Pace, please show me a specific example of a scientific fact which the CMA ignores.  They have answers to every contention you have with them—you simply don’t find their answers satisfactory, plain and simple.  Who we are, psychologically, cannot be tested or measured in the same way as can something physical, such as gravity can.  Even so, what is objectively true, however, is that there has never been definitive or widely accepted scientific proof for a physiological or genetic cause for homosexuality.  If there has been, please show everyone reading this thread the study which definitively shows that you, I, or anyone else was “born gay.”

The Church’s answer to this question is very insightful.

“The human person made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties - but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: a creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.” (Letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith - October 1986).”

In light of this, the question of genetics is ultimately moot anyway.  If a man was shown to be attracted to men because of his genes, a gay lifestyle would still be immoral for him, and the reason for his sexual attractions being allowed by God in his life would find it’s answer in the words of Jesus concerning the man born blind.  When his disciples asked Jesus whose sin caused the blindness, Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

And of course, what are the works of God in any man’s life?  It is St. Paul who glories in his weakness.  It is my very desire to be with men which I glory in, for I know that without Christ I am powerless to resist my desires.  It is my desire for men which has shown me most clearly my need for God.  Thomas Merton says it well, that real self conquest is the conquest of the self by the Holy Spirit.  For me, I thank God I live with SSA, since it reveals to me like nothing else ever has or could that I can do no good without Christ who strengthens me.  Living with SSA is, in the words of C.S. Lewis, a “severe mercy.”

The gay gene question is absolutely irrelevant to our spiritual condition or progress towards sanctification.  The question we are all asked is this:  my will or Thy will be done.  Courage helps those who choose the latter.

There are some truths in Pace’s comments but little logic. It would be good for those who are discussing the issue of homosexuality with teens to go over Pace’s arguments closely. They will learn more about logic and illogic than about homosexuality but that is a valuable lesson as well. 

Pace is an expert at using the “false dilemma fallacy.” This fallacy proceeds by asserting that if Y is true, X can’t be true.  But the fact is, both Y and X can be true.  It is no refutation of X to prove Y.  To prove that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove the some children do like Brussels sprouts.  The attentive reader will find this fallacy dominates Pace’s reasoning.

Since Pace’s reasoning is driven by the false dilemma fallacy, Pace has difficulty assessing the strength of statements. Clarify with your teenager that when a person says “many” do X, that clearly suggest that others, perhaps even many, also do not. It is not a refutation of the claim that many do X to say that many do not.  Have them consider all the implications of the following claims: it is true that many who drink and drive get into accidents, but it is also true that many who drink and drive do not get in accidents.  Moreover, more accidents are caused by those who are not drunk than those who are.  We would nonetheless counsel everyone not to drink and drive. 

To claim that heterosexuals behave the same way as homosexuals does not succeed in justifying homosexual activity.  Pace thinks it a refutation of the claim that “homosexuals are wrong to do X” to say “heterosexuals do X too”.  I clearly am not endorsing all heterosexual behavior.  I make it clear that the Church approves only of sexual intercourse between married heterosexuals that is voluntary, loving, self-giving and open to life. Much of heterosexual sexual conduct is very bad and is, in fact, as I said, the reason why so many heterosexuals refuse to address honestly the morality of homosexual sexual behavior.  It is undeniable that most heterosexuals have engaged in at least one of the following immoral activities: masturbation, contraception, fornication, abortion, and use of pornography.  Merely to raise the question of the morality of any sexual behavior is to raise the possibility that one’s own behavior is wanting, so those heterosexuals who are engaging in immoral sexual behavior are willing to be tolerant of homosexual sexual behavior because they do not want to subject their own behavior to moral analysis.

Not tiring of committing the false dilemma fallacy, Pace claims that perception of neglect by one’s father cannot be a cause of SSA since many of those who experience SSA were not neglected by their fathers.  Certainly not all males who experience SSA were neglected by their fathers but that does not mean that rejection (real or perceived) is not a cause of homosexuality.  Many women who were raped distrust males for the rest of their lives.  Other women who are distrustful of males were not raped. That does not falsify the truth that rape is a identifiable cause of some women being distrustful of males.

The claims I make about the causes of homosexuality and the elements and consequences of the gay lifestyle are well substantiated.  Those interested should visit the sites of Joseph Nicolosi (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/papers2/) or Rick Fitzgibbons (e.g, http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0011.html) and, of course, the NARTH website is a treasure trove of professional studies.

As for the number of sexual partners and the likelihood of fidelity, I used articles published in professional journals. Pace’s quarrel is with them, not me. See, for instance,  http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02  Prof.essional journals show a high degree of fidelity among married heterosexuals and marital infidelity that does happen is with a much smaller group of partners than among homosexuals.

Nothing Pace says falsifies the claim that if sexually active gays hope in any way to simulate normal sexual intercourse, they must engage in degrading and implausible acts.  I think vibrators and rectal intercourse are degrading.  Heterosexual wives do not need to use vibrators to achieve union; heterosexual husbands do not need to place their generative organ in the !@#$% of another male.  This, of course, is not to say that many heterosexuals do not engage in degrading and immoral behavior. Over and over again, let me note that any sexual intercourse that is not the loving, self-giving, noncontracepted intercourse of married heterosexuals is immoral and much of it is degrading.

As far as the increase incidence of anal cancer among male heterosexuals, that data also can easily be accessed: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20000531/gay-men-should-be-checked-for-anal-cancer-experts-say  .

I believe that a quick look at Mardi Gras parades should convince everyone that sexual immorality leads to unspeakable raunchiness.  But we don’t need to wait for Mardi Gras; we all get daily opportunities to view the immoral ways in which heterosexuals abuse their sexuality on prime time TV. For instance, to take a rather tame example, the mode of dress of many of the dancers in Dancing with the Stars is immoral and degrading.  I would use such shows to make points with teenagers about immodesty.  If one wanted to find priests who are sexual abusers, a good place to look would be Gay Pride parades since most (80%) of the sexual abuse committed by priests was with males.  I think it undeniable that Gay Pride parades reveal something true about the gay lifestyle.  But not everything true about everything involved in the lifestyles of all gays, of course….   

I am sure that there are homosexuals who are repulsed by the antics displayed at Gay Pride parades, but do any of them protest these parades like some heterosexuals protest the sexual immorality in the media? I hope they do, though I haven’t seen it.

Again, while Pace’s claims about all of us having difficulty with some kinds of relationships are true, it is also undeniable that some experiences and conditions make relationships more difficult.  Homosexuality is one of those experiences. (False dilemma fallacy alert!) Studies show that children raised by single parents and divorced parents have a higher incidence of divorce when they marry.  Yes, many who were raised by parents who never divorced, get divorced, and many who were raised by divorced parents, do not divorce, but the fact is that being raised by single or divorced parents contributes to one’s likelihood of getting divorced. Those who get divorced should take that data into account.  Again, I refer those who are interested in studies that show the difficulties many (it should not be necessary but let me say, “not all”) homosexuals have with relationships, to the sites listed above.

It is true that I, like everyone else, have wounds in my being and engage in behaviors that should be modified to make my life better, both morally and practically. I am grateful to those who lovingly point them out and help me find ways to cope or heal. My doctor wants me to lose weight to reduce the risk of diabetes and heart attacks though my weight does not put me at a very high level of risk. But if I can reduce the risk at all, that would be good.  Warning people about the risks of immoral sexual behavior of all kinds is responsible and loving behavior. To engage in obfuscating reasoning like Pace’s deprives people of information that may help them make good decisions and information that would prevent them from making bad decisions, decisions that often lead to heartbreak, disease, and shortened lifespans.  I think Pace’s muddled thinking is just that: muddled and not at all useful for helping people think clearly about homosexual attractions or the homosexual lifestyle.

I am not going to get into an extended exchange with the anonymous Pace; I wrote this to help others detect the illogic of Pace’s reasoning, though it is so manifest, perhaps my labors are not all that necessary.  I invite people to test my reasoning and the studies I cite and to do the same for Pace’s comments.  If the Catholic Church is right about homosexuality, it is a tremendous kindness to try to convince people of the truth that the Church teaches.  This is not just a debate over logic and the strength of arguments; rather the lives, happiness and salvation of many lie in the balance.

JMJ I recomend reading “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry” The Politics of Diagnosis by Ronald Bayer. Chapter 4 exposes how Gay activists stormed the American Psychiatric Association convention in San Francisco 1970-1972. A very well organized attack to force(physically threaten)(cursing,swearing) the APA to change their findings that Homosexuality is a Mental Illness, in the APA’S official Diagnostic and Statistaical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders.  All the names are there,and how it was orchestrated. “The Planned Distruption” P.105 how Gays convenced Antiwar Activists to join them. “Using Forged Credentials, gay activists gained access the the exhibit area…  p.106 “Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down.”  They even had the floorplan of the Hotel.  “Toward the end of the convetion Kameny and Littlejohn informed Robinson that they wanted to present their demands for the deletion of Homosexuality from the APA’s official nosology, DSM II, to members of the Association’s Committee on Nomenclature.” This is really frieghtening.+

From the article: “[Heterosexual teenagers] think that permitting homosexual ‘marriages’ is a matter of civil rights, that sexual orientation is like skin color: It is wrong to use either to discriminate against people.”

Ms. Smith goes on to speculate about the “cause” of same-sex orientation, to point out studies that show infidelity is more of a problem in same-sex relationships than heterosexual relationships, to share that she finds homosexual sex acts to be icky,  and that she thinks homosexuals have trouble having normal relationships with heterosexual males and females.

