with other forms of sexual disorder, such as exhibitionism, pederasty, and even more disgusting and outlandish sexual behavior - which is, again, well-documented for those with their eyes open (which you seem to acknowledge).  For a couple references, see the end of Randy Engel's open letter to Pope Francis from a few months ago:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/131110

I don't know what you're contesting, actually, since you seem to agree with the facts that practicing homosexuals have many more partners (at least 10x as many on average by my recollection), homosexual behavior & pederasty are closely related, etc.

It seems to me that to discount these things is to defend homosexual behavior rather than people with SSA (not that I'm saying you do that).

For the record, I'll also mention again that my knowledge and my interest in this topic are not merely 'theoretical': I have a close family member who's been in the homosexual lifestyle for more than 20 years.


Quote:It's the dictionary definition [of 'homosexual'] and the definition used by scientists and, as show in an earlier post, by the Vatican itself. It's good enough for me.

...

I just think it muddies the waters to have long debates about whether or not to use what I see as a perfectly good word -- "homosexual" -- to describe people who fit the dictionary definition. The word says nothing whatsoever about whether the person so-called is an active homosexual, it isn't implying that's all there is to know about that person, it doesn't imply anything about whether or not that person will always be a homosexual, etc.

I indicated I wasn't going to talk about terminology anymore but I need to make some more comments (sometimes I say something I shouldn't have).

If modern "debate" has taught us anything it is that terminology is, indeed, critical.  Mrs. Engel's letter referenced above speaks to that to some degree.  Terminology is half the battle, as they say.

The Enemy wrote the dictionary you're referencing.

The "scientific community" you reference is one that is absolutely run-over with the politically-correct bias that a) "homosexuality" is innate and b) it would be preposterous (and just unbelievably offensive) to assert that there is something "wrong" with homosexual actions.

I won't ever think of my brother as "a homosexual": I'll continue to think of him as a man, and a potential Christian.  God did *not* make him a "homosexual" - he made himself one, if anyone did.  And he can change, with the applied force of his will over time.  At least, many can: a fact, that.  Only the frothing-at-the-mouth "rationalists" dispute this.

I need to point out that a prolific poster here who suffers from SSA, and who I happen to agree with almost all the time, has different standards than you regarding what terminology is appropriate.

As for the terminology that amorphous mass known as "The Vatican" uses - we believe the Vatican has some issues in this day and age.  Traditionalists do, that is - that's why we're known as Traditionalists.


Quote:That so freaks me out! I wonder why you'd think I thought that! Nowhere have I ever said or intimated that. In fact, I've done the opposite by focusing a lot of the typical family dynamic that helps form homosexuals, along with worrying about what I guess will be an explosion in the numbers of homosexuals in the near future because of all the fatherless homes we have out there.

Why call them "homosexuals" if that's not intrinsic to their being?

You're right - as you noted before, we call those who practice law "lawyers".  But, these "lawyers" need to renounce their sinful lifestyles just as do those in the homosexual lifestyle.

I threw a little joke in there just to make sure you're paying attention.

But seriously, folks, here's the difference: Unlike those with law degrees practicing law, people with SSA who fight it or have subdued it *are not practicing homosexuality*.  And, thus, they are not "homosexuals".  Much less are they "proud" to proclaim themselves "homosexuals" to the world.


Quote:I'd say that when post-pubescent teenaged boys are tampered with, it's a homosexual problem (and not one of "pedophilia"). I also think that teenaged girls are used sexually by straight men over the age of majority, and that this problem is not at ALL rare (and also isn't "pedophilia"). As to which orientation has folks who are more apt to take advantage of post-pubescent teenagers, in terms of percents, I simply don't know. But I do know that just as there are straight men who'd want nothing to do with a 16 year old girl, there are homosexual men who'd want nothing to do with 16 year old boys.

I'm sorry, but the ratio of men who practice homosexual behavior and do so with minors is FAR higher than the ratio of men who practice heterosexual behavior and also do so with minors.

That is really the end of the story.


Quote:He got into the discussion NOT because I think you think anything like him (please know that!), but because some of the things people have said - the "shut up and hide yourself away, talk to no one, , etc. stuff  --  is on that level. It hurts people. One of the survey returns I got is from someone with SSA who is both relieved that I talk about this stuff with clarity -- but is still too afraid to post here because of how some folks talk about homosexuals. That breaks my heart. There's someone out there, a Catholic striving to be chaste, who feels afraid to post even HERE, at the place some other forums call "Fag Central" because I disallow nastiness toward homosexuals. Where is this person supposed to go? Where is he supposed to find community and love? He is practically being SHOVED into "the gay lifestyle" (which not all homosexuals are into at ALL) because there seems to be no room for him in CHRIST'S Church. It kills me, ACT....

