Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Fr. Dariusz Oko: “Absurdity devours itself”

March 2nd, 2013, Promulgated by Mike

Fr. Dariusz Oko, the Polish priest and professor at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Kracow who last year published With the Pope Against the Homoheresy (see Hopefull’s post, here), is also the author of a somewhat shorter but no less illuminating article entitled The Church and Homosexualism.  This two-part article appeared in 2010 in Love One Another Magazine and is available on the magazine’s website.

Not too surprisingly Fr. Oko approaches his subject from something of a Polish perspective – the viewpoint of one whose country was until relatively recently under Communist control and is now undergoing intense pressure from the homosexual lobby.

A few quotes to whet your appetite …

Why does Mother Church, with all her mercy and her respect for the human person, so clearly, categorically, and resolutely oppose the demands of the powerful and hostile homosexual lobby? She does this because of her very nature. Quite simply, it is a matter of elementary truth—of elementary intellectual and moral honesty. Jesus Christ revealed the whole truth about man and continues to proclaim it tirelessly through His Church, which stands in defense of marriage, the family, and the dignity of the human person.

… and …

What to say of those people, especially the physicians and psychologists, who refuse to accept such stark and incontrovertible medical and sociomedical facts? What to say of those who put the sexual conduct of this group on a par with that of others, even when it results in epidemic conditions; when, as among our German neighbors, for example, homosexuals are 73 times more likely to contract AIDS than other groups? What to say of the doctors who claim that the same-sex orientation is irreversible; that they have never cured anyone with this orientation, when in fact many of their colleagues have proven by their therapeutic successes that they are mistaken; that the very opposite is true? For, we do know that this is a disorder that can be corrected. All one needs is the right knowledge and the will to act on it. What to say, finally, of the journalists and politicians who ignore these catastrophic data and tirelessly peddle the propaganda of homosexual success?

To a greater or lesser degree, they are simply promoting and spreading the homosexualist ideology; for, both cursory examination and deeper analysis demand that we characterize in this way the homo-image dominating the media. It is an ideology—a collection of truths, half-truths, illusions, falsehoods, and myths. A collection of ideas aimed not at achieving knowledge for the common good, but at securing immediate advantages for the group espousing it. It is ideology in its purest form; a weapon in the war for social consciousness. Authentic learning and philosophy strive for the truth for everyone’s benefit. Homosexualism seeks to win undeserved privileges for the homosexual lobby. It uses the methods of modern marketing, whose task consists in skillfully and professionally changing the image of homosexuality and promoting it like an article of merchandise. The program drawn up by leading gay activists at their meeting in Virginia in 1988 included four main objectives in their campaign to change social consciousness and, eventually, the laws of the land. These are: desensitization, manipulation, conversion, and elimination.

… and …

Homosexualism is simply another essentially atheistic ideology that is taking the place of its severely compromised predecessor, communism. Since this utopia cannot be sustained on the level of economics, the atheist left has in the last decades engaged its energies at the level of sexual freedom, where it seeks its reason for being. Thus homosexual and communist ideologies have a great deal in common; they share many analogous features.

… and…

Against the power of the homosexualist lobby, against its financial backing, its domination of the media and influence in politics, the Church has only the strength of truth, the strength of grace, love, and mercy–the strength of God’s nature. That is why she always wins in the end–whatever the ideology. It is only a question of time. Absurdity devours itself.

The is much more here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).

Tags: ,


49 Responses to “Fr. Dariusz Oko: “Absurdity devours itself””

  1. BigE says:

    Wow. A lot of unsupported assertions and half truths there.
    1) I’d like to see the “incontrovertible” independent data that shows successful conversions of homosexual to heterosexual preferences.
    2) How does one possibly compare a sexual orientation with communism? Really? I guess since communism is simply a political or economic idealogy: I suppose homosexuality could have just as easily been compared to capitalism and democracy?
    3) How is homosexuality, again a sexual orientation, an “atheistic” idealogy? Many homosexuals are Christian, or theistic.
    4) And it was lobbies, financial backing, media, and influence in politics, that won equal rights for both blacks and women. Those are usually the vehicles of social change. And are the same vehicles the church often uses (and rightly so…)

  2. Richard Thomas says:


    You can refer to Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and the organization NARTH. They are very well versed on this topic. It is sad that success is being done with homosexuals but psychologists are being persecuted and critical emotional counceling is being denied homosexuals who want to change. Homosexual advocates are falsely claiming homosexual patients are being counciled against their wishes which is absurd.

    I think Fr, was referring to practicing homosexuals.

    As for lobbies, you should refer to the fine investigative report on the homosexual lobby, done on “Church Militant” It details how organizations like the American Psychiatric Association and the AMA were taken over by homosexual advocates and how the media is now in bed with the homosexuala lobby. Our educational institutons have also been corrupted.

    There is a BIG difference between lobbying for equal rights for African Americans and “rights” for Gays. Rights for gays is a disguised attempt to legitimie homosexual behavior and the homosexual lifestyle. Totally different agenda’s.

  3. Richard Thomas says:

    As far as an atheistic ideology, practicing homosexuals cannot be with God because their behavior is serious sin. Any serious sin separates one from God.

