Should a state arrest you for seeking counseling for your child?
By Tom Quiner
Your child has disordered attractions.
You want to do something about it. You seek treatment. But the government says no, that it is illegal to seek a particular kind of treatment.
Welcome to California.
Parents who have children with disordered same-sex attractions will be prevented by law from seeking treatment for their kids. Democrats in the California legislature passed a law banning such treatment. If Governor Brown signs the bill, parents will be left with a choice to let the California culture nurture a homosexual lifestyle in their child.
Or they can move to another state.
Okay, let’s get serious here: is there anything wrong with same-sex attractions? Let’s face it, we all have attractions that could get us into hot water if we acted on them. Most married men have been tempted by a pretty woman other than his wife at one time or another.
But that’s the whole point: it is the acting on unhealthy attractions that can lead us down a path of physical, moral, and spiritual destruction.
So is there anything wrong with acting on same-sex attractions? For Catholics, the answer is yes. The catechism is clear:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
So, is acting on same-sex attractions really disordered? Isn’t the Church just a bunch of gray-haired men? Who are they to tell us how to behave, especially in light of their own sex-abuse scandal. Right?
The Church is more than a bunch of gray-haired men. It is the Body of Christ. It contains the entire sweep of saints and sinners for over 2000 years guided by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s guidance had warned us of acting on impulses that may be destructive. Just look at the Church. Look at the carnage left in the wake of the abuse scandal. Although it is seldom reported, eighty percent of the abuse was homosexual in nature targeting adolescent (young teenage) boys.
Parents of a wide range of religious persuasions embrace faith traditions that state acting on same-sex attractions separate them from God. The state of California is on the threshold of removing a parent’s right to do what is best for their child’s soul.
Research suggests that the homosexual lifestyle is more than spiritually risky, that it is physically risky. The Family Research Institute studied the issue, specifically analyzing data in Denmark between 1990 and 2002, a period when gay marriage had been legalized in that country.
The difference in life span was stark. Those in engaged in same-sex marriages were more likely to die at younger ages than even smokers.
Married heterosexual women lived to be an average of 78 years.
Married lesbian women lived to be an average of 56 years.
Married heterosexual men lived to be an average of 74 years.
Married gay men lived to be an average of 51 years.
In the Norway, the results were similar, although the sample size was smaller.
So what’s at work in California? Gay politics. They wish to impose their moral standard on the rest of us. That includes legislation that prevents parents from providing therapy for their children grappling with same-sex attractions.
Let me put it to you this way. Is there anything wrong with smoking? According to the data, the answer is yes. Smokers die younger. Government exercises its powers to discourage the habit.
Is there anything wrong with pursuing a same-sex lifestyle? Parents of deep-seated faith are concerned about letting their children pursue any type of lifestyle than can be spiritually and/or physically destructive.
The Democrat’s aggressive push in California to outlaw therapy for sexually-confused kids not only will leave damaged lives in its wake, it will be another notch in the degradation of our religious liberty.
If Governor Brown signs this bill, watch out. It may be coming to a state near you.
Ironic, isn’t it, that Government wants to exercise its powers to discourage a destructive lifestyle.
I have to say that the disparity in age at death which you cite in this post is certainly shocking. So much so that I went to the Family Research Institute’s website to confirm your statistics – and found the piece to which you referred. It did no more than present the numbers in a box – with no explanation as to the cause of death which certainly should be germaine to this issue.
I also tried to get a little information on the Family Research Institute itself. According to Wikipedia, it is an organization that has “…one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse”. The reference was taken according to the footnote directly from the organization’s website – but this statement is no longer available for viewing – so I can’t say whether it is accurate or not.
However, I did review four other pieces which the organization has posted and concluded that the goals of the organization are probably in keeping with that statement. I think any reasonable person would be suspicious of accepting these statements without further verification based on the organization’s mission and viewpoint.
As to California and their contemplating denying payment for counselling on the subject of “deviant sexual attractions,” it would seem that to be just (assuming the denial is based on economic necessity) that those who are heterosexual but experience “manic sex disorders” (rapists and child molesters) should also be excluded from future payments and treatment for their condition.
Then we will have equity – even in the land of fruits and nuts.
Good point on the last part of your comment. Regarding your concerns about the Family Research Institute, I don’t have detail on their methodology. The reported sample size of gay male marriages was 561 in Denmark, but under a hundred for Norway.
Once again, homosexuality is NOT a disorder.
