Opposing the Homosexual Agenda: Religious Bigotry or Science and Justice? - Catholic Online

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

To claim that by opposing the gay agenda the Church is acting in an unloving manner is patently untrue.

BETHPAGE, TN (Catholic Online) - It is considered negligent to allow or actively support action, drug abuse for example, that you know is both dangerous and destructive. Imagine being accused of bigotry after forbidding such action in one of your children. Yet Church opposition of the homosexual agenda draws angry criticism from those who claim her stance on homosexuality is based solely on religious bigotry against homosexuals.

The claim of bigotry is exacerbated by the fact that the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Psychoanalytic Association have endorsed gay marriage on the basis that since marriage is best (everyone agrees), then gay marriage is better than gay co-habitation.

These endorsements somehow "prove" it is in the best interests of homosexuals, society, and for children, for there to exist something called gay "marriage" according to its supporters. They maintain there is no ethical reason to "discriminate" against homosexuals and children of "same sex families" by not "allowing" same sex partners to marry. They further argue that to not allow such a legal status is to somehow force a religious position on people who do not share it.

The conflicting messages confuse people to the point that they believe the Church, by opposing the gay agenda, is acting in the ugliest, most unloving light toward gays, but that is patently untrue. She is defending their safety, and that of everyone else, with great love and loyalty. Please consider science regarding homosexuality.

Science and Justice or Religious Bigotry and Prejudice?

A "Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting" was done by George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Professor of Neuropsychiatry & Behavioral Science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina. It is a well-known review, and in it, Rekers cites numerous national and international studies that revealed:

• Households with a homosexually-behaving adult uniquely endanger children.
• Households with a homosexually-behaving adult expose children to significantly higher rates of psychological disorder, (particularly depression), suicide, and substance abuse in homosexually-behaving adults, which results in higher rates of child depression, child maltreatment and neglect.
• Households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home.
• Households with a homosexually-behaving male contribute to a potentially higher risk of removal due to the sexual abuse.
• A husband/wife relationship is significantly healthier and substantially more stable socially and psychologically.
• The best child adjustment results from living with a married man and woman compared to other family structures.
• Compared to a family without a homosexually behaving adult, empirical evidence and 30 years of Rekers´s own clinical experience with children strongly support the conclusion that a home with a homosexual-behaving individual subjects a child to a set of disadvantages, stresses, and other harms that are seriously detrimental to a child´s psychological and social development.

This review is an extensive survey of many, many studies and their research; the science behind it was used at state levels to guide public policy regarding child custody decisions, adoption, and foster parenting, as well as to defend and uphold laws to this effect in other states and on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America. These laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court.

It lays out the empirical evidence regarding the higher frequency of domestic violence, pedophilia, and sexual disease transmission by homosexual adults to children compared to married couples with children, among other scientific findings.

The "Normal," "Healthy," and "Harmless" Myths

Sexual and gender identity are fragile developmental processes that can be disrupted and harmfully influenced by environmental factors during childhood and adolescence. Gay activism insists that homosexuality is a healthy, inborn, alternative "norm," and seeks to promote it in the social order, but that position is against science and is particularly harmful toward children.

Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is a formal psychiatric disorder recognized as needing psychological treatment. As such, it should not be normalized, especially to children who are particularly damaged by it (Zucker & Bradley, 1995). Homosexual activists, however, encourage transgender and other gender-disordered behavior by modeling and asserting every sort of such behavior in the public domain.

Resolving gender identity issues requires early intervention and treatment, not school assemblies, marriage laws, or TV shows that teach the normalcy of a gender-confused lifestyle. No one should be encouraged by Mother Church to question, doubt, or otherwise reject their innate gender identity when to do so is known to be detrimental to their health.

In addition, the research is also clear that those involved in a gay lifestyle are much more likely to suffer from negative health effects ranging from psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened lifespan. The Church, bearing the supreme obligation to oppose any message damaging to her faithful, especially her youngest and most vulnerable, must also oppose the "normal," ´healthy," and "harmless" messages.

The Myth of Inevitability

Homosexuality is not inevitable, immutable, irresistible, or untreatable. Homosexual activism seeks to portray homosexuality as having these properties by socially framing it as genetically transmitted, but fortunately for the safety and welfare of those ensnared, it is not genetic, and prevention is effective. Change is possible.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the Columbia University psychiatric professor and researcher who led the 1973 APA decision to declassify homosexuality itself as a mental-health disorder, released findings in 2001 that disproved his earlier position of immutability and demonstrated, instead, that change is possible. He said specifically, that data from his study "show some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that" ("Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Suggests," Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press, 9 May 2001).

