Jimmy Akin on President Obama’s proclamation that June 2010 is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.
So there you have it. President Obama taking credit for all he has done to normalize the open practice of sexual deviancy in our society, as well as measures he’d like to take in the future to further normalize it, including “creat[ing] safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.”
I wonder if he’d like to require private schools to be “safer” in this way?
And I wonder where all this is going and how long it will be until gets there.
Tolerance and “safe environments” will continue to become the blunt records used against anybody who does not believe that sexual deviancy is a right that must be normalized. Not accepting this behavior will get you labeled in oh so many ways and no doubt with words that end in ‘phobe.’ How long before the travesties that have occurred in Canada and England come our way is a good question. The real tragedy is that those who are afflicted with same-sex attraction or other disordered desires are confirmed in their sin instead of being helped.
So what month is Adultery Pride month?
119 comments
Seriously guys, you should read the article that Pat recommends as evidence:
http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx
It is very informative and clearly addresses all the issues we have raised here. I am impressed particularly by the statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, followed by a recognition of the renewed interest in the etiology of the condition. Fascinating.
Read it and nothing new… Did you know that Focus on the Family has a ministry that has in fact had many successes in transforming persons with homosexual tendancies to heterosexual? This is a fact, check it out. Bottom line, we love the sinner but hate the sin. The Church teachings are very clear on this issue. Rather than changing the Church and the Word of God…change your religious affiliation.
Sorry Sid, I forgot to turn my sarcasm font on. Pat is claiming some superiority because of his quoting references, but those references are full of the same mistakes he makes. Looking for an etiology means looking for a cause of the condition, but they had just said that there is no condition, that it is a normal variant. Go figure.
The point continues to be that his (her?) cultural frame is totally different from ours, his faith is in something different than the Church. One could counter that reference point by point, and still would not get anywhere with people of that faith.
Wow – Sid you had me going there for a minute because I had already read the “facts” as presented through the links sent in by Pat!
I don’t know that we can present any more points because as you and Catholic Mom pointed out, Pat doesn’t want to see this from a basic science POV or the Catholic POV.
Sympathetic:
Wow. You’re not even trying. And this is just from a quick web search:
The “journal” you cite as medical authority may as well be printed in your basement:
1. It is published by a politically conservative non-profit organization that has only 4,000 known members.
2. The organization, its members, and the journal have all been the subjects of much criticism from mainstream medical sources.
3. It is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed nor the Web of Science.
4. A series of articles by its authors argued for the existence of a link between abortion and breast cancer. Such a link has been rejected by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization, among other major medical bodies.
5. A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics. A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and wrote: “The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it’s put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care.
6. Quackwatch lists it as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.
7. An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News by editor-in-chief Rudy Baum described JPandS as a “purveyor of utter nonsense.”
8. Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the “house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]” and “is barely credible as an independent forum.”
9. On Oct 25 2008 the AAPS website published an editorial implying that Barack Obama was using Neuro-linguistic Programming, “a covert form of hypnosis”, in his presidential campaign.
And Catholic Mom, You’re actually trying, but I see right through you. CDC is good, reputable authority. So is your latest cited journal. BUT THEY DON’T SUPPORT YOUR WILD ASSSERTIONS!!
Re-read your posts. You’ve made several very specific and bald and conclusory statements about gay people and what human body parts are “for” and when pressed all you can back it up with is ONE study of a bunch of Danes that in effect says, “Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population”???
Seriously?
I’ll give you this – unlike your friend above, at least the source appears to be a reputable study published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.
But your tactics are SO SO transparent: you make several wild claims about gay people – sometimes overly broad statements like “homosexual activity is unhealthy” – sometimes very specific yet equally wild statements – “vaginal skin is made for pleaseure, anal skin is not”, then – when pressed again and again you find ONE source that sort of kind of maybe goes somewhere near one or two of the the wild claims you’ve made, and you call it a win. I’ve given you several chances to back up your wild assertions (see above) and all you come up with is this one source that is pretty unrelated to your claims about cancer, gay sex, what vaginal skin is “for” and “not for”. . . . .
And you just blow off my request to support most of your wild statements. Because you can’t.
For me, you have been exposed as a rock-thrower with nothing real to back you up. I am ready to move on to someone who can seriously debate the issues. My time is worth $700 an hour, and I can’t waste more of it on your baloney. I should send you a bill.
-Pat
as
I think I get the picture.
Roberto,
No, no, no. Listen to yourself: Your statement, “Looking for an etiology means looking for a cause of the condition, but they had just said that there is no condition, that it is a normal variant.” Not true. The cited text merely says it is not a MENTAL DISORDER.
Look at it this way: My hair naturally turned prematurely gray at 16. Can’t we say that the event was abnormal, natural, not wrong or bad in itself, not a mental diesease, but certainly contrary to the norm and ALSO say that the cause is worth exploring and undertanding?
Of course we can. So too homosexuality.
Whether one cadre of service technicians in their lab coats agree that “homosexuality is normal”, while another, that it is not; whether one organization of support staff point out evidence from studies that homosexual activity is healthy, while another, that it is not . . . all this matters not in the least.
What matters is that the Master Designer / Engineer has indicated in the manual that this activity is contrary to specs, will lead to poor product performance, and could shorten the life of the product.
Loss of happiness in this life and loss of eternal happiness in the next.
Sure, what the technical geeks have to say is worthwhile. But if their findings contradict the Designer recommendations, then I say again, the smart money is one the Designer every time.