I guess I've just never seen any of that.  I've never seen anyone berating a person who suffers from SSA living (or trying to live) a chaste life.  I can hardly imagine it, really.  Trads I know in real life don't behave like this - at all - EVER.


Quote:I think that "catechism" you're referring to wasn't a catechism but a document put out by the American Bishops. It was a TRAVESTY!

Nope: It was the catechism.  Here's a source you'll approve of:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...335.0;wap2


Quote:As to your last question, studies are showing the pedophilia is its own sort of disorder -- in true pedophiles, a sort of orientation in itself in that children are all they're interested in. I'd feel sorry for someone "cursed" (as it were) with that disorder if he knew that acting on it would be wrong and resolved to NEVER do so (and even then, I'd keep my kids away from him) -- or HER. There are many female pedophiles). But pedophiles aren't the ones that are trying to change the definition of marriage, and I've never met any (that I know of, anyway) who are Catholics wanting to follow Christ's teachings and remain chaste (I've never met a pedophile at all that I'm aware of). They make the news when some poor child is abused, but they don't make the news in terms of having activists disrupting Masses, boycotting St. Patrick's Day parades, using the power of law to force Christians to do things that go against their consciences, etc. So the topic doesn't come up in the same way homosexuality does. Homosexuality comes up a lot because of what the activist types are constantly doing (or trying to do), government responses to it all in various places in the world, how it's dealt with in our schools, etc. Just the way it is, alas. And I think -- or at least I pray to God -- that pedophilia is a much less common disorder than homosexuality.

Randy Engel says otherwise regarding pedophilia.  I'm not sure: I haven't studied that topic in depth.  What I have studied is pederasty.  It does seem that pedophilia is far less common.  (I think it's even more of a Satanic vice: sexual desire for a [pre-pubescent] child is as sick, and bizarre, as is imaginable.)
Reply
#68
(04-10-2014, 10:41 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Yes, Vox, different types of sexual immorality are distinct and, just as I said, homosexual behavior is closely correlated with other forms of sexual disorder, such as exhibitionism, pederasty, and even more disgusting and outlandish sexual behavior - which is, again, well-documented for those with their eyes open (which you seem to acknowledge).  For a couple references, see the end of Randy Engel's open letter to Pope Francis from a few months ago:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/131110

I don't know what you're contesting, actually, since you seem to agree with the facts that practicing homosexuals have many more partners (at least 10x as many on average by my recollection), homosexual behavior & pederasty are closely related, etc.

It seems to me that to discount these things is to defend homosexual behavior rather than people with SSA (not that I'm saying you do that).

For the record, I'll also mention again that my knowledge and my interest in this topic are not merely 'theoretical': I have a close family member who's been in the homosexual lifestyle for more than 20 years.

Yeah, homosexuals as a group are more promiscuous than heterosexuals are as a group. Which is not to say that every homosexual is promiscuous. Or even active. And which is also not to say that there aren't a lot of promiscuous straight people. So I'm not sure what your point is here. No one here on the forum is defending any sort of promiscuity . No one here is defending sexually acting on homosexual impulses at all. But to link the word "homosexual" automatically to "sodomy" and "promiscuity" is not right because it's not true that they're necessarily related.

Because homosexuality is a disorder (I believe a developmental one, which makes the following even MORE likely), it's likely to be accompanied by other disorders -- neuroticism, drug abuse, suicidal ideation, etc. When kids are deprived of something they need growing up, the problems that stem from that unmet need typically don't just manifest itself in one, compartmentalized behavior or problem. That just makes sense. But again, none of that is to say anything about a given homosexual individual.

The thing is this:  if folks were careful with language and wouldn't, for ex, say "homosexuals this" and "sods that," but would, instead, say "homosexuals as a group __insert FACT here___" or "x% of homosexuals, according to this study, do __insert FACT here___." a lot of these sorts of conversations could be obviated. It'd be even better if they considered the poor homosexual reading this forum and would go out of his way to be clear that he's not referring to every single person with a homosexual orientation when relating whatever it is he's talking about.


Quote:I indicated I wasn't going to talk about terminology anymore but I need to make some more comments (sometimes I say something I shouldn't have).

