Psychiatry and Orthodoxy: Nope Homosexuality is not normal

[Thekla]

Because whatever your theological reasoning, courts and voters tend to agree that homosexuals have the right to have their unions called marriages.

That does not address the core issue.

And is a most efficient way of eradicating meaning, imo.

After all, collateral damage is a term which allows us to escape the horror of our actions.

Replacing "unborn baby" with "fetus" allows for dehumanization, creating distance between action and outcome.

Just like the double speak of the 80's, when replacing "Catholic Christian" and "Campesino" with "Communist" re: Central America, allowed US Christians to sometimes support and at least remain ignorant of the slaughter perpetrated on their brothers and sisters in Christ south of the US border. (Who were really only "collateral damage" anyway ...)

 

[Protoevangel]

The work I found most helpful in understanding what marriage is was written almost a hundred years ago, when the social issue was whether to allow easy divorce. G. K. Chesterton took that issue on and laid out a clear picture of what the family always has been and must be - and showed, from a secular standpoint (he was a journalist writing for millions of unbelievers), why the traditional family must not be "redefined".

It makes hash of all the tired arguments Justin brings up about it being a social issue and so on. It's less than 40 pages in MS Word, if you want to know how to respond to the arguments of the "gay lobby" on their own grounds. Just take the hour or so to read it (esp. ch. 5!). It becomes clear why it cannot be a social issue without one mention of God or morality.

The Superstition of Divorce, by G. K. Chesterton (circa 1920)
P. S. Be patient with the windows analogy - he's going somewhere with it!

Readable/Printable: http://www.2heartsnetwork.org/The.Superstition.of.Divorce-G.K.Chesterton.pdf

Audio: LibriVox » The Superstition of Divorce by G. K. Chesterton

 

[Dorothea]

That does not address the core issue.

And is a most efficient way of eradicating meaning, imo.

After all, collateral damage is a term which allows us to escape the horror of our actions.

Replacing "unborn baby" with "fetus" allows for dehumanization, creating distance between action and outcome.

Just like the double speak of the 80's, when replacing "Catholic Christian" and "Campesino" with "Communist" re: Central America, allowed US Christians to sometimes support and at least remain ignorant of the slaughter perpetrated on their brothers and sisters in Christ south of the US border. (Who were really only "collateral damage" anyway ...)

Terrible.

 

[Philothei]

I am of the opinion:

Civil union :yes
Marriage :No

As marriage indeed as described in the constitution is of a man and a woman. So let the homosexuals have a title that does not conflict that after all why would they want to "resemble" the traditional formula of marriage if indeed they do not identify of a "man and a woman " but rahter a "man and man" and a "woman with another woman" .

IMHO it makes sense to classify it as such.

 

[Thekla]

Some background info, recent studies:

Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden.

There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005-2006 survey of all adult twins (20-47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior. Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexu... [Arch Sex Behav. 2010] - PubMed result


(I though to add this, as most twin studies dealing with sexual orientation are older, and less powered/use highly selective subjects ...)

 

[AureateDawn]

I have long been in favor of civil unions for just the reasons you mentioned, I would like it if homosexuals could be in relationships with each other if they would remain celibate. There are more ways to show and express love other than sexual and I don't think homosexuals should be forced to be alone, but I think they may want to consider that they may have a monastic calling..but I digress. I've said all that to say this, marriage is not possible within the Church as you well know, nor should it be, but I also don't think you should have to be alone. If you could be in a non-sexual relationship, I could support that. Sorry to derail to the topic.

The work I found most helpful in understanding what marriage is was written almost a hundred years ago, when the social issue was whether to allow easy divorce. G. K. Chesterton took that issue on and laid out a clear picture of what the family always has been and must be - and showed, from a secular standpoint (he was a journalist writing for millions of unbelievers), why the traditional family must not be "redefined".

It makes hash of all the tired arguments Justin brings up about it being a social issue and so on. It's less than 40 pages in MS Word, if you want to know how to respond to the arguments of the "gay lobby" on their own grounds. Just take the hour or so to read it (esp. ch. 5!). It becomes clear why it cannot be a social issue without one mention of God or morality.

The Superstition of Divorce, by G. K. Chesterton (circa 1920)
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/divorce.txt

And PE's links below are definitely better (unless you can't read pdf)...

P. S. Be patient with the windows analogy - he's going somewhere with it!

Will do! I hope I'll get to it tomorrow.

Some background info, recent studies:

Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden.

There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005-2006 survey of all adult twins (20-47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior. Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexu... [Arch Sex Behav. 2010] - PubMed result


(I though to add this, as most twin studies dealing with sexual orientation are older, and less powered/use highly selective subjects ...)

It sounds like a really interesting study, but, um... could you maybe dumb it down for me, as embarrassing as that is to ask? I want to make sure I actually get what it's saying.

 

[Philothei]

Hey Justin How are things? Are you ready for next semester @ school?

I just thought of saying hello and all...oops not to derail here....

 

[rusmeister]

To Justin I'll say that I'm pretty much always impressed when people, especially young people, step up to the plate to seriously consider ideas that are counter to their own (chosen) culture).

I am of the opinion:

Civil union :yes
Marriage :No

As marriage indeed as described in the constitution is of a man and a woman. So let the homosexuals have a title that does not conflict that after all why would they want to "resemble" the traditional formula of marriage if indeed they do not identify of a "man and a woman " but rahter a "man and man" and a "woman with another woman" .

