A new (ARTICLE) from Catholic.org claims that the church is doing the morally right thing by campaigning against homosexuals. It's so easy for religious people to be mistaken in areas of right and wrong and waste valuable time, resources, and human energy in a "fight" that is causing a significant amount of human suffering, stigmatization, and harm. This is just one of these cases.
The author of the study, later discussed at the bottom of this post, does not have proper credentials.
So, the church claims that by opposing gay marriage, gay rights, and "gay agenda" that they are "defending" them or others. Way to go...and a great failure to legitimize your hateful doctrine, members, and beliefs.
I love how some Catholics (like this poster) cherry-pick science, use it only when it fits their needs, and ignore everything else science has to say that doesn't fall in line with their agenda and beliefs.
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.
So, the church claims that by opposing gay marriage, gay rights, and "gay agenda" that they are "defending" them or others. Way to go...and a great failure to legitimize your hateful doctrine, members, and beliefs.
I love how some Catholics (like this poster) cherry-pick science, use it only when it fits their needs, and ignore everything else science has to say that doesn't fall in line with their agenda and beliefs.
The article also claims the following:
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.
As much as Catholics like to say that they aren't against homosexuals, it's quite funny that they constantly portray homosexuality (not even the actions) as something so wrong, disordered, twisted, and sick that it can (and should be) "cured."
Continuing...
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.
These assertions are crazy! Homosexual marriage and activism is not harmful at all...what is harmful, though, is religious people opposing homosexuality, demonizing homosexuals, not giving them equal rights as "children of God" like they profess and saying that they can't or shouldn't be able to marry in a non-religious fashion. There is nothing wrong with a man being attracted to a man or a woman being attracted to a woman. There is also nothing wrong about what two people may or may not choose to do in their private lives and in their bedrooms that is not harming others.
-----
More criticism, aside from my own, is wonderfully posted in the comments section of the article. It probably will be deleted soon, so I'll post it here:
Sonja Corbitt, the article's writer, left out affiliations of and information regarding George A. Rekers, Ph.D.
These include:
- Rekers is one of the founders of the Family Research Council, has a stated bias against gays and lesbians.
- Rekers is an advisor for the National Association For Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
- Rekers relies on the discredited research of Paul Cameron, an anti-gay doctor who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for misrepresenting the research of others regarding homosexuality.
- Rekers is an ordained minister in the southern Baptist convention. He has strong religious beliefs about homosexuality and the role of men and women.
- Rekers practices reparative therapy in the attempt to cure people of being gay, which even under the best case study on the subject, less than 4 in 10 could be considered "Success: Conversion" or "Success: Chastity."
- Rekers says that children are best served when raised by both a mother and a father, although he has stated he doesn't favor excluding single heterosexual single women from fostering.
- Rekers has said he favors pulling children from long-term placements with gay foster parents if the opportunity arises to place them in homes headed by straight parents even though, as he acknowledges, research shows such transitions are traumatic for children.
Basically, Rekers has well known affiliations and biases that should have been pointed out in this piece. It doesn't mean that what he said can be discounted out of hand because of his affiliations and biases, but within an article like this one that cites him, writer Sonja Corbitt should have at least acknowledged these biases and affiliations so that his credibility could be fully assessed by the readers here.
These include:
- Rekers is one of the founders of the Family Research Council, has a stated bias against gays and lesbians.
- Rekers is an advisor for the National Association For Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
- Rekers relies on the discredited research of Paul Cameron, an anti-gay doctor who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for misrepresenting the research of others regarding homosexuality.
- Rekers is an ordained minister in the southern Baptist convention. He has strong religious beliefs about homosexuality and the role of men and women.
- Rekers practices reparative therapy in the attempt to cure people of being gay, which even under the best case study on the subject, less than 4 in 10 could be considered "Success: Conversion" or "Success: Chastity."
- Rekers says that children are best served when raised by both a mother and a father, although he has stated he doesn't favor excluding single heterosexual single women from fostering.
- Rekers has said he favors pulling children from long-term placements with gay foster parents if the opportunity arises to place them in homes headed by straight parents even though, as he acknowledges, research shows such transitions are traumatic for children.
Basically, Rekers has well known affiliations and biases that should have been pointed out in this piece. It doesn't mean that what he said can be discounted out of hand because of his affiliations and biases, but within an article like this one that cites him, writer Sonja Corbitt should have at least acknowledged these biases and affiliations so that his credibility could be fully assessed by the readers here.