  4. Scott W. says:

    No one can seriously deny homosexualism is a real and pernicious ideology. One need only look at heterosexuals who bang the djembe for gay rights. I may have quoted this before here, but it is worth another look. It is from Joe K., a man with same-sex attraction (living chastely) who showed up at Ed Feser’s blog:

    The worst, by far, are heterosexuals, who are all about gay rights, though. This may be because they are the majority, but in a certain way I think it’s deeper than that. I think their defending of homosexuals is driven by a couple things. One, it comes from this weird perverted notion that you always have to protect the weak and “not judge” No Matter What. It’s derived, I think, from Christian notions of love, but it has to turned into this terrible monster known as modern liberalism. It’s actually become the case that defending the weak is more important than identifying the truth. This whole idea is rampant, and it’s pretty much suffocating to any real discussion on moral issues. “Don’t judge! What makes your life any better! You’re just filled with hate!” etc. etc. etc. Everyone has to be equal, no matter the stakes, no matter what. If you imply Anything to the contrary, you’re basically Hitler who wants to kill all gay people. And while this push is definitely from the gay community (it’s how they gain their power), it’s most strong (and most despicable) from straight people. It’s despicable because they don’t know what they’re doing. They just bandwagon on someone else’s slave morality to the degradation of everything around them. And worst of all, they’re Zealous about it. They get mad, scary mad about it.

    The second reason heterosexuals provide so much pressure against moral living is similar to the reason gay people do. A person who espouses Any sexual ethics (literally at all), is assaulting their own lifestyle. Because, let’s face it, heterosexuals are just as bad, or worse, about sexual purity than homosexuals. I basically know no people who don’t cohabitate. I basically know no people who haven’t sought relationships Just For The Sex. A friend of mine was asking which girl he should date. He explained their strengths and weaknesses to me. I told him to date the one he thinks he could marry. He laughed, looked at me like I was crazy, and then the conversation got awkward. That’s really the only sentence I said to him; I didn’t push anything, I wasn’t being preachy about it; I honestly thought that was the best, most rational advice. But it wasn’t even on his radar. And he’s a pretty decent person too. No, any talk about sexual ethics is an assault on almost All people. And that’s not cool. It’s way too hard to live your life moral with respect to sex. It’s also way too philosophical. With other things you can see external results more quickly and more clearly. Stealing has clear effects, as does lying. But having sex with your girlfriend? What’s wrong with that.

  5. BigE says:

    To try and tie homosexuality to the christian emotional hot buttons of communism and atheism is nothing more than a ploy to create fear and loathing for a segment of our population, sinful or otherwise, who already are the object of many hate crimes. To feed that frenzy is simply irresponsible IMHO. So much for loving the the sinner and hating the sin I guess….

    @Richard Thomas
    I’m well aware of Narth:

    1a)”With these views, NARTH has emerged as the preeminent source of what many regard as “junk science”…But even as NARTH is held up as an authority on the science of homosexuality by both fringe groups and politically potent national organizations like the Family Research Council, its claim that LGBT people can be “cured” of their homosexuality is not backed by the evidence….In fact, every major American medical authority has concluded that there is no scientific support for NARTH’s view, and many have expressed concern that reparative therapy can cause harm. Most strikingly, in 2006, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated: “There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.” The APA added, “Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”

    1b)In a letter dated February 23, 2011 to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Attorney General of the United States stated “while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable”.

    1c) “Services that purport to “cure” people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) said in a position statement…”

    2) Please also note the definition of atheist –> a·the·ist – noun: “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.” It is not based on some other groups definition of “who is with God”. It is the denial by an individual that God exists. So homosexuality by definition does not equate to atheism. By that same definition not even Satan is an atheist.

  6. Hopefull says:

    I am confused about the outlawing (as in California) of treatment by psychologists and psychiatrists to “change” homosexuals. One aspect of change is from gay to straight and I clearly understand that is part of what is being “outlawed.” But what about from gay lifestyle to chastity? Does anyone know if the scope of those laws is targeting treatment or counseling or even spiritual advice and publications on becoming chaste?

  7. Scott W. says:

    For once I will conditionally agree with BigE in that comparisons to communism and atheism generate more heat than light.

    As usual, it’s best to stick to specifics:

    –We’ve seen believers in true marriage fired from their jobs for refusing to acknowledge a coworkers same-sex “marriage”.
    –We’ve seen parents denied the ability to opt their children out of sex-ed programs that taught homosexual normalcy.
    –We’ve seen a high school student hauled before the assistant principle and berated of hours on end and threatened with suspension for writing the “con” side of a pro/con article on same-sex “marriage” that he was asked to write.
    –We’ve seen Catholic charities forced out of providing adoptions.
    –We’ve seen a Christian convert forced to flee the country with her biological daughter because a court insanely awarded custody to her creepy lesbian ex-“spouse”. They arrested the guy who helped her flee.
    –And just yesterday was a report from England that a volunteer Police chaplain was let go for defending true marriage on his blog even though their ludicrous new laws haven’t gone into effect yet.

    These are features, not bugs because there are no serious conscience protections in place. You’ll notice some of these punishments are not for acts, but thoughts. So if we want to argue whether there are valid comparisons to communism and atheism, so be it as long as we don’t deny the very real juggernaut on it’s way to crush all opposition.