Even if there were epidemiological proof in every medical journal from Anchorage to Addis Ababa, from Bogota to Moscow to Shanghai that sexual sin was not only free from bad health effects, but that it could cure cancer, baldness, toenail fungus, and the common cold . . . it would still not be morally permissible to engage in sexual sin, or to counsel others to do so, or to remain silent in the face of it.
Sin is sin.
The wages of sin is death.
Dang. I leave for awhile and the data-dumping starts.
Data-dumping on the medical effects or lack thereof of sin is a waste of perfectly good ASCII.
When my family first moved to the Eastern Seaboard from the West, I went to a school that used textbooks that defended slavery. “Studies showed that most slaves were well-treated and happy. They were actually comparatively better off under that system than their descendants are living in poverty in our urban ghettos.” Poppycock! Rubbish! Fly-bait!
Maybe there are studies that show those things, and maybe there aren’t. Don’t make no nevermind either way.
To enslave one’s fellow man – to treat him as an object to be used – is, was, and always will be a deed most foul.
No matter what “studies” may say, for it, or against.
Doesn’t matter.
Slavery is a sin. A deed from Hell.
Homosexual acts are sins. Deeds from Hell.
Pat, don’t use quotation marks if you aren’t actually quoting someone. As far as data goes Marion, true science could never contradict God, who is the author, therefore the data does back up the fact that homosexuality is an unhealthy life-style. I’m not sure how slavery plays into that? As Christians, we have nothing to fear from science!
One can be charitable while defending the Church you know 😉
Pat, we don’t know you, nor you us. But I do know God loves all of us, imperfect though we may be. We were created in His image 🙂 I’d encourage you to go to Church and sit in front of the tabernacle. Empty yourself and just be with Him. He loves you and ultimately wants what is best for you. Sometimes the sacrifices that this calls for really stink and we just have to accept and trust. God’s peace be with you all.
CatholicMom wrote: ” I’m not sure how slavery plays into that? As Christians, we have nothing to fear from science!”
The results of materialist science, like those of every other human endeavor – the law, the government, the means of production, etc., – are only as reliable as the persons operating or performing it. If the persons operating the government are responsible, disinterested, honest, then the operations of their government will mirror those qualities. If, instead, the persons in government are venal and corrupt, then so will be the government.
The same is true with science. If those doing the science (1) know how to and (2) work hard to prevent their work being tinged by their own or anyone else’s personal, political, cultural, ideological agendas, then the science they produce will be top- quality work. If they don’t know how, or don’t care to keep agendas out of their scientific work, then the scientific work they produce will be inaccurate at worst, misleading at best.
I mentioned slavery earlier, because during the 19th century pseudo-scientific studies were conducted that called into question the equality of men and women of all colors and races; these pseudo-scientific studies, examples of misleading and inaccurate scientific work, were then used to justify slavery.
The point of mentioning this is: whether materialistic science attempts to justify or denounce a particular human activity is irrelevant to the fact that Our Heavenly Father has already informed us, through His Church, which human activities will lead us to happiness in this life and to life eternal, and which will lead us to misery and death.
Science or no science. We don’t need science to tell us what God has told us.
For it cannot. Not really.
Materialistic science is properly about studying items we can grind up, or liquefy, or photograph, or heat, or freeze, or squash, or reduce to powder, or burn, or mix with other substances, or run an electric current through, or dowse with seawater, or soak, or vaporize, or subject to pressure, or to make weightless, etc.
In other words, for natural objects that are under our control, including, to a limited extent, human tissue.
But the full human person is not an “object” that is under our control. We cannot do any of these experimental things to the human heart, the human mind, or the human soul. A full understanding of these is beyond the power of materialistic science to impart, for they are outside its realms.
Materialistic science is powerless to address questions of human happiness, of human welfare, and of eternal life. To try to apply materialistic scientific methods to these questions would be like trying to study the star Alpha Centauri using only a pair of ice skates. Can’t be done. Won’t work. Wrong tools.
To study Alpha Centauri, you need a telescope and a spectrometer. Ice skates won’t help you.
Similarly, to study the human heart, mind, and soul, you need God’s own word. Materialistic science, which is very helpful for studying stars, earthworms, coal mines, automobiles, E. coli, the inner ear, etc. won’t help you with the human hear, mind, and soul, which are not made of matter.
Why don’t we bring this to a close by praying the Rosary for Pat and people like him (her?) who, as Mark Shea says, worship the intellect instead of using it. That would be time better spent than continuing this exchange, methinks. Will you join me?
Great idea Roberto 🙂 That’s what I was thinking as well. Perhaps that’s why the Holy Spirit brought us to this conversation.
I’ll go for that Roberto and CM! And what will that time be worth? Priceless 🙂
Agreed. Of course, if I pray any harder for you people I might break the pew. But I’ll chance it.
Yikes! We’ve gotta pray for their conversions. Daily Rosary, Wear the Brown Scapular, Frequent Confession – Getting Our Own Act Together, Sunday/Saturday Mass. Repentence, Prayer, Fasting, Almsgiving, according to our means.
At least that’s what the scientists say.
Well, not really. It’s what the American Psychological Association says after being lobbied by gay rights groups to drop homosexuality from their references of mental disorders. In short, it was a political derermination, not a scientific/medical one.
so I produced an authoritative excerpt from court documents
No, what you produced was an excerpt from a biased amicus brief, which essentially said homosexuality is not a disorder because all these important people say it’s not. Just because it’s filed in court by a group with an agenda doesn’t make it “authoritative.” Particularly a brief, which is nothing more than written argument of lawyers.