Posted on 11/11/2005 5:21:14 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum
wonder how that "openly espouse a gay culture" will be interpreted. it's okay if that do it quietly and behind the scenes? plant maple trees now so you'll have plenty of syrup to go with the waffles.
"I would say that homosexual feelings ARE wrong and need to be suppressed and or redirected, just as lust for a woman should be."
Except for one thing: being tempted by a hot babe is not disordered (for a man) and resisting the temptation does the job. Homosexual feelings are symptomatic of a mental disorder, and need to be not only resisted but treated and healed.
"Until then, find something else to report on."
Hey, if they do that, how are they supposed to incite a groundswell of popular indignation?
"It gives the formation directors too many "outs."
In the end, it will often come down to laymen giving such formation directors the old "out the door."
"There is nothing inherently wrong about homosexual feelings...homosexuals who lust are no different than heterosexuals who lust"
I'd like to write a note that would conjure images of a hundred thousand crusaders storming your walls and putting your city to the sword...unfortunately, I don't seem to be up to that, so I'll just settle for contradicting you.
There **is** most definitely something inherently wrong about homosexual feelings. Everything about it is inherently wrong.
Lust is not temptation but a yielding to it.
"Lust is not temptation but a yielding to it."
I don't want to start arguing at cross purposes because we're not defining terms in the same way.
When light bounces off a desirable woman and the photons impact the rod and cone cells on a man's retina, and are then converted to a biochemical signal and sent to the brain, a number of physical and psychological events occur. These can pretty much be expressed as, "Arrrrrgh, avast there me beauty; strike yer sails and stand by to be boarded."
That's lust.
"sexual desire as a degrading passion" is what I mean.
Okay, that's fair.
I've been thinking about that a lot over the last few years, because even into my fifties I still have those "Avast me beauty" moments.
According to the spiritual guidance I have received, that's temptation, and doesn't become sin unless you consent to the temptation, by acting or obsessing on it.
When a man has an "Avast me beauty" moment upon seeing another man, though, that is fundamentally disordered, and indicates a problem that needs to be addressed with more than just suppression.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Looks better and better. The light of dawn may be shining in the east. Nothing like the light of God's truth to cheer and enlighten. Let people who want to reject universal moral principles quit defiling religious institutions and just go hang out - well, find someplace else to hang out.
Or better yet, contact one of the many organizations that help people become free from homosexuality!
Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
Bestiality is just way beyond my meager powers of comprehension; however, animals can't sin, so in that regard I'd have to call homosexual behavior worse.
While men who suffer from SSAD surely long for love as much as the rest of us, I believe you are correct that they are looking for it in the wrong places.
SSAD manifests as a compulsion to engage in homosexual acts. This is only understandable when you see that the disorder itself is precipitated by a molestation or seduction in the pre-adult years. With that realization, several things fall into place.
Depending on the psychopathology of the individual involved, they are either becoming the molester, punishing the molester, or trying to demonstrate that nothing bad was done to them. It's tragic.
In my opinion, the definition would be along the same lines as the definition of an alcoholic who drank became habitual in drinking and now may drink no more; however, is still an alcoholic with deeply rooted tendencies that takes it one day at a time...
Apply that to an individual suffering the homosexual disorder that practiced homosexual activity... One who as such has deeply rooted deeply rooted homosexual tendencies versus an individual suffering the homosexual disorder that has never engaged in homosexual activity...
Actually AB, it's a Monty Python line. The famous "Bruce" sketch.
Told y'all so!
-Theo
It's up to the local ordinary, I believe, to start proceedings to have a priest removed. Not normally done from the Vatican down.
I dunno. Too many loopholes for me. Practicing homosexuals is a no-brainer. Openly espousing a gay culture? So one can be a homosexual and a priest if one doesn't do gay pride parades? If one espouses behind closed doors?
The Vatican needs to just say, "No homosexual priests" and be done with it.
I enjoy how you start with "I would say." You're not saying what the Catechism says, nor what DSM-II says. So if you're contradicting both faith and science, why should anyone listen to you? You're a smaller minority than homosexuals. Homosexuality has nothing to do with mental disorders. So says DSM-II and myself.
I enjoy how you start with "I would say." You're not saying what the Catechism says, nor what DSM-II says. So if you're contradicting both faith and science, why should anyone listen to you? You're a smaller minority than homosexuals. Homosexuality has nothing to do with mental disorders. So says DSM-II, Vatican II, and myself. Sorry for the double post, but I had to edit something.
"I enjoy how you start with "I would say."
I didn't. That was the fellow I was responding to. Not a careful reader, eh?
"You're not saying what the Catechism says"
The catechism says that SSAD is gravely disordered, so I am completely in accord with it.
"nor what DSM-II says."
What the DSM says has nothing to do with "science." It has to do with pervert activists intimidating cowards. In time, this will come to be seen as a great disgrace to science.
I remember when homosexuality was removed from the DSM. I was a psychology student at the time, and I heard a great deal about it. It was a shameful incident, a highjacking, not science.
"So if you're contradicting both faith and science...Homosexuality has nothing to do with mental disorders."
It is you who contradicts faith and science by so saying.
"You're a smaller minority"
Truth is not decided by public vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.