Why would any of this convince a teenager that permitting homosexual marriages is not a matter of civil rights? If the things Ms. Smith says about homosexuals were true of “some,” or even all divorced people, or Asian Americans, or New Yorkers, or blondes, it would not be a reason to prohibit them from marrying under state law.

To convince a teenager that the state should prohibit same sex marriage, you would need to convince them that state law should be an expression of Church doctrine. The Church lost that battle a long time ago when the state began marrying divorced people who had been in a valid marriage. Nobody forces the Church to participate in these marriage ceremonies, but their marriages are recognized in civil law. If a woman who is remarried after a divorce gives birth to a baby in a Catholic hospital, the accounting department will happily bill her “husband’s” insurance company for the costs. As far as I know, the Catholic foster care services in Illinois didn’t balk at placing children in homes where the heterosexual parents were divorced and remarried.

From the article: “Tell them you would be as reluctant to allow a cohabiting couple to share a bedroom in your home as you would be to allow a homosexual couple to do so.”

How many Catholics would tell their teenager they were reluctant to allow divorced and remarried sixty-year-old Aunt Sarah to share a bedroom with her second husband of thirty years? Would they force him to sleep on the couch? Would this make a good impression on the teenager or convince him or her that the parents were obsessing over other people’s business?

Pace, please show me a specific example of a scientific fact which the CMA ignores.  They have answers to every contention you have with them—you simply don’t find their answers satisfactory, plain and simple.  Who we are, psychologically, cannot be tested or measured in the same way as can something physical, such as gravity can.  Even so, what is objectively true, however, is that there has  never been definitive or widely accepted scientific proof for a physiological or genetic cause for homosexuality.  If there has been, please show everyone reading this thread the study which definitively shows that you, I, or anyone else was “born gay.”

The Church’s answer to this question is very insightful.

“The human person made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties - but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: a creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.” (Letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith - October 1986).”

In light of this, the question of genetics is ultimately moot anyway.  If a man was shown to be attracted to men because of his genes, a gay lifestyle would still be immoral for him, and the reason for his sexual attractions being allowed by God in his life would find it’s answer in the words of Jesus concerning the man born blind.  When his disciples asked Jesus whose sin caused the blindness, Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

And of course, what are the works of God in any man’s life?  It is St. Paul who glories in his weakness.  It is my very desire to be with men which I glory in, for I know that without Christ I am powerless to resist my desires.  It is my desire for men which has shown me most clearly my need for God.  Thomas Merton says it well, that real self conquest is the conquest of the self by the Holy Spirit.  For me, I thank God I live with SSA, since it reveals to me like nothing else ever has or could that I can do no good without Christ who strengthens me.  Living with SSA is, in the words of C.S. Lewis, a “severe mercy.”

The gay gene question is absolutely irrelevant to our spiritual condition or progress towards sanctification.  The question we are all asked is this:  my will or Thy will be done.  Courage helps those who choose the latter.

Regarding “Bridget” - please get tested. 
“I believe that a quick look at Mardi Gras parades should convince everyone that sexual immorality leads to unspeakable raunchiness.  But we don’t need to wait for Mardi Gras; we all get daily opportunities to view the immoral ways in which heterosexuals abuse their sexuality on prime time TV.”  Well said, Dr. J.S.

correction:  There was an important “not” missing in this sentence:
To prove that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove the some children do NOT like Brussels sprouts.  The attentive reader will find this fallacy dominates Pace’s reasoning.

Such typos are embarrassing, annoying and humbling. The attentive author and proofreader should not miss them.  My apologies for any confusion causes.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/teaching-moments-on-sexuality/#ixzz1fR6SxtGO

Dan, you asked, “please show me a specific example of a scientific fact which the CMA ignores”.  I have already listed many.  You say, “They have answers to every contention you have with them”, and perhaps they do, but (1) they did not include them in the pamphlet that was made available to me, and (2) they are not able to satisfactorily answer all of the issues I’ve raised, even if they tried.  Not with the available scientific evidence.

You wrote, “there has never been definitive or widely accepted scientific proof for a physiological or genetic cause for homosexuality.”  It is widely accepted that there is scientific evidence that biology and genetics play significant roles in the “cause” of homosexuality.  Notice the word “roles”.  Notice that I do not say that biology or genetics are the sole cause of everyone’s homosexuality, or that they are the only significant factors in everyone’s homosexuality, or that science has identified “gay genes”.  Notice likewise in the statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics: “Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.”  Yet, notice what evidence they expressly state is lacking: “THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT ABNORMAL PARENTING, SEXUAL ABUSE, OR OTHER ADVERSE LIFE EVENTS INFLUENCE SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”  Similarly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists: “There is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation”.  So too, the American Psychiatric Association: “Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.”

Instead, what the Royal College of Psychiatrists says the evidence leads them to believe: “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.”  The American Academy of Pediatrics takes a broader approach, “Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT ABNORMAL PARENTING, SEXUAL ABUSE, OR OTHER ADVERSE LIFE EVENTS INFLUENCE SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.”

You wrote, “please show everyone reading this thread the study which definitively shows that you, I, or anyone else was ‘born gay.’”  But that’s your strawman.  Notice that neither I nor the esteemed organizations claim anything is “definitively” proven.  Science is a process of investigation that works by DISproving but always keeping the door open to something new.  Science has not disproven, definitively or otherwise, the possibility that some people may be “born gay”.  Indeed, the Royal College of Psychiatrists seems to take the possibility even further, to say that it appears likely: “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.”  But personally, as I have already said, I don’t presume to declare that so-and-so was or wasn’t “born gay”.  Instead, I say maybe.  There is no definitive scientific proof that Kwandaluk Pretan was not “born gay”.  YOU do not have “definitive proof” that he was not “born gay”. If he chooses to say he was “born gay”, I don’t have anything to prove he wasn’t.  For all I know, he might have been.  (And by “born gay” I might assume he means he was born with whatever would later develop into a homosexual orientation.)

You wrote, “The Church’s answer to this question is very insightful. ‘The human person made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation…’”

That is not an answer to the question of whether anyone is “born gay”.  The phrase “born gay” when used by reasonable persons is not saying that the person is nothing more than a sexual orientation.  Rather, it is along the lines of saying, “born with blue eyes”.  We are not reducing the person to nothing but “blue eyes” but speaking about an aspect of the person.  The same goes for “born gay”, where the word “gay” is being used as an adjective to describe an aspect of the person.

Your quote of Cardinal Ratzinger went on to say, “Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual”.”

Notice that his statement refers to using the words as nouns.  Notice that Janet Smith repeatedly referred to people using the nouns “gays”, “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals”.

You wrote, “the question of genetics is ultimately moot anyway.  If a man was shown to be attracted to men because of his genes, a gay lifestyle would still be immoral for him.”

It is not “moot” in regard to addressing the misinformation published by the various sources.  It is not “moot” in regard to many people in society who have and/or continue to blame homosexual persons for being attracted to the same sex.  And it is not “moot” in regard to the Church teaching that “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”  (Please do not make the mistake in reading this by thinking that I’m saying that it’s morally ok for gay people to engage in homosexual acts.)

And if I might comment again on “gay lifestyle, just as Cardinal Ratzinger reminded that “the human person made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation”, I will likewise remind that similar concerns apply to uses of the term “gay lifestyle”.  Gay people have diverse lifestyles, including lifestyles embracing chastity and Church teachings.  They live human lifestyles.

You write, “I thank God I live with SSA.”  And so too, someone else may say, “I thank God I’m gay” and mean the same thing, even though you and/or Courage might quibble over his word choice.

I would like to be able to communicate with “Dan” about Courage - is that possible?  I need his help - could you pl give him my email address?  thank you

Dear Janet E. Smith, I appreciate your reply, and I do hope that you or whoever is moderating this discussion will courteously permit me to respond to your reply.

You wrote, “There are some truths in Pace’s comments but little logic.”  In charity, I read your statement as you saying that you find some truths in your interpretation of my comments but your interpretation is apparently faulty because you struggle with making full sense of your interpretation.  You are speaking of your interpretation, your logic.  It is good if your interpretation has some truth to it, because there is much truth to be found in a proper reading of what I have posted, but you may need to work more on making sense of it.  I am here to help.

You wrote, “Pace is an expert at using the ‘false dilemma fallacy.’ This fallacy proceeds by asserting that if Y is true, X can’t be true.  But the fact is, both Y and X can be true.  It is no refutation of X to prove Y… The attentive reader will find this fallacy dominates Pace’s reasoning.  Since Pace’s reasoning is driven by the false dilemma fallacy, Pace has difficulty assessing the strength of statements.”

Perhaps we are simply are not speaking the same language.  I recognize that you are actually talking your interpretation, as faulty as it may be, of what you think I’ve said.  For example, your notion about “if Y is true, X can’t be true” may be your notion of what you think I’ve said, but it is not what I’ve said.  But since you have brought it up, I will point out that what you assert to be a fallacy can in fact be true, when, for example, X is “not Y”, for if Y is true, as the premise requires, then X which is “not Y” is not true, and can’t be true, as long as the premise holds.  And thus, even what you profess to be a fallacy may not be a fallacy when more fully appreciated.  If you were perhaps a tad brighter and/or humble, you might not make many of the mistakes that you make.

You wrote, “Clarify with your teenager that when a person says ‘many’ do X, that clearly suggest that others, perhaps even many, also do not. It is not a refutation of the claim that many do X to say that many do not.”