Dr. Spitzer´s and others´ findings (some are Barlow, Abel & Blanchard, 1977; Pattison & Pattison, 1980) merely support what loving, supportive homosexual rehabilitation programs like Courage, NARTH, and Exodus International know to be true from experience: that homosexuals can escape successfully. They can "move beyond the confines of the homosexual identity to a more complete one in Christ."

The "Gay Gene" Myth

In addition, no respected geneticist has found, or claimed to have found, a so-called "gay gene" or any other indicator of genetic transmission. Despite all media headlines that seem to report the contrary, consideration of their full story always reveals that such an indicator is yet non-existent, and the research remains inconclusive.

That is not to say that there may not be some biological predisposition or an inherited temperament still to be uncovered that increases one´s vulnerability to environmental influences. That, in fact, seems probable. But currently it is known that homosexual behavior is clearly not genetic, and homosexuals are not "born that way."

In fact, an accumulation of extensive research on millions of research subjects finds that environment, not genetics, is the main factor in the development of non-heterosexual behavior. Recent extensive studies compared rates of homosexual behavior in sets of identical twins. If homosexual behavior were genetic, both twins in any given set would be homosexual at a rate of 100%.

But this is not what the research revealed. Rather, when one identical twin was homosexual the twin was only homosexual at a rate of 10% - 11%. Environment is obviously the major factor, as the science attests (Frisch & Hviid, 2006; Langstrom, Rahman, Carlstrom, & Lichtenstein, 2008; Lauman, Gagnon, & Michael, 1994; Santilla, Sandnabba, Harlaar, Varjonen, Alanko, von der Pahlen, 2008).

Dr. Rekers´ ongoing findings in researching the causes and prevention of Gender Identity Disorder led him to the conclusion that "it would now appear logical that homosexuality per se be re-examined as a mental disorder," but that "[i]t remains to be seen if the mental health professions will be able to readdress the issue of homosexuality from a logical and scientific perspective in the near future. The use (or abuse) of research may continue to be influenced by ideological factors in American culture."

Ferociously Protecting Her Faithful

Homosexual marriage and other gay activism in society is harmful, in part, because it affects sexual preference and gender identity formation of some children, exposing them to the false ideology that all sexual and gender variations are equally healthy and harmless.It also negatively impacts all of humanity through our largest social systems (legal and health care, for example), and individuals who seek or practice it. This means that homosexuality cannot be morally neutral.

Therefore the Church´s commitment to morality, justice, and the dignity of man demands that she oppose it, just as she actively opposes such within her own ranks if and when it appears, as in the homosexual scandal that came to light in recent past. The Church, as the mystical Body of Christ, is committed to the health and well-being of her faithful and that of the whole world.

We know from all the research that traditional heterosexual marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents, and seniors. But the research also proves homosexual "marriage" is not the same entity as heterosexual marriage, simply because gay and straight lifestyles are not equally beneficial. And the activists know this, while claiming all the while that they are.

Because the science has always been conclusively against homosexuality as healthy, natural, biologically caused, or unchangeable, researchers are now doing away entirely with research models that use heterosexuality as the basis for what is healthy, natural, biological (and therefore immutable) and moral. They have resorted to reconstructing the entire basis of reality in order to support positive findings for homosexuality.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, "[t]he new model rejects using a heterosexual parent household as the ´gold standard´ for what is normal and views differences as simply differences and not evidence of superior or pathological development. The new model asserts that family forms are socially constructed and rejects heterosexism" (Goldberg, 2008).

To make the issue and argument solely about what the Bible or Catechism says is to deliberately misconstrue the real issue: homosexuality is detrimental to the health and welfare of individuals, to society, and especially to children. Honest science and Church teachings will always be mutually supportive, because both are God´s and are, therefore, based on truth.

The Church has the absolute duty to oppose in Charity any legislation or message that seeks to harm her faithful or the dignity of humanity in general. Homosexuality, like all disordered passions left unchecked, is dangerous and destructive.

Mother Church, out of her supreme respect for the dignity of the human person, is ethically obligated to discriminate between "gay" and "straight" laws and messages, not out of an imposition of her own "ideology" or "religious bigotry," but because to do otherwise would be negligent. It is simply the right thing to do.

-----

Sonja Corbitt is a Catholic Scripture teacher, study author and speaker. She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online. Visit her at www.pursuingthesummit.com and www.pursuingthesummit.blogspot.com.

.