  8. Richard Thomas says:


    You need to learn how the gay lobby infiltrated the American Psychological Association. I told you to review what was given on Church militant TV. It is obvious you did not but persist in your views.

    You can check the Catholic Medical Association. They also concur that good treatment can be given to homosexuals.

    You want to really quote the Southern Poverty Center. They are a notorious group promoting every liberal aganda, including homosexuality. Be careful of what you are reading.

    So the Catholic Medical Association and traditional groups think NARTH is fine and liberal, pro homosexual groups do not. Who are you going to believe. It has to be assumed the pro homosexual groups will never promote any therapy that puts their lifestyle into a bad light.

    You will never change your perception if you stubbornly persist in reading and quoting only those groups and articles frienfly to your opinions

  9. Mike says:


    My 2 cents’ worth (in addition to what others have already pointed out) …

    Regarding your 1st point: Remember that if it can be shown that homosexuality is a treatable and curable condition the whole reason for the existence of the homosexual movement ceases to exist. Therefore, the homolobby will deny to its dying breath the possibility of a cure, even if the face of clear examples to the contrary.

    Also, there is another article on the Love One Another website that addresses the therapy issue in much more detail. See here – and pay particular attention to the Danish experience.

    Regarding your 2nd and 3rd points/questions: I just re-read both parts of Fr. Oko’s article and it is apparent that he is comparing the homolobby to communism primarily on the level of tactics. (Remember, I said he was approaching his subject from the perspective of one who had lived under communism.)

    And, yes, some practicing homosexuals do claim to be Christian, and some even Catholic, but the Christianity they espouse is an invention of their own making, ignoring or rationalizing away the clear teaching of scripture (in the case of Protestants) and 2000 years of Tradition and Magisterial teaching (in the case of Catholics).

  10. BigE says:

    @richard thomas

    1) And how were…the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Psychological Association, the American School Health Association, the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Education Association, the Pan American Health Organization, and the World Health organization all infiltrated?

    2) In 1991, Gerald Davison, a former president of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, argued that conversion therapy is ethically improper and that its existence only confirms professional and societal biases against homosexuality.

    3)Per a story in the May 19th New York Times, Robert Spitzer has written a letter to Kenneth Zucker, editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, in which he expresses his regrets for publishing his 2003 study of highly religious individuals who said their sexual orientation was changed by reparative therapy. (btw…it was Spitzer’s study upon which much of the Catholic Medical Assoc. bases it reparative therapy position)

    “I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.” Robert Spitzer. M.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University.

  11. BigE says:


    1) And just as significantly, if it is shown NOT to be treatable – what does that do to the Catholic position? And why are some clinging so desperately to ONE organizations (NARTH) unproven conclusions against the avalanch of data and opinion to the contrary?

    2) Your article is referencing the work of a member of NARTH. And since no data or studies were included, I’m not sure what you want me to comment on?

    3) What communist tactics is the homosexual lobby being compared to?

    4) The “type” of Christianity espoused has zero relevance since the definition of an atheist is simply someone who denies the existence of God. Fr.Oko’s connection is arbitrary and wrong.

  12. Richard Thomas says:


    Homosexuals HAVE been helped by this therapy. You cannot deny this. There is too much evidence confirming it. So your saying “If it shown not to be treatable” is a misnogmer.

    You just don’t listen or perhaps you don’t weant to listen. In 1973, the American Psychological Association was taken over by gay activists who were able to enable passing a resolution stating that homosexuality was not a inherent disease. There is so much more to this and I hope you read about it.

    I am not going to argue with you. You can persist in your opinions.

  13. snowshoes says:


    Excellent post of an elegantly researched work by Father Oko, thank you. It is a requirement of Christian charity that we as Catholics demand that all priests who are homosexual be removed from active ministry. Those who have never committed homosexual acts while in the seminary or after ordination should be sent to the monastery to pray and do penance, and receive the appropriate treatment until such time as he is cured.

    The homosexual priest does great harm to his parishioners by not being able to be the spiritual father of his parish. They should never have been ordained.

    Of course, those who are committing homosexual acts at this time, which are unspeakable mortal sins, must be immediately removed and laicised. Those priests who have previously committed homosexual acts while in the seminary or after ordination should also be removed and laicised. The connection of “active” homosexual behavior with communism and atheism is obvious: one can believe there is no God or one can act as if there is no God.

    A Catholic who says he knows his faith and goes and commits sodomy or supports those who do, is a practical atheist. He is also a persecutor of homosexuals, because his position will put both them and him in hell. One must truly loathe homosexuals to want to see them do acts which will damn them to hell. Remember Ananias and Sapphira, we keep something back from the Lord Jesus to our eternal peril. We accept all of revealed truth or it is as if we accept none of it, and the Good Lord knows where we stand. St. Casimir, pray for us.

  14. annonymouse says:

    BigE –

    Not exactly surprised here that you would weigh in against the Church on this issue.

    Please tell me – have any of the “reputable” organizations you’ve cited actually done ANY research in the last thirty years into the causes of and/or possible remedies for, same-sex attraction? If not (and I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the answer is “no”) then how can you or they assert that homosexuality is immutable?