You needed to clarify your post, and it is good that you’ve made at least some minor attempt in that regard, especially since it was you who specifically spoke of the need for “sensitivity and clarity” in communication.  My post to you was to point that out.  You erred in your interpretation if you thought I was saying your “many” claims were all false.  Rather, as I expressly said, “many” is vague, and the value of your “many” claims is questionable because “many” people, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual or whatever, do all sorts of things, including eating brussels sprouts.  And so, “many” readers might glean from your airing of “many” dirty laundry items that parents are to tell their teens “bad” things about homosexual persons and not things like they eat brussels sprouts or “we” and our laundry are no better.  In that light, it is not much of a “clarification” for you to subsequently post, “Clarify with your teenager that when a person says ‘many’ do X, that clearly suggest that others, perhaps even many, also do not.”  Indeed, an astute reader may notice that your so-called clarification only alleges the “perhaps” in respect to those who do not, and that it is only a “suggestion”, perhaps implied rather than clear, and not an express statement.  What’s more, it inserts the word “even”, which may be read as “in an extreme case or unlikely instance”.  It thus leaves as an expressed “fact” that “many” of “them” do whatever, but only leaves it as a suggestion by implication that “perhaps” in an extreme many do not, and it continues to omit that “our” laundry is no better than “theirs”.

Your next “clarification” states, “Have them consider all the implications of the following claims: it is true that many who drink and drive get into accidents, but it is also true that many who drink and drive do not get in accidents.” In that, there is no express recognition that there are any, much less many, who do not drink and drive (no recognition that any, much less many, are abstinent), and by using a deliberate act of drinking, it makes their intoxication appear to be their own fault, which may be valid in terms of drinking but it is not valid in regard to sexual orientation.  Similarly, your statement, “more accidents are caused by those who are not drunk than those who are” may be read as implying that those who practice abstinence are a bigger problem than those who do not.  You then say, “We would nonetheless counsel everyone not to drink and drive”, but your original post didn’t counsel everyone; you only “counseled” ABOUT homosexual persons and that is and was your apparent intent.  Your subsequent side dressing about heterosexual persons and “everyone” remains some sort of bandaid you’ve attempted to cover your wound.

You wrote, “To claim that heterosexuals behave the same way as homosexuals does not succeed in justifying homosexual activity.  Pace thinks it a refutation of the claim that ‘homosexuals are wrong to do X’ to say ‘heterosexuals do X too’.”

Again, you apparently have trouble distinguishing between what you think and what I think.  I don’t think or claim or try to claim that by “heterosexuals” doing something, whether that something is good or bad, that it “justifies” homosexual acts.  Do you really think such absurd notions?  It’s not charitable of you to think such a thing of me or of what I’ve posted.  Don’t attach the name “Pace” to the nonsense you think I’ve said.  Put your name on it.  It is yours.  The same goes with your repeated “fallacy” accusations.  Though you talk of logical fallacies, you don’t realize that it is you who are making them.  Why is that?  Try to read with a pure and humble heart.  Consider that you what you really know may be much, much less than what you think you know.  As I said, I’m here to help.

You wrote, “Much of heterosexual sexual conduct is very bad and is, in fact, as I said, the reason why so many heterosexuals refuse to address honestly the morality of homosexual sexual behavior.”  You not only call an opinion “fact”, but by alleging that it is “the” reason, you not only don’t admit any other reasons but also implicitly deny any other reasons.  Surely, someone who sits in a “Chair” can recognize other reasons?  You say, “those heterosexuals who are engaging in immoral sexual behavior are willing to be tolerant of homosexual sexual behavior because they do not want to subject their own behavior to moral analysis.”  That might be so for some, but there are also “so many heterosexuals” who seemingly obsess over the IMmorality of homosexual sexual behavior while giving but a passing glance to everything else.  Perhaps many of them do that “because they do not want to subject their own behavior to moral analysis.”  So too, there may be “so many heterosexuals” who might have “subjected their own behavior to moral analysis”, but perhaps did so erroneously, whether innocently or not, and who might think their preaching passes the sniff test.  And then there are “so many heterosexuals” who are perhaps aware of the incessant preaching about homosexuality that exists just about everywhere, and who do not choose to join in or to act in ways that would even give the appearance of being a party to that, perhaps recognizing that too much of something is not always a good thing.  For some, it may be that they don’t have the “gift” of talking about such things in a way that helps more than hurts.  Many others may recognize that the “immoral sexual behavior” of others is by and large respectfully not under their control.  Even if some had the power to stop the behavior of others, some might read Romans 1 and ask themselves, did God “refuse to address honestly” the situation when he himself handed the people over to do as they pleased?  Or they might look to the story of the adulteress, where the judgmental people, after they had “subjected their own behavior to moral analysis”, did not continue with their judgmental acts but left the woman alone with Jesus, who told her simply, and in private, “Go and sin no more.”  Perhaps “many” are willing to leave “them” alone, to the privacy of one’s conscience, where one “is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”  After all, there is the teaching, “Do unto others as you’d have done unto you.”  And Jesus said, “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?”  There could be many reasons.

Speaking of passing glances, you wrote, “It is undeniable that most heterosexuals have engaged in at least one of the following immoral activities: masturbation, contraception, fornication, abortion, and use of pornography.”  Let’s not forget adultery, prostitution, rape, incest, and also sexual acts with the same gender.  And those are just sexual sins.  Perhaps you can identify some more.

You wrote, “Not tiring of committing the false dilemma fallacy, Pace claims that perception of neglect by one’s father cannot be a cause of SSA since many of those who experience SSA were not neglected by their fathers.”

Apparently, you do not tire of false accusations.  I did not claim that anything “cannot be a cause of SSA”, including even “perception of neglect by one’s father”.  As little as we know, even birds tweeting might be “a cause of SSA” for someone, as meaning possibly a factor in the equation.  Indeed, everything in the universe might be, even your postings.  Or maybe even tiny dancing devils that we can’t see or immodest dress by the opposite sex might be “a cause of SSA” for someone.  But that does not scientifically establish that it is in fact a significant factor or “cause” for anyone.  Claims of “perception of neglect by one’s father” are stories told by someone later in life, which are related by the person in his/her current condition at the time he speaks.  Thus, if we’re talking about a gay man, he would be recounting his past through, so to speak, “SSA” glasses or whatever brought him to see the therapist.  He may be seeing a therapist because he has a mental issue which distorts his perceptions of the past, or because of religious teachings, family pressures, misguided feelings of guilt over experiencing the attractions, etc.  All those things may affect his recollections.  There is no proof that his “SSA” glasses are “caused” by his “perception of neglect by one’s father” rather than the opposite: his perception of the past being caused by the fact he’s seeing through “SSA” glasses, i.e. caused by his having SSA.  And as I mentioned, his alleged perception of the past may also be caused by leading questions asked by a therapist with an agenda, or from simply wanting to agree with what the therapist suggests.  Or his perception could be caused by something he’s read or something someone else told him.  And, his father might actually have rejected him BECAUSE his son was already gay, and thus the rejection/neglect by his father did not cause him to be gay for he already was gay.  Likewise, he may have even perceived neglect by his father both when he speaks to the therapist and even when he was a child BECAUSE he may have been made sensitive to it BECAUSE he was already gay.

And thus, even if “many” patients of therapists who promote your theories report such perceptions, it in no way establishes a “cause” of any kind whatsoever.  Rather, it could help to establish a correlation between stories told by their patients (and/or by the therapists) and the alleged “SSA”, or with the particular therapy itself.  Correlation is not causation and does not establish causation.  They are not the same thing.  That A and B may be correlated does not establish that A causes B any more than it would establish that B causes A, or that that something else C causes A and B.

Again, the American Academy of Pediatrics has expressly stated, “There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.”  Likewise, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated that, “Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation.”  So too, the American Psychiatric Association has stated, “Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.”

You wrote, “Many women who were raped distrust males for the rest of their lives.  Other women who are distrustful of males were not raped. That does not falsify the truth that rape is a identifiable cause of some women being distrustful of males.”

Well, many women who got a short haircut are “lesbians” for the rest of their lives.  Other women who are “lesbians” did not get a short haircut.  Do you thus believe that, “That does not falsify THE TRUTH that getting a short haircut IS an identifiable CAUSE of some women being lesbian”?  If so, when did it become “THE TRUTH”?  When did it become a “cause”?

That X might “many” times precede Y does not establish X as a cause of Y.  If “many women who were raped distrust males for the rest of their lives”, that doesn’t establish that rape per se is a cause of some women being distrustful of males.  You claim something to be “the truth” but it is not proven to be “the truth”.  It is an opinion, and you opine that it is “the truth”.  Perhaps you might appreciate it if someone said, “That does not falsify the truth that you are going to hell.”  It is not established to be “the truth” that you are going to hell.  It might be that person’s opinion, perhaps after talking with you, and there might be as much evidence for it as there may be for rape being a cause of distrust, but it is not established to be “the truth”.

Yet another unproven leap would be to claim rape or distrust of males a cause of lesbian sexual orientation.  Rape could indeed be a factor in why a woman might be distrustful of males, it might even be a cause of distrust of males, but distrust of males is not the same as a lesbian sexual orientation, and thus it does not establish rape or distrust of males as a cause of a lesbian sexual orientation.  If her sexual orientation were bisexual, distrust of males might, for example, be a factor in why she might choose to engage in lesbian acts rather than heterosexual acts, if that were the case, but it does not establish that rape or distrust of males caused her sexual orientation.  Again, one should not confuse correlation with causation.  Even if many women who engage in lesbian acts report distrust of males, even if there were a correlation between reported distrust of males and lesbianism, it does establish that distrust of males is a cause of a lesbian sexual orientation.