If modern "debate" has taught us anything it is that terminology is, indeed, critical.  Mrs. Engel's letter referenced above speaks to that to some degree.  Terminology is half the battle, as they say.

The Enemy wrote the dictionary you're referencing.

The "scientific community" you reference is one that is absolutely run-over with the politically-correct bias that a) "homosexuality" is innate and b) it would be preposterous (and just unbelievably offensive) to assert that there is something "wrong" with homosexual actions.

I won't ever think of my brother as "a homosexual": I'll continue to think of him as a man, and a potential Christian.  God did *not* make him a "homosexual" - he made himself one, if anyone did.  And he can change, with the applied force of his will over time.  At least, many can: a fact, that.  Only the frothing-at-the-mouth "rationalists" dispute this.

I need to point out that a prolific poster here who suffers from SSA, and who I happen to agree with almost all the time, has different standards than you regarding what terminology is appropriate.

As for the terminology that amorphous mass known as "The Vatican" uses - we believe the Vatican has some issues in this day and age.  Traditionalists do, that is - that's why we're known as Traditionalists.

I'm a trad and I, like scientists and the Vatican, use the word "homosexual"," and I do so while believing neither that homosexuals are "born that way" nor that they "make themselves that way," either.

Quote:Why call them "homosexuals" if that's not intrinsic to their being?

You're right - as you noted before, we call those who practice law "lawyers".  But, these "lawyers" need to renounce their sinful lifestyles just as do those in the homosexual lifestyle.

I threw a little joke in there just to make sure you're paying attention.

But seriously, folks, here's the difference: Unlike those with law degrees practicing law, people with SSA who fight it or have subdued it *are not practicing homosexuality*.  And, thus, they are not "homosexuals".  Much less are they "proud" to proclaim themselves "homosexuals" to the world.

Because "homosexual" is what homosexuals are by definition. Someone who doesn't act on homosexual impulses but who is still attracted to his own sex is still a "homosexual." That's what the word "homosexual" means: someone sexually attracted to his own sex. And if I were homosexual, I wouldn't hide it. True "pride" has no place in it, but neither does shame. But the more I saw fellow Christians say absurd things, the more tempted I'd be to be even louder about it -- to the point of "pride" in the way that an oppressed group's standing up for itself for the cause of reclaiming its dignity is called "pride" (e.g., "Black Pride!" or "Italian Pride!"). The more I heard I don't exist, or that I should hide away and not let anyone know who I am, the more I'd want to be right there with all the "pride" stuff. And I'd hope to God I'd stay chaste and Catholic -- trad at that -- the whole time.

Quote:
Quote:I'd say that when post-pubescent teenaged boys are tampered with, it's a homosexual problem (and not one of "pedophilia"). I also think that teenaged girls are used sexually by straight men over the age of majority, and that this problem is not at ALL rare (and also isn't "pedophilia"). As to which orientation has folks who are more apt to take advantage of post-pubescent teenagers, in terms of percents, I simply don't know. But I do know that just as there are straight men who'd want nothing to do with a 16 year old girl, there are homosexual men who'd want nothing to do with 16 year old boys.

I'm sorry, but the ratio of men who practice homosexual behavior and do so with minors is FAR higher than the ratio of men who practice heterosexual behavior and also do so with minors.

That is really the end of the story.

Well, it's not the end of the story just because you made a sentence, now :P Me, I don't know what the percentages are and don't claim to. It wouldn't matter anyway in terms of my overall argument which is that not all homosexuals ___fill in the blank____. Like I said, I was a teenaged girl and know very well how often I got hit on -- as in pretty much any time I left my house LOL (that was many moons ago, however; I'm an old fat hag now) --  so if we're just going to do a sentence battle, there's my declaratory statement that amounts to nothing but my own personal experience (and also to the experience of the other teenaged girls I used to hang around with, BTW. Very seriously. Then again, part of it could've been the times; it was the 70s, and helicopter parenting, focus on sexual abuse, and the "lock 'em up!" societal attitudes weren't as prevalent. But nonetheless, it was our reality.).

Quote:
Quote:He got into the discussion NOT because I think you think anything like him (please know that!), but because some of the things people have said - the "shut up and hide yourself away, talk to no one, , etc. stuff  --  is on that level. It hurts people. One of the survey returns I got is from someone with SSA who is both relieved that I talk about this stuff with clarity -- but is still too afraid to post here because of how some folks talk about homosexuals. That breaks my heart. There's someone out there, a Catholic striving to be chaste, who feels afraid to post even HERE, at the place some other forums call "Fag Central" because I disallow nastiness toward homosexuals. Where is this person supposed to go? Where is he supposed to find community and love? He is practically being SHOVED into "the gay lifestyle" (which not all homosexuals are into at ALL) because there seems to be no room for him in CHRIST'S Church. It kills me, ACT....