    The fact is – the homosexual lobby is preventing any serious inquiry into the causes of and treatment of same-sex attraction because, as Mike said, to find it “curable” means their raison d’etre goes “poof.”

    What IS immutable is this – to act on one’s disordered same-sex inclinations is objectively gravely (mortally) sinful. You who took an oath to believe all that the Church believes and teaches cannot quarrel with this.

  15. Scott W. says:

    as Mike said, to find it “curable” means their raison d’etre goes “poof”

    It’s rather telling how quickly homosexualism latched on to “Born this Way”. It is often accompanied by the other “argument”: supposedly there are examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. So the reason goes it exists in nature, and “Nature” sounds pretty close to Natural Law, so therefore, it’s natural. Leaving aside the fact that these animal examples are anomalies, or part of a dominance/submission phenomena that would curl anyone’s hair if it were applied to humans, look what it boils down to: Man is either at the mercy of his genetic coding, or he is at the mercy of animal instincts. This is an utterly degraded view of Man and it is telling that some people would accept them for the sake of the Immediate Needs of the Groin.

  16. annonymouse says:

    One more thing, E –

    At least you’re consistent – you see no necessary connection between sexual activity and procreation in the contraception debate, so you see no necessity that sexual activity between any two (or three or four?) adults, no matter the gender, be tied to the possibility of procreation, either.

    Finally, I was thinking of you yesterday. It occurred to me that perhaps I’ve been wrong about you. All this time I’ve been of the opinion that you think you know more than the successors of Peter and the apostles in these matters. When in actuality, I think perhaps you are simply of the opinion that there are no objective truths that can be known by anyone, or that there certainly is no authority given to the Bishop of Rome or the College of Bishops (by Jesus) to know and teach objective truths.

    All this time I thought it was pride. Instead it might simply be postmodern rejection of any and all authority.

  17. Richard Thomas says:

    What psychologists are now discovering is homosexuality is a developmental problem associated with poor parenting. Due to toddler needs not being adequately met and other psychological issues, people develop same sex attraction. In having sex with the same partner, homosexuals are attempting to obtain the long lost love of a parent, that they never got. It is extremely painful. But sexual encounters are like morphine or heroin. They may help you feel better for the moment but they never fufull the long lost needs.

    What is also being discovered is once a person engages in homosexual behavior, their emotional stability actually decreases.

    We must pray for all with same sex disorder.

  18. annonymouse says:


    Do you then deny that the power of Jesus Christ can redeem this, or any other, sexual inclination? Take for a moment heterosexual lust, the objectification of members of the opposite sex – do you think that inclination is also “immutable?”

    Or just might it be the case that the power of Our Lord be sufficient to cleanse the disordered, sinful hearts of all humanity?

  19. BigE says:


    1) I didn’t weigh in against the church on this issue. Please show me where the Church teaches that homosexuality can be corrected through “conversion” therapy? Where it defines the nature of homosexuality (choice vs orientation)? Where homosexuals are defined as atheists? Or where homosexuality is defined as being akin to communism?

    2)I found this review of all the relevent data. The report was written in 2009.

    3) Of course there are objective truths. This discussion simply isn’t one of them (see my first response above).

  20. Mike says:


    Regarding the American Psychiatric Association, you and I have been down this road before (see here).

    Given their capitulation to (admittedly) intense homosexual intimidation, the APA lost any claim to scientific credibility on this and related issues like reparative therapy.

    All those other organizations you mention, I’m willing to bet, saw the onslaught levied by the homolobby against the APA and just followed suit, using the APA’s decision for cover, if necessary.

    Finally, regarding Dr. Spitzer’s “apology” as trumpeted by the New York Times (why am I not surprised?), did you also read the interview of Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg published on MercatorNet (which Hell’s Bible somehow missed) …

    MercatorNet: Were you surprised by Dr Spitzer’s apology to the gay community?

    Gerard van den Aardweg: At first, yes. But after a short while, not very much, for the following reasons.

    Some time after his 2003 article I had a conversation with him on the telephone. I asked him if he would continue his research, or even if he would try to guide a few people with homosexual problems and who sought “alternative” professional help, that is, help and support to change as much as possible from homosexual to heterosexual interests.

    In his interviews with people who had walked along that path, he certainly had learned a lot, among other things, the great need among many homosexually inclined persons for this kind of help. I felt that Dr Spitzer was the kind of psychiatrist who could do much good for some of these persons. So why not give it a try?

    His reply was adamant. No, he would never touch the whole subject ever again. He had nearly broken down emotionally after terrible personal attacks from militant gays and their supporters. There was an outpouring of hatred.

    A man can indeed be broken by such a traumatizing experience. At the time, I thought that his stance was perhaps not the most courageous one, but it was certainly understandable. After all, his cautious recognition of the reality of changes in some people with a homosexual orientation already represented an enormous about-face. He had been one of the leading figures of the lobby which in 1973 succeeded in normalizing the definition of homosexuality in the Diagnostic Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Now the hero of the gay movement had suddenly become a Judas.

    But fear is seldom a good counsellor. My guess is that Dr Spitzer in 2003 only dabbled in the water, because he didn’t dare to dive. Unfortunately, his neutral, withdrawn attitude towards the subject of homosexuality did not protect him from fierce pressure to distance himself from his “betrayal”.