You wrote, “The claims I make about the causes of homosexuality and the elements and consequences of the gay lifestyle are well substantiated”.  It’s “well substantiated” that many lesbian women have short haircuts.  That doesn’t mean it’s “well substantiated” to be a cause of lesbianism.  And that goes for your and the CMA’s “causes of homosexuality”.  It’s fanciful talk based on unproven theories “well substantiated” by poor research.  You cited biased “sources” such as NARTH who are in the business of profiting from pushing the unproven theories, and you cited religious extremist political organizations like the FRC.  It’s a biased, incestuous pool to which you invite people to drink.  Relying on such sources may well be demonstrative of what the Catechism means by “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man ‘takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.’”

You wrote, “As for the number of sexual partners and the likelihood of fidelity, I used articles published in professional journals. Pace’s quarrel is with them, not me.”

No, it’s your quarrel with the truth and with yourself.  You accepted what a biased, disreputable source handed you and then you spread it like an STD.  You said, “it’s with them, not me”.  Are you trying out for the role of Eve?  It is YOU who has publicly claimed that your numbers represented “the average homosexual male”, and it is YOU who neglected to even cite your lame source.  Now that you have cited it (the disreputable Family Research Council), it is precisely as I have said:  The reality is that studies used which might cite such figures were based not on “the average homosexual male” but instead on convenience samples taken at STD clinics, “bath houses”, prisons and other urban locations where the select clientele is heavily biased toward promiscuity (or tall tales).

For example, your source (the Family Research Council) for your “average homosexual male” claim cites Paul Van de Ven’s study, but what your source doesn’t tell you is that his volunteers were recruited from “gay brothels, sex shops, beats, saunas”, “pornography outlets”, in a limited location, etc. and that he deliberately excluded everyone who wasn’t sexually active.  Similarly, your source also used a “a survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre”, a NYC gay rag catering to clubbers, circuit partiers, etc.  Need I say more?  Likewise, your source also used a survey of exclusively very young (under age 30 only), sexually active (persons who were monogamous or very few partners were expressly excluded) gay men in Amsterdam that was deliberately weighted with HIV/AIDS patients.  So too, your source used the Bell & Weinberg study which yet again recruited more sexually active people from bathhouses, sex clubs, bars, etc.  That’s it.  They are all limited convenience samples of sexually active sub-populations, with no attempt to be representative of “the average homosexual male”.  Why didn’t you or your source make mention of that significant detail?  Why didn’t you or your source choose studies that did not rely on convenience samples of promiscuous gay men?  Take a guess.  Your source told you it was “the average male homosexual” and you not only believed it but spread it as fact?  How irresponsible of YOU.

You wrote, “Professional journals show a high degree of fidelity among married heterosexuals and marital infidelity that does happen is with a much smaller group of partners than among homosexuals.”  Here you engage again in the fallacy of comparing apples and oranges.  Not only are you comparing married persons to unmarried persons, but also comparing the behavior of culturally supported persons with the behavior of a despised minority.  And you are doing it with biased numbers from your disreputable sources to boot.

Sometimes NARTH, FRC or CMA may cite peer-reviewed medical journals, and yes, those are “professional journals”, but the NARTH website, the FRC website and CMA pamphlets are not peer-reviewed professional scientific publications.  Even when reading the peer-reviewed medical journals themselves, one needs to remain mindful that the studies in them are generally not attempting to study “the average homosexual person” but are interested in measuring effectiveness of condoms, anti-retroviral medications, improving therapeutic responses for people with mental disorders, etc. among particular at-risk groups and therefore the researchers may deliberately seek sub-populations where they can measure what they’re looking for.  They will often note in the study paper their methods and that it is not representative of homosexual persons (or whoever) at large, but groups like the FRC don’t respect that.  And you join with that disrespect for the truth by posting their propaganda as if it were the truth.

You wrote, “Nothing Pace says falsifies the claim that if sexually active gays hope in any way to simulate normal sexual intercourse, they must engage in degrading and implausible acts.”  That is the first time you made that claim.  What you claimed in your previous post was that “lesbians must use artificial devices and males must violate bodily parts”, which is false, even if they’re sexually active, and that is what I said.

You wrote, “As far as the increase incidence of anal cancer among male heterosexuals, that data also can easily be accessed”, but the article you cited neither pertains to “male heterosexuals” nor does it provide data on the “increase” incidence.  The article mentions a particular physician by name and says “he’s been screening and treating gay men for anal cancer for several years and has found that 2.5% of these men have the disease”, but what the article doesn’t tell you is that he is a specialist who treats anal/rectal disorders and his gay patients are likely AIDS patients, and are NOT representative either of AIDS patients in general or of gay men in general.  The article says that “the number of cases of anal cancer is rising in gay men”, which is of course not only related to AIDS but also due to the fact that screenings of gay men are increasing.  And thus it may be more properly said that the number of detected cases is rising in gay men, most particularly those with AIDS, and the same can be said of heterosexual persons too.  I will remind that you previously claimed a “huge incidence of anal cancer”.  And I will remind that anal cancer is relatively rare, including among homosexual men.  That we may find it more commonly in AIDS patients does not change that.  It remains that the available data is scarce, vague, unreliable, and often confounded with other factors such as drug use, AIDS, HPV, etc.  Your citation demonstrates exactly what I’ve said.  There is NO proof that any act of homosexuality per se causes anal cancer, nor do most educated persons believe that any act of homosexuality per se causes anal cancer.

You wrote, “If one wanted to find priests who are sexual abusers, a good place to look would be Gay Pride parades since most (80%) of the sexual abuse committed by priests was with males.”  According to the data, all the incidents to which I presume you’re referring were all with underage persons, and two-thirds of whom were of the “age 13 and under” variety which is within the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.  Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing.  Thus, you might want to look elsewhere for such priests as there might not be many children at a gay pride parade to interest him.  Perhaps you might try a Rapist Pride Parade instead.  But perhaps the best place to “find priests who are sexual abusers” would be to look in the church.  There’s perhaps a far higher percentage of such persons to be found there than at anywhere else short of a parade of priests.

You wrote, “I think it undeniable that Gay Pride parades reveal something true about the gay lifestyle”.  I refer you to my comments to Dan about “gay lifestyle”, if the moderator kindly publishes them.  In addition, such comments as yours can also be said of the “heterosexual lifestyle”, “priest lifestyle”, etc. and it would be just as deficient.

You asked, “I am sure that there are homosexuals who are repulsed by the antics displayed at Gay Pride parades, but do any of them protest these parades like some heterosexuals protest the sexual immorality in the media?”  Most behavior at the parades is rather boring and doesn’t get talked about or need to be objected to.  And there is no need to object to the “parades” when objecting to objectionable behavior itself will suffice, but yes, there are many who object to the parades and/or objectionable behavior of some participants.  You say, “I haven’t seen it”, but you perhaps have and either didn’t recognize it for what it was (just like you don’t recognize every homosexual person with whom you speak), didn’t take note of it, or you don’t choose to recall it.

You wrote, “while Pace’s claims about all of us having difficulty with some kinds of relationships are true, it is also undeniable that some experiences and conditions make relationships more difficult.  Homosexuality is one of those experiences. (False dilemma fallacy alert!)”

That’s your opinion, and thank you for reminding us of your fallacies, for while your opinion might be undeniable to you, it’s not to other people.  Other people have shared other opinions.  I respect each person’s opinion as his/her own.  I also respect that Psalm 119:71 says, “It was good for me that I was afflicted”.  And I respect that Dan said, “I thank God I live with SSA, since it reveals to me like nothing else ever has or could that I can do no good without Christ who strengthens me.”  Many people have shared with me that it’s something to give thanks for.  That said, I wonder what condition it is that you might suffer from that makes you unable to appreciate that you have erred in your relationship with me and all readers of your posts?  Hopefully, your condition is temporary, and you may apologize for your false accusations and make public amends for your public wrongdoing, whether on this forum or elsewhere as life may lead you.  In replying to your mess, I’ve already done much of the cleanup for you.  I do hope you appreciate it, if not now, later.

You wrote, “Studies show that children raised by single parents and divorced parents have a higher incidence of divorce when they marry… the fact is that being raised by single or divorced parents contributes to one’s likelihood of getting divorced”.  It might contribute to it (for some people), but that does not establish it as necessarily a “cause” for anyone.  As to likelihood, statistics pertaining to groups do not establish the likelihood with respect to any selected real person, only for an imaginary random person yet to be selected from the past research cohort used in the particular study.  And so, scientifically and statistically, rather than being a “fact” as to the “likelihood of getting divorced”, it is a speculation.  It could be that for some persons it contributes to those persons getting divorced, or it could contribute to those persons NOT getting divorced, or it could be that it doesn’t change things one iota, etc.  No one can say for sure.  We cannot even say with certainty what is likely.  It is speculation.

You talk of the difficulties “many” (but not all) homosexuals have with relationships, but there is no scientific proof that the difficulties (other than, for example, to enjoy sexual intimacy with the opposite sex, which of course, would apply in the converse if one were instead heterosexually inclined) are due to homosexuality per se rather than, for example, attitudes and behaviors such as yours.  That is the expressed reason why the APA removed homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder and continues to say it is not a psychiatric disorder.  You wrote of “warning people about the risks of immoral sexual behavior” and you cited what you perhaps thought are scientific studies in support of your views, but none of the things you’ve cited have scientifically established risks due to homosexuality per se rather than risks due to other things which are not homosexuality, such as viruses, the effects of social contempt, etc.  Of course, everything everyone does has a correlated risk connected to it, including driving to church, even breathing.  What exactly the risks are vary from person to person, circumstance to circumstance.

