More Sad Evidence
LifeSiteNews is reporting on a Canadian law which pro-family groups point out falls short of adequately protecting children from pornographic exploitation but is being challenged by several homosexual “rights” groups. The latter complain that, among other things, homosexual artists will be unfairly restricted and that children will be denied their “right to choose†sex and “discover†their sexual identities. Â
This is more sad evidence of the confusion associated with those who suffer from same sex attraction disorder. Call me a curmudgeon, but it seems to me that there are reasons that children are restricted from drinking, driving, voting, holding public office, and, in sane societies, from engaging in sexual relationships. It is called immaturity and innocence. There is so much evidence that children exposed to sexual contact damages them for the rest of their lives that other than ideologues, very few would require being pointed to the vast body of studies which demonstrate this. Nevertheless, “chicken hawks” are so much part of the “gay” subculture that ephebophelia is accepted as normal by a large percentage. This disordered subculture makes disorder appear to be natural and that is what they want to convince the rest of society of.
I am sure that there are those who could better explain to me what the homosexual response to this law is not as obscene as it appears?
.jpg)
Children exploited in the name of art, give me a break. It seems that it is just rationalization for child pornography. I fail to see the art in children taking off their clothes. I don’t think this position of exploitation can be defended. It is shameful that in Canada, one does not have freedom of expression on matters of faith, but an “artist” has freedom of expression in the sexual exploitation of children
Comment by Anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 11:54 am
Remember: Acts of homosexuality are considered “disordered,” but that is completely different than labeling it a disorder. I believe this is the Church’s “official” view on this, right?
So, that would mean that “…those who suffer from same sex attraction disorder…” should be changed to “…those who engage in sexually disordered activities…”
Comment by Anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 1:03 pm
i’m not sure i quite follow that second comment. please expond on that.
-julian
Comment by Anonymous — September 28, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
but that is completely different than labeling it a disorder
I am not sure that it is completely different. I suppose it depends upon the context. I agree that the secular medical community does not consider it a disorder but since we are not confined here to their lexicon I do not think I am out of line using the term as a noun or a verb. I think we can use the two terms interchangeably because it is both a disorder and disorded whether the medical community will admit this or not.
Comment by David — September 28, 2005 @ 9:40 pm
thanks david. i couldn’t quite tell if that was being contested or not in the second comment. not sure if you’ve addressed that before but the whole nature or nuture origin in the same-sex attraction struggle seems to give even “conservatives” (for lack of a better word) a hard time.
Where does this struggle come from and why is it so prevelant in our culture now? Do we treat like a disorder like alcoholism or is all together different?
“Gift” in its nuptial sense is hetero and not homo - The orientation is towards the other. This is revealed everywhere in the sacramental and in creation. Gift is the fabric of our being. Certainly God wouldn’t contradict himself in the supposed one in ten who deal with this SSA and yet Christians still seem to be at a loss on how to address or treat it.
-julian
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 11:49 am
I believe the Catholic Church makes a clear distinction there between the two. This would make sense considering this fits with other sins in the Church.
Just as an example, consider the sin of pre-marital sex. Now, having premarital sex (the act) is quite different than thinking about the act. Thinking about it is not the same as acting upon it, right?
The action is the sin, right? So following this logic, having a tendency towards acts that are “disordered” should not mean that the person “has a disorder” any more than having a tendency towards committing a sin or a crime makes a person a sinner or a criminal.
I think this distinction is important and quite clear. Perhaps my understanding of the Church’s position is not clear enough.
It has nothing to do with a medical disorder - I am only using the syntax the Church uses here.
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
Uh… homosexuality is VERY different from pedophilia.
Comment by Anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
Certainly God wouldn’t contradict himself in the supposed one in ten who deal with this SSA and yet Christians still seem to be at a loss on how to address or treat it.
Julian - You are right, the 10% figure is greatly inflated. “According to Statistics Canada , 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women considered themselves to be homosexual. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm) Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the population : In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57 :207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had same-sex partners. (Sandfort TG et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (Fergusson DM et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56 : 876-80).” With respect to Christian inability to address or treat it, I do not think that is necessarily the case. Courage is an apostolate with an 80% success rate in helping people overcome same sex attraction. The Catholic Medical Association has published a paper Homosexuality and Hope which does a very good job of identifying the problems and solutions. I hesitate to say this in such a short space but in general the push to distort masculinity and femininity in the name of equality is a fundamental part of the problem. Another problem is that the media distorts the true scope of the problem. I agree that same sex attraction is much greater than it ever has been but it is still below 3%.
Comment by David — September 29, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
The action is the sin, right? So following this logic, having a tendency towards acts that are “disordered” should not mean that the person “has a disorder” any more than having a tendency towards committing a sin or a crime makes a person a sinner or a criminal.
Anon - I see now where you are going. However, I do not think that this applies here. Heterosexual attraction is a good and it is natural; it is in order with creation. You are correct, here. It is not a disorder or sin unless one submits to lustful thoughts. This would then be a disorder, but a relative one. If the thoughts were about someone other than one’s spouse it would be a sin. If the thoughts were about one’s spouse, but the spouse was reduced in the thoughts to an object of pleasure there would also be a disorder, sin.
Same sex attraction and pedophilia are different than heterosexual attraction by their very nature. The pre-consent attractions of the former are in themselves disordered. Any consent to the disordered thoughts add sin to the original disorder.
Using the term disorder is not a value judgment on the person it is an analytical discription of the situation. Same sex attraction is not in accord with the order of creation so whether it is acted upon or not it still reflects a fundamental disorder.
However, the person with the disorder can still be virtuous and heroic by refusing to consent to the disorder and offering the suffering associated with the disorder for the sake of the Church. Nevertheless, the person still has a disorder that should be treated.
Comment by David — September 29, 2005 @ 8:08 pm