    In psychiatric and psychological circles it is already very difficult for an ordinary professional to maintain himself and endure hostility, taunting, and marginalization if it becomes known that he or she thinks homosexuality is a disturbance (of whatever sort) and not irreversibly programmed. For a prominent psychiatrist as Dr Spitzer, with his gay-friendly past, this must have been a torment.

    So this is my surmise. Not having the conviction and inner dynamic to wholly convert to the pre-1973 position that homosexuality is disordered sexuality, he finally succumbed to pressure.

    MercatorNet: Does Dr Spitzer’s recantation really deliver a devastating blow to “ex-gay” organisations and prove that reparative therapy is 20th century snake oil?

    Gerard van den Aardweg: I don’t think it is such a serious setback. In the world of ex-gays it is a well-known phenomenon that persons who at first were enthusiastic later feel disillusioned. They might feel that change is not as rapid or deep as they wanted, or they come to doubt whether it is worth all the effort, or they have too superficial an understanding of the emotional and personality or character malformation underlying same-sex attractions.

    That is true for people with same-sex attractions (SSA) themselves and sometimes for professionals. I could illustrate this with the case of a Dutch psychiatrist who, though in his heart believing SSA is a psychological disturbance, yet, in a stressful period in his life, publicly regretted his former “disturbance” statements.

    In any case, Dr Spitzer has not said that his observations and impressions about change in the individuals he interviewed were false, or that they had lied to him. In his article, he himself brought up this hypothesis, but he was convinced what he heard was on the whole reliable.

    His retraction does not change his results and his results are the only thing that counts. This whole retraction affair is in fact merely a question of media manipulation, not a matter of science. Some nuclear scientists may have regretted their work when they saw its consequences in the field of nuclear weaponry. However the knowledge they acquired was not affected by their regret. (In Dr Spitzer’s case, the results were in fact benign, of course.)

    Apart from all this, the need of many persons troubled by SSA is so persistent and universal, as is the common sense insight that something is amiss with homosexuality, that therapy and other constructive efforts will always go on — if not within academic psychology and psychiatry, then outside of it.

    MercatorNet: In his brief letter to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Dr Spitzer mentions two serious flaws in his 2003 study – that the study design was flawed and that memories of change are scientifically unreliable. Do you think that the study was really flawed?

    Gerard van den Aardweg: That the design was flawed is not a new argument. Spitzer made it crystal-clear in his original article that he only wanted to call the attention to the fact that “some” people can deeply change from homosexuality to heterosexuality. The fact that he interviewed volunteers from the ex-gay and therapeutic community was clearly stated.

    Now he says his selection was flawed (as in fact are all selections of SSA people in the literature!). But what does this mean? That “I did not demonstrate that all homosexuals can radically change”? No one has ever maintained that. That “Some people with SSA do radically change and others, and more than one of them, substantially change”? That is what he found, no more, no less. His remarks on the skewed distribution of his sample do not invalidate this conclusion.

    Memories of change are unreliable? What does he mean?

    That, for instance, people who were “profoundly changed” were fantasizing about their past emotions and conflicts? Then his remark is the same as the standard gay contention that those who are changed have never been “really” homosexual.

    Well, in that case he proved in 2003 that efforts to change at least can free troubled people from the “delusion” that they were homosexual, and from the concomitants of such delusions, like same-sex cruising, obsessions, partnerships etc. This implies that we need to define homosexual orientation as a same-sex attraction that can never change. Which also implies that you need to have sustained efforts to change to know whether your SSA is real or pseudo.

    I do not believe Dr Spitzer believes this argument himself.

    A few years ago, I sent him a report on an ex-lesbian woman who after many years was still completely free of same-sex feelings whatsoever, even though she had severely suffered from them until in her mid-30s. Of course Dr Spitzer did not reply that she had merely imagined the infatuations, lesbian jealousies, erotic obsessions, depressions, inferiority feelings and so on. He found the story very interesting, but he asked “but how frequently does this occur?” A good question, of course, but however rare it may be, the reality of her memories (as examined by a sceptical psychiatrist) is beyond doubt.

    Suppose memories of former sexual (or other emotional) states cannot be trusted. This means that an enormous part of psychological and psychiatric research, where memories play a role, should be rejected. Naturally, memories of one’s previous sexual life can be inexact, exaggerated, distorted, and embellished. But there is no justification for the contention that in principle they are untrustworthy. Dr Spitzer is clearly seeking a “scientific” justification for his recantation.

    The entire interview is here.

  21. Richard Thomas says:

    There was no venom in the Civil Rights movement. IT was a good that promoted equal treatment for African Americans. I don’t think I ever heard any violence done by African Americans against their Caucasian opponents but there was PLENTY of violence by certain whites against the movement.

    In the arena of gay rights there are many people who have protested against supposed gay rights. Look at the venom and hatred displayed by homosexuals against such innocent people.

    Gay rights advocated do not want discussion for when the truth is exposed their arguments fall far short. So they have to resort to intimidation, hatred, persecution and suppression. Such actions are never divinely inspired but are, unfortunately, diabolical.