Follow The Science

Dr. Miriam Grossman writes that a teenage woman headed to University is BIOLOGICALLY more vulnerable in the 'free sex' culture on campus, than the 'boys' are:

...Canonized by the sex ed industry and considered transparent truths, “safer sex” guidelines are out of date. In 2008, it’s not enough to communicate with “partners,” get tested for STI’s, and use condoms. These days, young people—especially girls—who wish to avoid sexually transmitted infections need a different plan.

If we are serious about protecting our daughters, we must spell out a clear, no-nonsense message: the ideal is to delay sexual activity, and eventually commit to someone who also waited. The closer she can get to that, the better. Then provide her with some critical facts she’s unlikely to hear elsewhere:

* A young woman has unique biological sensitivities that increase her vulnerability to the consequences of sexual activity. For example, intimacy releases oxytocin, a primarily female hormone that fuels feelings of attachment and trust. This chemical turns red lights green. It alters brain chemistry, so she’s more likely to overlook a guy’s faults, and to take risks she otherwise wouldn’t. A girl surely doesn’t want her brain drenched with oxytocin when making critical decisions like: What do I think of him? How far do I want this to go? This might explain the recent unpublished data from Princeton University indicating that for 80 percent of female students on that campus, hook-ups were followed by regret.
* A young cervix has a delicate area only one cell thick, placing teens at risk for HPV. This is the case even if she’s been vaccinated. With time, the cervix grows a thicker, tougher surface, making infection less likely. A guy’s genital system doesn’t have a vulnerable area like that.
* Most guys who have an STI don’t know it, even after they’ve been tested.....

DON'T leave her safety in the hands of those advocating 'safe sex' as if it were possible. Follow the science.


(Dr. Miriam Grossman is a Senior Fellow with the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, an M.D. with years of on-campus experience and author of the book "Sense and Sexuality".)

Cork to Allow Embryonic Stem Cell Research

IrishTimes:

THE CASE made by University College Cork for authourising embryonic stem-cell research was akin to a defense by someone found in possession of child pornography, Jim Walsh (FF) said.

The college governors' decision was strongly attacked by some Government members and defended with equal vehemence.

Ronan Mullen described the decision as astonishing and warned that it could have "queered the pitch for the Lisbon Treaty".

Mr Walsh said that while he would acknowledge there had been a failure to legislate, he was not persuaded by the UCC spokesman who had argued that it was an acceptable procedure because the embryo was destroyed prior to the removal of the stem-cell strips.

"I see that as analogous to a situation where somebody who is caught with child pornography would claim that they were not instrumental in the abuse of the children, as they only subsequently came into possession of the actual pornography itself."

We Must Guard Against Scientific Arrogance

ZENIT:

The (Faith and Reason) conference, which gathered philosophers, theologians and scientists, is the fruit of collaboration between the Lateran University, the Pontifical Academies of Science and Social Science and the Global Conference of Catholic University Institutes of Philosophy. It touched on topics in anthropology, ethics and politics, science, metaphysics and interreligious discussion.

The Bishop of Rome observed that over the course of time there has been a shift from "predominantly speculative thought to one that is much more experiential," which has led to a divide between faith and reason.

"Research," he said, "has turned above all to the observation of nature in the attempt to discover its secrets. The desire to know nature has transformed itself into the will to reproduce it. The scientific and technological conquest […] has marginalized the reason that pursued the ultimate truth of things to make way for a reason that is satisfied with discovering the contingent truth of the laws of nature."

The Holy Father clarified that faith has no fear of the "progress of science and the developments that its conquests lead to, when these aim at benefiting man, his well-being and the progress of all humanity."

But, he said, "scientific research does not always have these as its ends."

"Easy gain or, worse still, the arrogance of taking the place of the Creator, at times play a decisive role," the Pope affirmed, emphasizing the threat that such mentalities can pose for humanity.

"But science is not competent to elaborate ethical principles; it can only accept them in themselves and recognize them as necessary for overcoming [science's] possible pathologies," he continued.

Benedict XVI affirmed that science could derive much fruit from a constructive dialogue with philosophy and theology.

"This would not at all aim at limiting scientific research or at preventing technology from producing instruments of development," he explained. "It would aim rather at keeping alive the sense of responsibility that reason and faith have for science so that science would continue to carry out its work in the service of man.

"The truth of revelation does not superimpose itself on the truth discovered by reason; rather, it purifies reason and elevates it, permitting it thus to expand its own sphere and insert itself into a field of research that is as unfathomable as the mystery itself."

MYTH: Religion Opposed to Science

Father Thomas D. Williams handily rebuts Dawkins and Hitchens :


"Far from being an obstacle to science, Christian soil was the necessary humus where science took root...

...A closer look at the facts reveals a much different reality than that painted by the atheists."