You wrote, “To engage in obfuscating reasoning like Pace’s deprives people of information that may help them make good decisions and information that would prevent them from making bad decisions, decisions that often lead to heartbreak, disease, and shortened lifespans.”  I don’t deprive anyone of information, and you struggle to perceive and to understand even what I say, much less my reasoning.  You blundered and falsely accused me of your wrongdoings.  It is forgivable.

You wrote, “I invite people to test my reasoning and the studies I cite and to do the same for Pace’s comments.”  Sadly, you flunked.  But there is hope that you will do better.  There is hope for us all, I hope.

You wrote, “I am not going to get into an extended exchange with the anonymous Pace”.  Truly, I am no more unknown to you than you are to yourself.

You wrote, “To prove that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove the some children do NOT like Brussels sprouts.  The attentive reader will find this fallacy dominates Pace’s reasoning.”

What fallacy is that?  You have written a statement (“that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove that some children do NOT like Brussels sprouts”) and then referred to “this fallacy”.  If the “some children” who like brussels sprouts are not the same “some children” spoken of in the second instance, then the statement may be true.  But if the two groups of “some children” are the same children, then it may be false.  If that was not your intent, you might reword it more clearly by saying, “that some children like Brussels sprouts does not disprove that OTHER children do NOT like Brussels sprouts.”  As I said, I’m here to help.

Again, your original post alleged “various causes of homosexual orientation” but then you presented generic vague issues that can and do apply to “many” people whether they have a homosexual orientation or not, yet you asserted them only in respect to homosexual persons.  For example, you spoke of distrust, perceived neglect by a parent, promiscuity, infidelity, relationship problems, public misbehavior, feeling like an outsider, not feeling normal, feeling inferior, etc.

I point out that there is no credible research that “proves” that any of your listed things “causes” a homosexual orientation, or that any of those things is caused by a homosexual orientation or homosexuality per se.  I don’t say that those things couldn’t ever possibly be a factor or cause for anyone.  I say anything and everything, including short haircuts, might possibly be at least a factor if not a cause for someone somewhere.  For as they say, “anything is possible”.  But that’s not a good reason to believe a homosexual orientation is in fact caused by a short haircut, or by seeing fireflies, touching a toad, rape, or perceived neglect by the father, or eating brussels sprouts.  And so I do not claim it to be “the truth” that such things “are causes” of a homosexual orientation, not even if “many” homosexual persons were forced to eat brussels sprouts by their neglectful father and domineering mother. But if you get some peer-reviewed scientific studies together to prove your brussels sprout theory, it might sound less like superstition and old wives tales.

You wrote, “Such typos are… humbling.”

We may hope.

Dan, you asked, “please show me a specific example of a scientific fact which the CMA ignores”.  I have already listed many.  You say, “They have answers to every contention you have with them”, and perhaps they do, but (1) they did not include them in the pamphlet that was made available to me, and (2) they are not able to satisfactorily answer all of the issues I’ve raised, even if they tried.  Not with the available scientific evidence.

You wrote, “there has never been definitive or widely accepted scientific proof for a physiological or genetic cause for homosexuality.”  It is widely accepted that there is scientific evidence that biology and genetics play significant roles in the “cause” of homosexuality.  Notice the word “roles”.  Notice that I do not say that biology or genetics are the sole cause of everyone’s homosexuality, or that they are the only significant factors in everyone’s homosexuality, or that science has identified “gay genes”.  Notice likewise in the statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics: “Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.”  Yet, notice what evidence they expressly state is lacking: “THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT ABNORMAL PARENTING, SEXUAL ABUSE, OR OTHER ADVERSE LIFE EVENTS INFLUENCE SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”  Similarly, the Royal College of Psychiatrists: “There is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation”.  So too, the American Psychiatric Association: “Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.”

Instead, what the Royal College of Psychiatrists says the evidence leads them to believe: “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.”  The American Academy of Pediatrics takes a broader approach, “Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT ABNORMAL PARENTING, SEXUAL ABUSE, OR OTHER ADVERSE LIFE EVENTS INFLUENCE SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.”

You wrote, “please show everyone reading this thread the study which definitively shows that you, I, or anyone else was ‘born gay.’”  But that’s your strawman.  Notice that neither I nor the esteemed organizations claim anything is “definitively” proven.  Science is a process of investigation that works by DISproving but always keeping the door open to something new.  Science has not disproven, definitively or otherwise, the possibility that some people may be “born gay”.  Indeed, the Royal College of Psychiatrists seems to take the possibility even further, to say that it appears likely: “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.”  But personally, as I have already said, I don’t presume to declare that so-and-so was or wasn’t “born gay”.  Instead, I say maybe.  There is no definitive scientific proof that Kwandaluk Pretan was not “born gay”.  YOU do not have “definitive proof” that he was not “born gay”. If he chooses to say he was “born gay”, I don’t have anything to prove he wasn’t.  For all I know, he might have been.  (And by “born gay” I might assume he means he was born with whatever would later develop into a homosexual orientation.)

You wrote, “The Church’s answer to this question is very insightful. ‘The human person made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation…’”

That is not an answer to the question of whether anyone is “born gay”.  The phrase “born gay” when used by reasonable persons is not saying that the person is nothing more than a sexual orientation.  Rather, it is along the lines of saying, “born with blue eyes”.  We are not reducing the person to nothing but “blue eyes” but speaking about an aspect of the person.  The same goes for “born gay”, where the word “gay” is being used as an adjective to describe an aspect of the person.

Your quote of Cardinal Ratzinger went on to say, “Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual”.”

Notice that his statement refers to using the words as nouns.  Notice that Janet Smith repeatedly referred to people using the nouns “gays”, “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals”.

You wrote, “the question of genetics is ultimately moot anyway.  If a man was shown to be attracted to men because of his genes, a gay lifestyle would still be immoral for him.”

It is not “moot” in regard to addressing the misinformation published by the various sources.  It is not “moot” in regard to many people in society who have and/or continue to blame homosexual persons for being attracted to the same sex.  And it is not “moot” in regard to the Church teaching that “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”  (Please do not make the mistake in reading this by thinking that I’m saying that it’s morally ok for gay people to engage in homosexual acts.)

And if I might comment again on “gay lifestyle, just as Cardinal Ratzinger reminded that “the human person made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation”, I will likewise remind that similar concerns apply to uses of the term “gay lifestyle”.  Gay people have diverse lifestyles, including lifestyles embracing chastity and Church teachings.  They live human lifestyles.

You write, “I thank God I live with SSA.”  And so too, someone else may say, “I thank God I’m gay” and mean the same thing, even though you and/or Courage might quibble over his word choice.

[My apologies if this post appeared twice.  The first attempt did not seem to go through.]

Pace writes: “As little as we know, even birds tweeting might be “a cause of SSA” for someone, as meaning possibly a factor in the equation.  Indeed, everything in the universe might be, even your postings.  Or maybe even tiny dancing devils that we can’t see or immodest dress by the opposite sex might be “a cause of SSA” for someone.” 

And more of the same: “I say anything and everything, including short haircuts, might possibly be at least a factor if not a cause for someone somewhere.  For as they say, “anything is possible”.” 

That fact is, not everything is possible. Circles cannot be squares, and we can’t go back in time.  Our ability to heal illnesses, build plances, and grow food (for instance) all depends upon things having natures and causes that we can know.
 
Pace lives in a world that doesn’t exist and reasons that way. 

I rest my case. Pace has no discernible understanding of causality.  The only value in reading Pace is to see a tremendous display of logical errors.

Maria,

I’d be happy to correspond with you.  I don’t think it wise to post email addresses in comment boxes, but if you go to the Courage website and send an email to them, they can put you in touch with me.  Tell them that it’s the Dan who gave his testimony at the 2010 Conference.

I’ll send them an email as well.

God bless you!

Dear Janet E. Smith, you wrote, “That fact is, not everything is possible. Circles cannot be squares, and we can’t go back in time…”  It may not be possible according to your understanding of such things, but reality is not dictated by your understanding of it.  And that’s a good thing.

You wrote, “Our ability to heal illnesses… all depends upon things having natures and causes that we can know.”  My body heals without me having to know how it happens.  My doctors also know little.  It is fortunate that my body can heal in ways unknown.

You wrote, “Pace has no discernible understanding of causality. The only value in reading Pace is to see a tremendous display of logical errors.”  As I said, try to read with a pure and humble heart.  You may find it more successful than the approach you’ve been using.

As to Pace, I have one question:  what would be in YOUR article to parents about how to talk to teens about the Church’s teaching?  Should the Church change, and if so, what is flawed in Her thinking?  Why are you so angry at NARTH, which exists because they desire to assist the many men and women who believe that they can find healing for their SSA?  Do you think people should have the right to work with NARTH?  Even the APA defends the right of patients to be self determining in this regard?  And does the APA speak without error in all of their judgments?

And finally, as a grateful member of Courage, I am mystified at your disdain and hatred for this Apostolate. What is the source of your animosity, and what would you put in it’s place?  It helps thousands of men and women live chastely in accordance with the Church’s teaching.  What is your biggest bone of contention with them?  I’m curious to know.

Ah brevity! Very refreshing.

Does Pace really think Pace is more receptive to my views then I am to Pace’s?

Let’s keep at the logic.

To point out that something is illogical is neither impure nor proud—faults of which Pace accuses me. Nor is it ad hominem and Pace’s responses have been very ad hominem.

Those who think anything is possible are clearly not devoted to logic.  “A” cannot be “Non-A” in the same respect and at the same time.  That is the first principle of all reasoning; one that Pace denies. We need to keep Pace’s rejection of the principle of noncontradiction in sight at all times when reading Pace’s posts.