    The truth will set you free and ultimately, this nonsense of Gay rights will be exposed for what it is.

    That will only happen when we as a society are no longer bombarded by propaganda instead of facts and truth.

  22. Thinkling says:

    Fr. Oko has done a valuable service in his recent essays. Poland was relatively immune from the lavender mafia for a long time, even as many of its neighbors’ and the Americas’ seminaries were contaminated. Now, at least here nationwide, the tide is slowly turning, but Poland is a few decades behind the curve, and it must be tragic for him, who has seen the future in other Euro- and American churches. Prayers that there too the tide will turn back.

    The whole “homosex as ideology” thread here is not one of the site’s better moments. So I will try to be part of a solution. Peter Kreeft recently had a piece about a conversation he had with a young man with SSA. This man insisted that to hate his sin was to hate himself (the sinner) in a way that would not apply to hating theft, cheating, murder, etc. After some additional Socratic questions by the professor, he deduced from the presented logic of the young man that indeed, homosexuality is a religion (his words).

    His logic was unassailable. But his conclusion could have been even stronger. I suspect Kreeft chose the word religion to make a rhetorical point, but from the discussion it was clear that, using the classical meanings of the words and not the modern horse-race meanings, “ideology” (an idea one accepts and then attempts to make reality conform to) applies even better than “religion” (effort to divine supernatural reality and conform oneself to it). There was a video floating around of his telling the story as well.

  23. BigE says:

    I find it interesting that everyone who supports the APA conclusion has supposedly been bullied and ultimately cow towed to the “all powerful” gay lobby. Their mighty tentaticles reaching so far and wide that even international organizations like the Pan American and World Health Organizations have been infected. Yet somehow, one organization, NARTH, has been able to withstand their mighty efforts. I think it all smacks of conspiracy theory at best and at it’s worst reminds me of the McCartyism of the 50’s where it was the “communists” who were infiltrating all. ahhhh…there’s the communist connection 🙂

  24. annonymouse says:

    BigE – you’re an intelligent man, I am sure. You cannot take seriously a “study” from an organization that has a “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns Office” can you? Do you think that study could possibly have been tainted by a preconceived agenda?

    The Church teaches that ALL sinful behavior and inclinations can be corrected, through the power (the Life, Death and Resurrection) of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Those with same-sex attraction are to give their lives to the Lord and live chastely, and through the Lord’s power they can be redeemed of their disordered affections.

    I scoffed (initially) about the comparison of the gay lobby to the spread of communism, until I stopped to realize how quickly socialism has invaded one of our national parties and the highest branches of our government. Similarly, how quickly the acceptance of homosexuality has pervaded the academy, the federal government (and many state and local governments), the arts, film and television. If only the acceptance of Jesus Christ were to spread and perdure that rapidly!

  25. Scott W. says:

    The error people seem to be making is assuming that the drive for normalizing homosex comes primarily from homosexuals and how could such a small segment of the population infiltrate and subvert whole professions and world organizations? As the Joe K. quote I gave pointed out, the drive gets most of its steam from ideologically-addled HETEROSEXUALS. Anecdotal case in point: back in the 80’s I (briefly) dated a girl in college. Her worldview?

    Pre-martial sex is good.
    Abortion on demand is good.
    Contraception is good.
    Euthanasia is good.
    Anthrogenetic Global Warming is real, bad and requires socialized economies to fix
    Overpopulation is real and bad, and requires reproductive laws, mass sterilizations, etc. to fix.
    Racism and sexism are real, bad, and require sensitivity training, speech codes, exemption from due process, and property redistribution, reparations, etc. to fix.

    I’ll bet you’ll never guess what her views on homosexual acts and same-sex marriage was. Who am I kidding? Of course you know. She thought it good, “they’re just expressing their love blah, blah blah”.

    The homosexual agenda hasn’t infiltrated organizations as if it were just one thing. It is just one part of the kit of secular heathenism. It didn’t just show up yesterday, it’s been a part of your average secular heterosexual’s kit for decades. And it’s part of the kit whether one is heterosexual or homosexual.

  26. Richard Thomas says:

    And unfortunately, it has been rampant in the Catholic Church for decades. There was a recent good expose about the homosexual movement in the Church on Church Militant TV.

  27. Sassy says:

    Scott, I think your point is spot on because behind nearly every SSA attracted person I have encountered is an army of heterosexuals (typically family members and good friends) who will not make the hard choice to try to lead said person away from sin. Rather, these people (heterosexual friends and family) move closer to the sin by affirming and fully supporting the lifestyle. And often these same people will start to openly advocate themselves (for instance, Fortunate Families). Confusion ensues when you have Catholics advocating for SSM who act particularly pious (daily mass attendance, extraordinary minister, lector, adoration supporter). Now the pool gets even bigger when you include those people. It’s not too difficult to see the snowball get bigger and bigger as it rolls down the mountain.

  28. Scott W. says:

    Exactly Sassy. It’s the tyranny of “COEXIST!”