Rapists and child molesters get their therapy in the state pen except for a few. I assume those Priests who molested boys were councilled by other Priests before being transferred to a different church so I guess it was the Catholic Church that paid for them.
“Once again, homosexuality is NOT a disorder.”
Why? Because you decree it so? That’s convincing.
If your only criterion for whether something constitutes a disorder is psychiatric consensus, then you’re probably right, homosexuality isn’t a disorder anymore — but by that standard, whether something is a disorder is pretty meaningless to begin with since the categorizations are subject to political and cultural tides.
There are really 3 possibilities here.
(1) The Catholic Church is right, in which case God’s word — that homosexual activity is wrong — trumps yours. This is what Tom Quiner believes, so arguing against that is useless unless you FIRST manage to convince him that Catholicism is a false religion.
(2) There is no objective Truth, in which case whether someone is disordered is just a matter of personal opinion — and therefore, your assertion “Homosexuality is NOT a disorder” might be true for you, but is obviously not true for other people, and you frankly have no criteria to fall back on to refute them.
(3) There IS some form of objective Truth, but it’s found in a religion other than Catholicism, or nobody has discovered it yet, in which case we’re all wrong, so who knows what the correct answer is.
In none of these scenarios do you have much ground to stand on with a unilateral decree.
The backlash against Chick-Fil-A and those who support authentic marriage as God intended and the right to free speech in the U.S. more than confirms gay politics, Tom. Don’t forget the shooting at the Family Research Council and resulting media indifference. The list goes on.
People who are forced to live a lie for their sexuality (not all gays are open about it) tend to die sooner. Not a lot was done about Aids in the beginning because many didn’t care or even thought they deserved it because it was “the gay disease”.
In regard to the study I referred to, the sample surveyed gays who did not have to live a lie. Gay marriage was legal in Denmark beginning in 1990. Despite the fact that gays could openly live a gay, married lifestyle, their life expectancies were much less than comparable heterosexual couples, at least according to their data. Thanks for writing.
What you fail to realize is that for the last forty years or so, homosexuality is no longer deemed a disorder. The reason it was to start with was mainly due to religious views.
Most in the medical field say that trying to turn a gay person straight just doesn’t work and usually makes it worse. People who want this do so mostly out of guilt. The sex drive remains, and the guilt increases. Going against your own nature rarely turns out well. Look at homosexuals who become Priests then end up so messed up they abuse children.
BTW: Are you advocating insurance should cover this “therapy”. Aren’t you the same people who are against insurance paying for contraceptives?
A quick Google directly disputes your listed research.
“However, like virtually all of his “research,” Cameron’s methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron’s methods “just ridiculous.””
The whole article listed here:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
If you truly want to look at this issue with an open mind and see the other side from their view, try watching the documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So”. It’s on Netflix.
For those who aren’t going to bother reading the article I posted:
“THE ARGUMENT
If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.
A number of “ex-gay” religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can “come out of homosexuality.” Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, plainly states, “You don’t have to be gay!” Another, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, describes itself as “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.”
THE FACTS
“Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were “rare” and that “many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions” after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and asked “mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation.” The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.
Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Alan Chambers, current president of Exodus, said in 2007 that with years of therapy, he’s mostly conquered his attraction to men, but then admitted, “By no means would we ever say that change can be sudden or complete.””
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
As long as we’re throwing articles around:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/the_soul-crushing_scorched-earth_battle_for_gay_marriage.html
I am extremely skeptical of ongoing attempts to portray all homosexuality as some kind of inescapable destiny. People just find research that supports their presuppositions and toss it out as “proof.” But there are studies that prove both ways and it’s pretty much all politically motivated. It’s become a worthless debate tactic on this subject.
“People just find research that supports their presuppositions and toss it out as “proof.””
Here is a list that state homosexuality is not a disorder. Please show me your list.
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Psychiatrists, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Australian Psychological Society, American Psychiatric Association, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
The Catholic Church. Only one I need.
What if your wrong? What if its not the homosexual being tested to over come his/her sin, but its you being tested to overcome yours. I have been linked with being prideful several times on this blog. Isn’t your claim that your conservative group within the Catholic Church within all Christian churches within all religions in the world is the correct one a bit prideful. Do you have a secret decoder ring given to you by God to say you are correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Wouldn’t it be sad for you to get to the gates of Heaven and be told – sorry, you should have been nicer to your fellow man. Isn’t it up to God to judge such matters?
Once again, thanks for allowing me to post here. I truly appreciate your opinion, even if I may not agree with it. 🙂
Homosexuality is legal. Good luck changing that.