There is a great deal that is impure and prideful about Gay Pride activities. I have pointed out what I find offensive about some heterosexual behavior. What does Pace find offensive about some homosexual behavior?

False dilemma fallacy alert: Again, to say that we can know some things is not to say that we can know all things. To say that we don’t know all the causes of X is not to say that we don’t know some of them.

Dan, you asked, “what would be in YOUR article to parents about how to talk to teens about the Church’s teaching?”  I don’t use that approach.  “Should the Church change”  There are grounds for change.  There is a need for change.  “what is flawed in Her thinking?”  Our thinking.  Every Christian and the whole community of the faithful are called to constant change.  The Church is always in need of purification and must constantly rededicate herself to her mission.  “Why are you so angry at…”  I’m not.  “they desire to…”  You think.  They are fallible people, inclined to sin like everyone else.  “Do you think people should have the right to work with…”  Depends what they’re trying to do.  “Even the APA defends the right of patients to be self determining in this regard?”  Only to a degree.  I quote: In the last four decades, reparative therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.  Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to First, do no harm.  “does the APA speak without error in all of their judgments?”  They don’t claim to.  “as a grateful member of Courage, I am mystified at your disdain and hatred for this Apostolate. What is the source of your animosity”  Your imagination.  “what would you put in Courage’s place?”  As long as it exists, there is already something in its place.  “What is your biggest bone of contention with them?”  You tell me, it’s your story.  What I say in regard to Courage is that they’re not perfect, they’re in need of change, some people other than you have had experiences of Courage mixing some non-facts with facts, and they might quibble over words.  I also asked you some questions regarding the Vatican which you did not answer, mentioning Courage’s touting of NARTH.  Those things are all true.  Do you have a contention with the truth?

I was wondering if the article would have anyone defend the weak points. Pace, well done!

It must be a tough to defend church teaching/morality with TV and the internet. 

Since most Catholics have used contraception at one time or another and, I dare say, virtually all have masterbated, I gladly identify with those sinners.  Since I don’t believe sin exists, I am not a sinner btw.

Pace,

I have answered a few of your questions, and have placed your comments in brackets.

[“Dan, you asked, “what would be in YOUR article to parents about how to talk to teens about the Church’s teaching?”  I don’t use that approach.”]

You don’t use what approach?  You don’t think that parents should be given advice in how to talk to teens about the Church’s teaching?  What approach do you use?

[“Should the Church change”  There are grounds for change.  There is a need for change.]

What are the grounds for changes in the Church’s teaching, and why is there a need for change, in your opinion?

[“what is flawed in Her thinking?”  Our thinking.  Every Christian and the whole community of the faithful are called to constant change.] 

Do you think that this is true?  Constant change about what, exactly?  Everything, or only about those things which the world thinks the Church should change?  Is change good simply for change’s sake?  Is it a sign of being faithful that our beliefs and teachings change?

[The Church is always in need of purification and must constantly rededicate herself to her mission.]

No doubt the Church is always in need of purification.  What does that have to do with Her teaching about homosexuality, unless you seem to believe that Her current teaching is a sign of her impurity?  If so, then what would the Church’s teaching look like, to reflect Her purity and her rededication to Her mission?

Concerning NARTH, and my claim that they exist to help and assist people, you said, “You think.  They are fallible people, inclined to sin like everyone else”

Let’s take this to its natural conclusion.  This could be said about all organizations who state they exist to help individuals.  I suppose since the Red Cross is comprised of fallible people, inclined to sin like everyone else, that we should be suspicious of their goals in helping and assisting people.  Same thing with groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, or drug treatment programs.

[“does the APA speak without error in all of their judgments?”  They don’t claim to.]

I’m glad you acknowledge that, since it seems to be your personal authority on what is true about the human person concerning sexuality and our psyche. 

[In the last four decades, reparative therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.  Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to First, do no harm.] 

But of course, this assumes that the APA speaks truth in all things concerning the human person.  There have been numerous studies which show the efficacy of reparative therapy.  The APA doesn’t like or accept the results, so because of this, does this mean that their interpretation is necessarily correct?  In your mind, they seem to speak authoritatively on this issue, at least.  The book “Ex-Gays? A longitudinal study” compiles the many studies which have demonstrated the success of religious mediated reparative therapy.  It can be found here:  http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2846  NARTH has also published documents directly challenging the APA’s claims.

Naturally, this book, and any publication of NARTH have been lambasted within the popular press, and by all those who happen to agree with the APA’s assessment about homosexuality, and roundly decried as bogus by those who promote the homosexual agenda.  Which merely reflects the current state of affairs. Debate about the topic and efficacy of reparative therapy has been quite effectively muzzled, but the debate is far from over, no matter how definitively the APA or the Royal College of Psychiatrists make their pronouncements.  NARTH continues to defy the APA, and thankfully so.  They are brave men and women who soldier on against great odds, on behalf of those who should have the right to seek the treatment they desire.  I can speak to the supposed universal damage of reparative therapy:  I was involved in yearlong reparative therapy program and suffered no ill effects. 

As to the possibility of change, do we still believe in a God who raised Lazarus from the dead?  Or is He powerless to change one’s sexual attractions, simply because the APA happens to say that to do so is unnecessary and indeed would be damaging?  What is quite telling about the APA’s statement is this:  first do no harm.  Contrast this with the Church’s statement:  “Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: a creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.”  As Pope Paul VI said, it is the Church who is expert in humanity.  It is not the APA.  In encouraging men and women to embrace their identity as gay or lesbian, it is the APA which does people harm, by urging them to believe a lie about themselves.  It is the Church which provides the truth which sets men free, which frees them from having to think of themselves as the world tells them they should think of themselves.

Posted by Dan on Saturday, Dec 3, 2011 2:08 PM (EST):
“As to Pace, I have one question:  what would be in YOUR article to parents about how to talk to teens about the Church’s teaching?”

Ms. White actually brought up two very different areas for discussion with a teenager. One is the Church’s teaching about sexual activity between two people of the same sex. The other is the question about whether the law should should allow two people of the same sex to enter into a civil marriage.

It would be quite possible for a teenager to accept Church teaching about homosexuality in his or her own life, but to understand that this teaching shouldn’t be imposed on everyone by law. This is exactly the position that the Church has been forced to take with remarriage after divorce and with the practice of contraception. The culture changed and rejected the Church’s position on those behaviors. It’s happening again with acceptance of same sex marriage. Since gay marriage is probably going to become a civil right no matter what the Church teaches, I wouldn’t even go there with a teenager.  Defending discrimination in the law just makes you come across as a villain.

I’d also be careful about making sweeping generalizations about what homosexuals are like by implying that all homosexuals are marching in one, long, gay pride parade. The teenager may well have openly gay friends or teachers, and you will ruin your credibility by saying things that he or she knows to be untrue.

I think it would be far better to appeal to a teenager’s idealism rather than focusing on how other people are bad and icky.  Encourage them to live up to the Church’s very difficult teaching that sex should be kept within the bounds of a life-long, faithful marriage between a man and a woman because it is meant for having and raising children. Take the same attitude toward what same sex couples are doing as you do toward what divorced and remarried couples are doing, or unmarried couples—it’s not God’s plan for people. They will be happier if they follow God’s plan; then demonstrate in your own marriage that this is true. I don’t see any need to set aside the topic of homosexual behavior for separate discussion unless the teenager has questions or expresses concern that he or she is experiencing same sex attraction.

Rover Serton:
Sin keeps you from being the best person you can be.  All sin does that even if you don’t believe there is such a thing. Stealing makes you a thief.  Adultery makes you a cheat.  Lying makes you a liar.  Will people be more more or less willing to welcome you into their lives based on what you do? 

And if the members of the human race have trouble with “sinners” and don’t enjoy their company, how much more will God (who is good and forgiving and full of mercy) be distressed by the sinner’s choice to be less than he could be?  You are made in His image and likeness and he desires to be with you and you turn away from him! 

He asks you to admit there is sin in the world, recognize that you commit some or all of the ones you know about, and turn away from that behavior (repentance).  No, you cannot keep doing those things but God’s ways are way more fulfilling, challenging and inspiring.

Dan wrote: “... as a grateful member of Courage, I am mystified at your disdain and hatred for this Apostolate. What is your biggest bone of contention with them?”
.
I think it all boils down to this - homosexuals (not all, of course) don’t want to accept that they are wounded, that they have a sickness, a disorder.  It all goes back to pride.
.
Don’t get me wrong - heterosexuals (not all, of course) have this problem, too.  But that is the answer I am offering to Dan’s question.

Holy wall of texts Batman!

To the anonymous commenter:

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.  It takes a lot of humility to accept the Church’s teaching.  I personally find it quite liberating that this part of my life is disordered—it helps make sense of its strong pull in my life and helps me see it objectively.

Dan

I think some of you might be interested in reading this article:
http://youngandcatholic.net/2011/07/catholic-and-gay/

Having read this very long set of posts, I don’t think it’s fair to say the Pace poster “hates” the Courage program or thinks the homosexual orientation is not disordered or doesn’t accept Church teaching on homosexuality, etc.  He (she?) wrote about a need for change and it reads consistent with if not verbatim what Blessed Mother Theresa and Pope Benedict XVI himself, for example, have also said. He included himself when he said “our” thinking needs to change.  You, me, Pace, the Church, Courage, we “must always open up afresh to the cares of the world… It is a question of setting aside mere strategy and seeking total transparency, not bracketing or ignoring anything from the truth of our present situation… To put it another way: for people of every era, and not just of our own, the Chrstian faith is a scandal”, with special mention of “scandals on the part of the preachers of the faith.” Clearly, “There is a need for change.” So said Pope Benedict XVI.  The Courage program is not exempt.  Not “many” nor “few” but no “heterosexuals” or “homosexuals” are exempt.  Willingly admitting such a thing is not “hatred” in the conventional meaning of that word but perhaps in the sense that Jesus meant when he said “if anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

Br. James,

But what us it that needs to change?  Talk of “renewal” and “change” has also led to heretical beliefs.  I think this arena is rife with that possibility.