  29. BigE says:

    1) Classic “raising the bar” fallacy. You questioned “whether any of the ‘reputable’ organizations I had cited have actually had done ANY research in the last thirty years” and when I produce a study done as recently as 2009, you discount it simply because the APA has a “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns Office”? That happens to be one of 54 APA sub-divisions and makes perfect sense given the amount of activity and controversies surrounding the gay/lesbian debate.
    2) What really makes your questioning of the APA ironic is that that Joseph Nicolosi, long time president of NARTH, has been quoted as saying “We, as citizens, need to articulate God’s intent for human sexuality” (CNN’s 360 degrees with Anderson Cooper, Apr 14, 2007) and also that “When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.” (Love Won Out Conference, Feb 2007). Or how about the fact that NARTH member and advisor Joseph Berger once advocated for the bullying of gender variant kids…(
    Are you really going to tell me that NARTH will be the “unbiased” source of gay/lesbian studies? I know you too, are smarter than that.

  30. Richard Thomas says:

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if there ws a study by chaste gay and lesbians and not individualy trying to promote their lifestyle.

    Of the numerous studies put forth by pro abortion individuals, all of them were flawed in their methodology. I will bet my bottom dollar that similar studies put forth by pro homosexual individuals will be similarily flawed. And we are also concerned that such people might want to arrange the data so as to put their lifestyles in “good standing”.

    Didn’t eht APA recently advocate that sex between adult males and underage boys was OK. When it concerns sex, I question anything put forth by this organization on that topic.

  31. Richard Thomas says:

    Well. Mr Berger has some offensive comments. Let’s condemn the whole organization. Since Mr. Berger said those things, everything coming from that organization must be trash.

    And what about the 2 x 4 in the eyes of homosexuals. History is filled with threats, malicious conduct, violent disruptions and the like by numerous menbers of the gay and lesbian advocacy groups.

    Moral of the story. Just examine the data. Study the information presented. Keep personal stuff out of the discussion.

  32. Richard Thomas says:

    Remember the study from the professor from the University of Texas concerning children of homosexual couples? It indicated they dis poores socially, academically and emotionally than children of heterosexual couples.

    What was the resopnse of the gay and lesbian advocates: They wanted his academic credentials investigated and they wanted him fired. Interesting how pro-life critics of flawed material put out by the pro-choice side sticks to critisising the data without the threats..

    Great! If someone says something against your movement, threaten him with loss of job. Or, as in Dr. Spitzer’s case, intimidate and threaten him so he never wants to deal with the subject again.

    Perfect strategy for Homosexual advocates. Attack and marginalize your opponents. Threaten them. This is similar to what the O’Bama administration does to it’s critics.

    But the sad thing from this whole mess is that there is never any talk about the information in the data.

    And this tells me that when a group is reduced to attacking their critics in such a mannor, their position on the issue is flimsy.

    I am afraid that we are living in a society that is quickly becomming hostile to Christianity. It is coming soon that no one will be allowed to critisise homosexuality or pro choice. People will be hired and fired according to their political views. Schools will teach that homosexuality is good.

    And you can bet the farm that our society will be severely chastised by God for degenerating into such a quagmire.

  33. BigE says:

    @Richard Thomas
    1) So let me get this straight. It’s ok to trash the APA for a statement you think they made (which they didn’t-the confusion came from an article published by the APA from the netherlands) and not trust anything put forth by that organization.
    2) But we should all discount NARTH’s Mr Berger advocating for the bullying of gay children and just look at the data and keep the personal stuff out of it.
    You don’t see the contradiction in those two statements?

  34. Richard Thomas says:

    The APA carries a lot of weight. It’s policies influence so many people. It was taken over by homosexual advocates in the 1970’s. Many people have documented that and yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Yet, inspite of the APA being taken over and publishing data that is terribly flawed and can lead people into much harm, you refuse to believe it and still state the organization is reputable. You will not address the takeover.

    Enough said.

    NARTH is a reputable organization. Mr. Berger’s comments were wrong. But I don’t think his conduct is enough to condemn the organization.

  35. annonymouse says:

    BigE – what you provided from the APA was no scientific study. There has been no research into the causes or possible remedies for same-sex attraction for the simple reason that that organization and all the others you’ve cited start with the premise that homosexuality is a normal way of expressing one’s sexuality. It is, in their thinking, oxymoronic to search for a cause and a “cure” as if anyone wanted THAT!

    Whether NARTH has all the answers or not is open to debate. What is not open to debate is this: the Catholic Church teaches quite clearly that homosexual inclinations are disordered and that homosexual behavior is objectively, gravely sinful. I am certain that the APA and all the other organizations you’ve placed your faith in will quarrel with that judgment, but if you and I think ourselves “Catholic” don’t you think we have an obligation to follow the Church’s teaching?

    Of course, you’ve argued vehemently that Holy Mother Church is WRONG on the matter of artificial contraception, and you see no problem divorcing the sex act from procreation (meaning that you OK with kicking God right out of the bedroom!). So of course you probably see nothing wrong with two men or two women engaging in sexual acts which, by their nature, exclude the possibility of procreation.

    Why you’re not an Episcopalian, I simply don’t understand. That choice would, without question, be more intellectually honest for you.

  36. annonymouse says:

    Sassy – you left deacon and priest off that list of SSM supporters. Don’t forget about them!