IMHO it makes sense to classify it as such.

But opinions can change if our knowledge changes, n'est-ce-pas?

The sole purpose of the "civil union" is as a stepping stone to achieving recognition as marriage. All arguments to the contrary are deceptive and untrue. Any title at all that is to be treated as equivalent to marriage; serving the same functions, are the same. If you know any of the LGBT people defending these things (and my best friend from childhood is one of them) then you know they will settle for no less.

But rather than merely argue opinions, I'd strongly recommend Chesterton's essays (linked above) as a basis for us to discuss the issue on. I think the highest level of discussion will be achieved when we start from what marriage IS, and Chesterton masterfully demonstrates that.

The trouble with including Chesterton in any discussion is that people either come to agree, or have no good counter-arguments. That he is gentlemanly, courteous and charitable to his opponents makes him all the more devastating when he does tear their arguments apart, because you can't help liking him and even laughing.

 

[Philothei]

Rus I will read it first (as time permits) and comment later. I will not comment if I have no knowledge about it And yeah I see what you are saying "union" is a step up still this should not be any circumstances be "a step up" but just remain in that state for it is intended to be there for "legal" matters than "spiritual" matters. Marriage is by nature (socially as well as spiritually) communal between male and female. There is no record in history of mankind that has allowed for marriage either with another man or another woman or animal etc. Recognizing the "union" of this kind is indeed a start for other "unions" as people esp. in our times are indeed going back to the cave man idea of civilization than progress. The down the hill era is already here.... Why would man would want to go down the hill where he has already been? That is a mystery to me.

 

[rusmeister]

Rus I will read it first (as time permits) and comment later. I will not comment if I have no knowledge about it And yeah I see what you are saying "union" is a step up still this should not be any circumstances be "a step up" but just remain in that state for it is intended to be there for "legal" matters than "spiritual" matters. Marriage is by nature (socially as well as spiritually) communal between male and female. There is no record in history of mankind that has allowed for marriage either with another man or another woman or animal etc. Recognizing the "union" of this kind is indeed a start for other "unions" as people esp. in our times are indeed going back to the cave man idea of civilization than progress. The down the hill era is already here.... Why would man would want to go down the hill where he has already been? That is a mystery to me.

I think the solution to the mystery is the same as the realization of why man (and Lucifer) Fell in the first place. The use of what is "legal" is just a way to facilitate that Fall. At best, we can fight a losing battle in the "legal" to try to slow that Fall in our given culture. We are Fallen, yet as a society we have not hit rock bottom - yet.

 

[Thekla]

It sounds like a really interesting study, but, um... could you maybe dumb it down for me, as embarrassing as that is to ask? I want to make sure I actually get what it's saying.

Sorry

This is the most recent study on heritability in same-sex behavior
(and challenges older findings, which had small sample sizes and problems with the selection of participants).

It means the genetic contribution to the tendency is about
.34 - .39 for men
.18 - .19 for women.

Compare: for psychotic disorders (Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective, Bipolar) it is between .82 - .85

In mental illness, the environment (which includes prenatal factors like nutrition, the mother catching a flu, etc.) is not as strong a factor in going on to develop the symptoms as genetics.

 

[Dorothea]

I finally got the chance to read the whole article. That was excellent. Thanks for posting it, Philothei.

 

[Gregorios]

Homosexuality is not listed in the DSM IV, so take that as you will.

 

[Dorothea]

Homosexuality is not listed in the DSM IV, so take that as you will.

What's DSM IV??

 

[isshinwhat]

What's DSM IV??

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV)

 

[Gregorios]

That's right, I have to have it and make use of it since I'm getting my MA in Counseling. Homosexuality isn't in there but in one of the previous editions, it was.

 

[Dorothea]

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV)

Thank you.

That's right, I have to have it and make use of it since I'm getting my MA in Counseling. Homosexuality isn't in there but in one of the previous editions, it was.

Thanks for the info. I do have a great concern about this issue for those growing up in this society that may have these struggles and if there is no one telling them what it truly is and that it is something that needs to be combated, how can they ever get through this and find God in a true relationship with Him? Does that make any sense? I am worried for my boys for when they're grown and all of this stuff is "normal." And we are teaching them that it isn't, and how they will deal with this stuff as adults.

 

[Gregorios]

I stand with the Church on everything, this issue included, but to try and "convert" people won't work nor is it desirable, which is why it was removed from the DSM because that lists mental illness that can be treated and needs to be so. I'm not suggesting you or anyone is advocating that, I know you aren't, you, like me, want homosexuals to have love and support as they struggle against this passion so that they can become closer to God but saying, "Oh it's ok." won't help them do that but neither will saying they are mentally ill and need to be fixed when in reality that's not true. Now, it is for some, in many cases (certainly not all) the person has a terribly strained and difficult relationship with a parent of the same sex as they and so in order to seek out that relationship with that parent figure they may have missed out on as a child, these tendencies creep in. Also, they can creep in as a result of sexual abuse or molestation. But it seems in most of the cases, it's something that just happened, much like those of us who are heterosexual are just heterosexual..it just kinda happened.

 

[Gregorios]

I would also quickly add, we face the same struggle against the passion of lust, we all do, married people but most especially young, single people like myself, especially given the world we live in.

 

[Dorothea]

Gregorios, so you are semi-agreeing with the psychiatrist in the article/interview?