Blessed Mother Teresa was once asked what in her opinion was the first thing that would have to change in the Church.  Her answer was: you and I. Pope Benedict XVI also said of renewal and change: “[R]enewal must go to the very core. Our way of looking at the world, of understanding reality, all our thought must change from its foundations.”.  As radical as his call for renewal and change may seem, radical change emerged as a fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Put some meat on the bones, Br. James.  All Catholics should agree with the Blessed Mother:  what she’s talking about is nothing new—it’s St Paul talking about the old and new man, and being transformed by the renewing of our minds.  But what change would you like to see the Church bring about concerning homosexuality?  Talk about renewal and change, just so long as orthodoxy and Apostolic tradition is never compromised.

In the tradition of the Church, the Church’s call for change is not limited to “concerning homosexuality”, even when calling for change “concerning homosexuality”.  When calling for change “concerning homosexuality”, the Church is calling us all to change, including all who call for change “concerning homosexuality”.  The Church’s call for change “concerning homosexuality” concerns us all in many ways, including how we call for change and the manner in which we speak with and listen to one another.  Be perfect.  There is plenty of meat on the bones.

That’s just talking in circles.  Do you think the Church needs to change the Catechism on the subject of homosexuality?

And incidentally, when you say “the Church’s call to change ‘concerning sexuality’”, it seems that you assume that indeed the Church has this call.  I believe the Church’s call is to stand firm against the tide of the views of the world.

Dear Pace, your Nov 29, 20911 comments.  Dr. Janet Smith has, as always, done what I would call excellent research.  I like her style of writing and how she writes on delicate topics of same-sex attraction.

Have you, Pace, don some research or acquired degrees of study to prove of what you speak…...I thought your comments center more on attacking Dr. Smith’s comments vs. making your own comments.  Maybe I missed something in your entry.  Or, perhaps you can comment on my comments. For clarification purposes, of course.

Patricia in St. Louis, MO

I am always amused when the replies (Pace’s in particular) out shine the article.  Very good!

A soul cannot and will not heal itself though its willpower, break its patterns, or “reform and believe in the good news” without receiving the grace to do so from the Holy Trinity.  “...Because apart from me ye are not able to do anything.”

The first step in receiving the grace so sorely needed in the case of this article’s topic, CCC #2357, the acts which “are intrinsically disordered”, is to desire the grace to have the soul set into order.

This requires docility.  The soul confirmed in its mortally sinful patterns, the soul with a “seared conscience”, cannot display docility.

If such a soul would pray to God, especially to the Sacred Heart, by tailoring the prayer to St. Michael more toward St. Raphael, the lust and pride that such a soul is experiencing will begin to be relieved.  The Sacred Heart is a hypostatic heart: it knows and pities how it is to be a man, because it is fully human.  It denies nothing of what is asked of it.  That is what our wayfaring state is for: to make foolish choices and to ask to be taken back.  The archangel Raphael will be directed to begin to relieve the soul of the presence of his ancient adversary, asmodeus, the patron demon of homosexual lust.

Of course, a soul without docility will not begin to pray to be relieved of a demonic oppression that it denies.  Nor will it begin to pray for an end to behavior that it denies is disordered.  This is where St. Monica shows herself to be example par excellence.  In “so great a cloud of witnesses” that we have in the communion of saints, if someone on earth, heaven, or purgatory would pray for a soul’s relief and conversion, that soul will suddenly, one moment, for a split second, desire grace, and then grace will flow into it.  Our Lord will do the rest.  All will begin anew.

“With God, all things are possible.”  With, not for.

I read everything here. I think Pace’s comments made homosexuality look worse, not better. I would say that his posts, with their strident and grinding tone, and their ad hominem approach, showed what looked to me like the psychological dark side of homosexuality. What comes through to me, more than anything else, is deep bitterness and bondage.

The logic of Smith’s comments is not rocket science. It just seems to make Pace very uncomfortable and angry in a way that is just strange, and in a way that he doesn’t explain. The “sub-text” of his posts is more important than the overt message, it seems to me.

That being said, I’m still not even entirely sure of his convictions, except that he doesn’t seem to like J Smith!  He won’t state plainly whether he does or does not accept church teaching.

Homosexuality is a sin like any other sin. It should cause no more or less shame than any other sin. The response of a sincere Catholic to it should be similar to the response to any other sin. Just keep trying, remember that God loves you, and know that in the end God will make all your struggles against it seem trivial when compared to your reward. I think that’s the church’s message in it’s simplest form.

Dear Pace,

While I understand your frustration, same-sex orientation and action is wrong.  It always has been wrong.  I know people with same-sex orientation who admit the error and now abstain from this error in their love for God.  Love for God is obedience to His Will, not patronage of His permissions to deviate from His Will.

Your arguments are like someone saying “Saccharin is just as good and as natural as sugar.”  Everyone knows that only sugar is natural and saccharin is a mere creation of humans (for profit).  But you make progress not because you are right, but because Saccharin actually does taste like sugar (when it really is not and really is unnatural).

So argue and make cases, but only know that the best approach for a person who is struggling with or thriving on same-sex attraction is to seek healing and normalcy in order to find and retain a proper orientation and ultimate, person-al health and happiness.  We can say the same about heterosexuals who are sex addicts or pedophiles or spouse abusers, and so on. 

Seek normalcy, moderation and obedience to God’s Will and teach others to do so, and you will find peace.  Seeking to take advantage instead of what God permits (He permits sin, etc) is a sure path to person-al illness and death.

I give praise to all of those who have suffered and who are overcoming their personal battles with same-sex attraction.  I understand that it is very difficult for them - especially those of whom I personally know were traumatized by their parents in their childhood - this trauma which led to an improper sexual orientation.  They know this and tell me this.

Peace to men of good will,
t

Once you remove all of the logical fallacies and blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I am really only left reading Pace’s replies. 

This is an address to a website that may be helpful to the few that continue to misunderstand a logical discussion.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The objective truth about homosexuality is it has no real fruit.  It is the Nutrasweet of sexuality. All pleasure no responsibility. It has the propensity to move the individual directly to sexual selfishness.  Sexual intercourse between a man and woman with the possibility of creating life is based in a deep commitment.  That the results could bond the two forever as parents and yet the love between them brings them together with that vision is what makes this union “special”.  Gay sex, Safe sex, Oral sex, Unmarried Sex, Contracepted Sex, and any form of sex without the gift of life “DEVALUES” its worth.  We ALL are called to greatness, and beyond our self for the Glory of God.  Homosexuality along with other sexually fruitless endeaveors does nothing for the Glory of God, only the glory of the self.

A soul cannot and will not heal itself though its willpower, break its patterns, or “reform and believe in the good news” without receiving the grace to do so from the Holy Trinity.  “...Because apart from me ye are not able to do anything.”

The first step in receiving the grace so sorely needed in the case of this article’s topic, CCC #2357, the acts which “are intrinsically disordered”, is to desire the grace to have the soul set into order.

This requires docility.  The soul confirmed in its mortally sinful patterns, the soul with a “seared conscience”, cannot display docility.

If such a soul would pray to God, especially to the Sacred Heart, by tailoring the prayer to St. Michael more toward St. Raphael, the lust and pride that such a soul is experiencing will begin to be relieved.  The Sacred Heart is a hypostatic heart: it knows and pities how it is to be a man, because it is fully human.  It denies nothing of what is asked of it.  That is what our wayfaring state is for: to make foolish choices and to ask to be taken back.  The archangel Raphael will be directed to begin to relieve the soul of the presence of his ancient adversary, asmodeus, the patron demon of homosexual lust.

Of course, a soul without docility will not begin to pray to be relieved of a demonic oppression that it denies.  Nor will it begin to pray for an end to behavior that it denies is disordered.  This is where St. Monica shows herself to be example par excellence.  In “so great a cloud of witnesses” that we have in the communion of saints, if someone on earth, heaven, or purgatory would pray for a soul’s relief and conversion, that soul will suddenly, one moment, for a split second, desire grace, and then grace will flow into it.  Our Lord will do the rest.  All will begin anew. “Behold, I make all things new”.

“With God, all things are possible.”  With, not for.

Please brevity.  Please one point.  It would take a week to read through all these. (Exaggeration of course.)

Mr. Patton wrote:

> Once you remove all of the logical fallacies and blatant
> misrepresentation of the facts, I am really only left
> reading Pace’s replies.

That’s a curious assertion.  In the interest of persuading your audience, would you care to offer any evidence?  Just one example of a logical fallacy from the discussion would suffice.

I am somewhat bemused by the author of the original article allowing “Pace” to effectively hijack the blog by extremely lengthy (and to an extent) nonresponsive comments.  Such tolerance!
TeaPot562

Wendell posted: In the interest of persuading your audience, would you care to offer any evidence?  Just one example of a logical fallacy from the discussion would suffice.

:D There is a definite appeal to an authority that isn’t valid concerning “persons with homosexual appetites” by excluding the biological basis of sexual orientation. Also the tactic of creating the misleading vividness that “it is well established that many males who experience homosexual attractions were abused sexually by males or felt rejected by their fathers”. 