Legality isn’t the issue. The business of souls is. Marriage is another. What someone does behind closed doors is their business if it is between two consenting adults. Christians care deeply about the salvation of souls. If someone is engaged in activity that puts their eternal soul in grave danger, we are called to encourage them to reconsider behavior that is destructive to them, such as acting on their same-sex attractions. What kind of person would a Christian be if he didn’t?
There are over 600 laws given in the Bible. How many others have you taken to the point of trying to change the law? Why not start with the 10 Commandments. Breaking the Sabbath is in the Top 10. Don’t hear much on that one these days. We tend to ignore all those Old Testament Laws, EXCEPT for homosexuality. As I stated before, Jesus never mentioned it once.
@J:
I agree with your reasoning in “There are really 3 possibilities here.” I tend to lean towards (2). Since this is a blog and as such allows for hopefully friendly debate, I feel obligated to play “devil’s advocate” if you will. A position I have taken many times before.
Outside this blog, I would never make such claims with such certainty. I do try to use “Occam’s Razor” as best as I can.
“One cannot legislate morality” is becoming more and more obvious. We must be careful about forcing citizens by legislation especially if it is left open to the influence of fringe or small groups that somehow get their hands on the reigns of power. The debate rages on about homosexuality. Who is right and who is wrong will go on beyond this posting. I would like to just make a few principle observations in my humble opinion. More and more it seems like the law is taking over the duty and responsibility of parents in regards to raising their children. Parents have the primary right to make that determination. The state should be certain of its right to interfere for any reason and it should be done on an individual basis.
One thing was mentioned that I really chuckled at. “Or they can move to another state”! I think that is a fabulous idea. If only it were possible for people to express their disagreement by picking up and moving to a state where their considerations were more accepted. It should be that way for we were set up to be able to do just that as a country. The problem is that the federal government by its legislation and its taxes makes that possibility mute. You see if CA wants to go its own merry way, let it! The issue is that by federal interference, it is supported from the central government. So others have to pay for and live by their choices. If every state took care of itself, then it would follow suit that the citizens can choose for themselves. But as it is, the federal government wants to choose for everybody. It will decide what everybody should think, do, and pay for. So it does not matter which state I live in, I know that CA will be taken care of by government subsidies. If it were that way, there would be no force. Everybody would go where they know things are according to their beliefs. Live and let live. Speak! yes, but don’t force by law for me to do what you think is best for me. I wonder how the country would shape up then. Is that not what is going on everywhere: people choosing and others paying. The Constitution has the severest limitations on using people’s money. Without the money there would be little power to force or entice anyone. The government would depend on inspiration and logic to move the mind and the masses. Now wouldn’t that be a relief?
Many good thoughts here. Thanks for writing.
Hypothetical Question: If people would ban all abortions in exchange for allowing gays equal rights (including same-sex marriage) would you be willing to do that?
Both are condemned. Gays have human rights, there are no gay “rights” per se. So you expect me to choose between two evils. Both are serious sins though abortion is much worse…it is the murder of an innocent person. No one can stop two people doing what they will. What the civil situation will be who knows. It will not change the reality that it is a wrong/sinful activity. Everyone has to restrain himself to some extent. That is just life. Again, we turn to the Natural Law. We obey or we don’t. We don’t expect to change the law. Again, this is the activity of which I speak.
You speak of Natural Law. Homosexuality exists in nature. Why, in your mind, does it go against Natural Law?
Religion comes down to an individual’s faith (or lack of). There is a reason there are so many versions of the Bible. There is a reason there are so many denominations within each religion. Even within the Catholic Church there are variations as to what is right and wrong. By what authority do you get to stand up and decide for everyone else what is truth and who should or should not be able to pursue happiness?
I once told a psychologist who quoted to me one his his absolute tenets, “Yeh, that’s what you all say this week!” The Church is being true to her principles. Sex is for sacramental marriage only. Adultery, fornication, and any other such activities outside of that marriage are condemned as sinful. Clear and simple! That goes for everyone. This does hindge on a right and wrong in human life. The Catholic Church is One who professes a right and wrong, good and bad, true and false philosophy according to Natural Law. Seemingly, before we argue anything else, we should clear up our premise.
@RC:
Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God that should be taken literally in all cases? What version of the Bible do you use and do you believe it is the true version? What other books, if any, do you use in your religious studies?
Bob,
Did you and your wife get a chance to watch “For the Bible Tells Me So”?
Whether you agree or not, I would value your opinion.