I guess I've just never seen any of that.  I've never seen anyone berating a person who suffers from SSA living (or trying to live) a chaste life.  I can hardly imagine it, really.  Trads I know in real life don't behave like this - at all - EVER.

I'm telling you what someone told me on the last survey. It doesn't have to be a matter of someone virtually getting in his face and saying "I berate you, you homosexual you!" It can be a matter of people telling him he doesn't exist, or that he should be quiet about his problems and not let anyone but his priest know, or hearing folks going on about homosexuals by calling them "sods" and "sodomites" and the like, people making all these assumptions (like about anal sex, for ex.), etc. Whether trads behave like that "in real life" or not, I know they do on forums.

Quote:
Quote:I think that "catechism" you're referring to wasn't a catechism but a document put out by the American Bishops. It was a TRAVESTY!

Nope: It was the catechism.  Here's a source you'll approve of:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...335.0;wap2

Ah, thanks. Yes, the old ""Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them." schtick. Un-freaking-REAL, isn't it?

Quote:
Quote:As to your last question, studies are showing the pedophilia is its own sort of disorder -- in true pedophiles, a sort of orientation in itself in that children are all they're interested in. I'd feel sorry for someone "cursed" (as it were) with that disorder if he knew that acting on it would be wrong and resolved to NEVER do so (and even then, I'd keep my kids away from him) -- or HER. There are many female pedophiles). But pedophiles aren't the ones that are trying to change the definition of marriage, and I've never met any (that I know of, anyway) who are Catholics wanting to follow Christ's teachings and remain chaste (I've never met a pedophile at all that I'm aware of). They make the news when some poor child is abused, but they don't make the news in terms of having activists disrupting Masses, boycotting St. Patrick's Day parades, using the power of law to force Christians to do things that go against their consciences, etc. So the topic doesn't come up in the same way homosexuality does. Homosexuality comes up a lot because of what the activist types are constantly doing (or trying to do), government responses to it all in various places in the world, how it's dealt with in our schools, etc. Just the way it is, alas. And I think -- or at least I pray to God -- that pedophilia is a much less common disorder than homosexuality.

Randy Engel says otherwise regarding pedophilia.  I'm not sure: I haven't studied that topic in depth.  What I have studied is pederasty.  It does seem that pedophilia is far less common.  (I think it's even more of a Satanic vice: sexual desire for a [pre-pubescent] child is as sick, and bizarre, as is imaginable.)


Acts of ephebophilia are typically bad, IMO, in that there is often an abuse of power, a taking advantage of naivete, etc.. On the other hand, though, my Italian Grandma -- in vastly different times, however! -- was married when she was 14. But acting on pedophilia is always and everywhere a hundred percent revolting. I totally agree that it's Satanic to do such a thing; it's pretty much the very essence of the corruption of innocence. And the devastation it can cause... sigh... Poor kids  [Image: sad.gif] 


Reply
#69

A thought that just occurred to me -- and NOT in response to A Catholic Thinker himself or to anything he said:

For some, "homosexuals" don't exist because sexual orientation isn't a part of their "essence" or some such (strangely, and even though referring to other folks as "blondes" or "doctors" or "schizophrenics" or "Muslims" or "idiots" or "Democrats" is fine).  But often, the same person who'd say such a thing is also often the type who calls homosexuals "sods." So "homosexuals" "don't exist," but "sods" do. Interesting, non?

Reply
#70
(03-26-2014, 08:02 AM)Heorot Wrote: I find it amusing that this thread is basically two straight people debating about the psychological & neurological properties of an absent minority. SSA-burdened people might as well be mute laboratory testing subjects here. It's the same trend as in secular politics. Liberals say "oh, those poors gays! we have to help them achieve equal rights and dignity!" and conservatives say "oh, those poor gays! so trapped in their degenerate, sinful, immoral lifestyle! we must pray for them and reeducate them!" Meanwhile, the actual human beings who might be affected by all their bureaucracy and new laws are silent. There's something strange and unsettling about being a statistic, you know?

Just because you exclude yourself from head-on discussion about this doesn't mean SSA individuals are not vocal in the Church and in larger society!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)