I hardly think that this will suffice for you and I could go on down the line like Pace did but for the sake of the readers that demand brevity, I won’t…:)

The original error is giving the state ANY power over a sacrament.  Priests would break the law if the couple is “unlicensed”.  Maybe the FDA, ATF, and the local department of health will require licenses for the Eucharist?  To prevent accidents, not the substance.

And tell me exactly how one of the 75% + Catholic couples using artifical contraception are going to be clear in their explaination?

When all sides are practicing “safe sex”, maybe we should start by removing gay marriages between hereros from within the church.  Then differences in degree or kind might be easier to observe.

I’ve never experienced SSA (excepting Social Security) and it’s just one of those things I can’t ... comprehend. I don’t think I need to, though. My friends and family who have/do experience such know I love them no matter what. I think this matters most, to love. Great comments / interchange by all. God bless!

When it comes to “teaching moments” concerning homosexual orientation disorder (there is no such thing as “gays”, as sexual appetitive disorders are not an ontology) and the fact that Hollywood has become the Josef Goebbels-esque propaganda machine for every sexual perversion under the sun, I have found it helpful to use the very propaganda of Hollywood against their perverse ideology. Here are just a few examples or what I mean.

In the film “As Good as it Gets” we are supposed to believe that the father of the homosexual character was “homophobic” (a word right out of 1984’s New Speak) because he could told him to move out, but what really happened here? The father came home to discover that his son had asked his own mother to take off her clothes in front of him because he wanted to look at her naked and draw her, to which the mother actually complied. Clearly that was a relationship that had gone utterly and completely off the rails and of course distance had to be put between them. We are not told if then the father tried to get professional help for either his son or his wife after this perverse and disturbing incident.

So then I put the question to the teenagers, “Is that normal, or good, or healthy? If you came home and saw your mother posing naked in front of your younger brother would you not know, just know, that this was very, very sick and wrong?”

In the movie “Brokeback Mountain” one character decides to commit acts of sodomy on the other main character for no apparent reason. Later, that same first character threatens to murder the other. Is that what love is? Do what I tell you to do, and don’t do what I tell you not to do, or I will brutally l take your life?  If Edward threatened to brutally murder Bella unless she obeyed him would you think “Ahhhh, how romantic.” and “that’s true love”? Really?

I recently saw a trailer for the film Beginners were Ian McGregor is dealing with the fact that his father has told him he was homosexual. The rest the trailer are scenes of the father behaving ever more like a pre-adolescent girl. Take away the Hollywood slanted story line, the music that is supposed to help sway you, and imagine only coming home from school one day and seeing your dad in a dress dancing to Britney Spears, would you not be disgusted and angry? Would you not want to run to the bathroom and vomit? Would any of you want your friends to know you had a cross dressing father who sodomized, and was sodomized, by other homosexuals? Would that be something you would or even could ever be “proud” of? Really?

The list goes on and on, in films and television, all the tools we need to point out the depraved nonsensical absurdity of Hollywood’s homosexual propaganda is given to us by Hollywood itself.

Concerning all the talk of “change”:

I would never want to belong to a Church who changes her teachings based on the current whim of society. God established his Church for a reason, to give us an objective and final authority. It is the Holy Spirit who speaks through the Magisterium. The Church is not a democracy, and I am glad. We are fallen and many times do not know what is best for us. Yes, the leaders of the Church are sinful as well, but the Church is not ONLY a physical entity, she is a spiritual one as well.

When one, such as Dr. Smith, speaks out against sinful behavior, it is not put of hate or a spirit of condemnation. It is because as Catholics, we are called to spread the gospel and do our best to live saintly lives and lead souls to Christ. To not point out (lovingly) to our brothers and sisters that their behavior (whatever it may be) is sinful would be irresponsible. It would be unloving to see a soul falling into sin and not reach out a hand.

I rely on my friends and family to do so with me, to hold me accountable.

Because, when it comes down to it, it is about our souls and eternity with the Creator. It is about God.

I agree with Nicole!!!  I want the only change I can be accountable for….the change in myself…to be more loving and helpful and humble.

I want to hear HIM to say on the last day! I want HER to be with me forever!  And HE is smiling and looking at me!

Patricia in St. Louis, MO

Dr. Janet Smith: Thank you for a well-researched and impeccably well-argued article. Pace: Thank you for demonstrating so well the arguments we need to prepare our children to answer, and for giving Dr. Smith further opportunities to demonstrate her levelheaded and orthodox responses to the current crisis our culture is facing. Dan: God bless you and strengthen you in your struggles against temptation. I’m also someone who had to overcome same-sex attraction in my youth, and if it wasn’t for the Church (and meeting my future husband), I would not have succeeded. I wish there was (or I had known about) a ministry like Courage when I was struggling with this on my own. Indeed, during this struggle, I found more acceptance and help in the Church than I did amongst my gay friends—who labeled me as a “breeder wannabe” and repressed prude for wanting to reject the lesbian lifestyle. In my case, Dr. Smith, you are absolutely correct about the source of my disordered sexual identity: I was drawn to women because I had been abused by a number of men. I didn’t trust men, and I had lost my attraction to them because they all seemed like overly-aggressive, over-sexualized animals to me. Women were safer, gentler, and more attractive. I think it’s very easy for women to feel this way, especially in a oversexed culture like our own, where most men seem to want “only one thing” (it’s easy to think that ALL men only want this). With women, there is always companionship and friendship, which creates the illusion of a more intimate relationship. Friendships are easier and quicker to establish between people of the same sex, thus the temptation to take that friendship “to the next level” is incredibly strong, especially if someone has been rejected or abused by people of the other sex. I have nothing but respect and sympathy for people suffering with these temptations. It is for this reason that I encourage them to persevere against temptation and rise about their baser instincts—which is the cross that all people must bear regardless of their predilections. Sexual temptations of all kinds are incredibly hard to overcome in our culture, but they can be overcome.

Dr. Janet Smith: Thank you for a well-researched and impeccably well-argued article. Pace: Thank you for demonstrating so well the arguments we need to prepare our children to answer, and for giving Dr. Smith further opportunities to demonstrate her levelheaded and orthodox responses to the current crisis our culture is facing. Dan: God bless you and strengthen you in your struggles against temptation. I’m also someone who had to overcome same-sex attraction in my youth, and if it wasn’t for the Church (and meeting my future husband), I would not have succeeded. I wish there was (or I had known about) a ministry like Courage when I was struggling with this on my own. Indeed, during this struggle, I found more acceptance and help in the Church than I did amongst my gay friends—who labeled me as a “breeder wannabe” and repressed prude for wanting to reject the lesbian lifestyle. In my case, Dr. Smith, you are absolutely correct about the source of my disordered sexual identity: I was drawn to women because I had been abused by a number of men. I didn’t trust men, and I had lost my attraction to them because they all seemed like overly-aggressive, over-sexualized animals to me. Women were safer, gentler, and more attractive. I think it’s very easy for women to feel this way, especially in a oversexed culture like our own, where most men seem to want “only one thing” (it’s easy to think that ALL men only want this). With women, there is always companionship and friendship, which creates the illusion of a more intimate relationship. Friendships are easier and quicker to establish between people of the same sex, thus the temptation to take that friendship “to the next level” is incredibly strong, especially if someone has been rejected or abused by people of the other sex. I have nothing but respect and sympathy for people suffering with these temptations. It is for this reason that I encourage them to persevere against temptation and rise about their baser instincts—which is the cross that all people must bear regardless of their predilections. Sexual temptations of all kinds are incredibly hard to overcome in our culture, but they can be overcome. Thank the Lord for the Church, which stands as the only bulwark against the insanity of our present time!

Somewhere along the way in the volumes above, “Pace” wrote:

“”“Dear Janet E. Smith, you wrote, “That fact is, not everything is possible. Circles cannot be squares, and we can’t go back in time…”  It may not be possible according to your understanding of such things, but reality is not dictated by your understanding of it.  And that’s a good thing.”“”

I am not quite sure why, but Pace’s response reminded me of the time I saw a bumper sticker which said “Question reality.” And, tongue in cheek, I thought, “if only the owner of this vehicle, and all like him, would choose to question the reality of gravity, and drive off a cliff somewhere; imagine the clarity of thinking they would achieve before impact, and post-impact, imagine the order that would be restored to our world as all relativism was wiped out.”

Holy Spirit guide me. I want to thank everyone in this thread. It has opened my eyes to some things, especially about how disordered I am and what I need to improve upon. The abusers of my youth were of both genders but that did not effect ‘orientation’. What it did effect, though, was my (in)ability to build and maintain healthy relationships. I felt unworthy of anyone’s love, maybe I still do. When I came back into the Church, through anointing and the full Sacraments, I was healed in many miraculous ways. Thanks and praise to God the Father, for the pain was replaced by His love, all was forgiven and I had found Peace in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. But I soon realized I was still pushing people away I feared could hurt me. I found myself thinking I could even ‘run’ away. I even engaged in unkind/ inappropriate behavior on-line, affecting others in ways I do not know. It’s not fair to anyone. Shame!! for this is my OWN fault and no one else’s! I must be among the greatest of sinners, the weakest and stupidest of men. Lord have mercy!!! I beg forgiveness from all whom I’ve offended. I’m sorry if reading this has wasted anyone’s time. I prayed a great deal before writing and this is the best I can do. If someone will pray for me I thank you and will do likewise for all. To those who serve the Kingdom in their known vocations, may the Almighty sanctify you ever more in and through your work.

This is just plain sickening and awful