  37. BigE says:

    1) So I’m starting to get a little confused. Is homosexuality a mental disorder which can maybe be cured? Or is it a life style choice, which if left unchecked, will influence and spread to others?
    2) Please, if you’re going to quote me, be accurate. I’ve never, EVER, said the Church is wrong. If i have, please produce the quote, or quit saying it. I know in your world “questioning” authority means you have to believe they are wrong. Not so in my world (and the world of many). Not everyone has to live in your world of black and white.
    3) I don’t want to kick God out of the bedroom. I just don’t want to limit God the way you do. (I wonder why God is only there if there’s pro- creation, but not present in the midst of unitive love? And what does that mean for sterile couples?)
    4) I’ve already addressed your attempts to kick me out of the Church numerous times which includes wondering why YOU stayed in the church when you were questioning her teachings? I’m glad the church is more welcoming than you for those still questioning. Even those who stubbornly question like myself.

  38. Richard Thomas says:

    It is becomming apparent that homosexuality is caused by an inappropriate and inadequate bonding between parent and child. As a result, it’s victims are afflicted with Same Sex Disorder and then make life style choices that inluence and spreads to others.

    God is present in all acts of love. We just have to be open to the possibility of bringing life into the world and is spouses are not able to do that at a particular moment, and the wife is fertile, then abstinence is called for.

    I think I am safe to say that in the DOR people “Questioned “authority but the real purpose was to instill a new set of religious and moral values. There was never an attempt to question with the purpose of solidifying concepts. As a mattter of fact, when challenged with the opportunity of defending their positions against outside speakers who defended the majesterial teachings, those in the DOR professing inaccurate viewpoints always ducked the discussions.

  39. BigE says:

    @Richard Thomas
    1) “There is currently no scientific consensus about why sexual orientation takes the direction it does. Homosexuality is not strongly related to genetics but that does not mean that parenting is the only alternative non-genetic factor. Other prenatal factors, such hormonal variations during prenatal development, are being investigated and might be a part of the picture. The jury is out with much more research to be done, but what has been done on parenting does not inspire confidence in the claim that distant fathers and smothering mothers create gay men.”

    2) I agree that questioning should go both ways, and shame on anyone who suppresses questions from the conserative/orthodox viewpoint.

  40. Richard Thomas says:

    According to Dr. Fitzgibbons and Dale O’Leary, abnormal parenting plays a huge role in the development of same sex attraction and that is the venu psychologists are using too make progress in treating same sex attraction.

    It is very interesting that patients with same sex attraction seldom refer to their parents in a positive way.

  41. Mike says:

    annonymouse wrote:

    There has been no research into the causes or possible remedies for same-sex attraction for the simple reason that that organization and all the others you’ve cited start with the premise that homosexuality is a normal way of expressing one’s sexuality.

    Back in 1999 Dr. Joseph Nicolisi presented a paper at the “Symposium on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church in Today’s Culture.” His title was “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” and he had something to say on the subject of research:

    In his scholarly analysis of the American Psychiatric Association’s reversal of the diagnostic classification of homosexuality, Ronald Bayer (1981) states: “the result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times” (p. 3-4).

    The combined effects of the sexual revolution and the “rights” movements – civil rights, minority rights, feminist rights – have resulted in an intimidating effect upon psychology. Some writers have even questioned whether “straights” are capable of doing research on homosexuality (Suppe, 1982). Because there is a fear of offending any vocal minority or of being considered judgmental, there has been little critique of the quality of gay life.

    Although recent behavioral inventories of homosexual men have revealed more anonymous sex than previously imagined, it is like the case of the Emperor’s new clothes: everyone sees the problem, but no one dares acknowledge the obvious.

    The removal of homosexuality from the DSM had the effect of discouraging treatment and research. The bulk of early psychodynamic research and theory beginning with Freud indicated that homosexuality is not a natural, inborn condition. Yet the literature came to an abrupt stop when it became “common knowledge” that homosexuality was in fact not a problem. This discouraged clinicians from communicating with each other, and from making presentations at professional meetings.

    The silence among researchers was not brought about by new scientific evidence showing homosexuality to be a normal and healthy variant of human sexuality; rather it became fashionable not to discuss homosexuality as a problem any longer.

    Other pro-gay researchers fear any inquiry into psychological causes would amount to a concession of pathology; after all, there has been no similar investigation of the causes of heterosexuality (Stein and Cohen, 1986). They have encouraged only the search for a genetic or endocrine basis for homosexuality, in the belief that such a discovery would once and for all resolve the issue of homosexuality’s normality.

    We too consider it possible that there could be some predisposing genetic factors; but in this regard we see a parallel with alcoholism. Although there is now greater recognition of some biological predisposition to alcoholism, we continue to acknowledge it as problematic, we continue to treat it, and we still find the most successful treatments to be psychological, social and spiritual supportive therapy.

    Dr. Nicolisi’s paper is here

  42. Richard Thomas says:

    I suggest everyone, especially those who deny the association between abnormal parenting and homosexuality to read the blog of Dale O’Leary. It’s very informative and might shed some light on the subject.

    She has been persecuted for her beliefs.

    It is one thing to disagree with someone’s opinion about a subject but when people are persecuted for their beliefs, then that tells me the position of those on the opposite side are fabricated and don’t hold water because they simply want to justify their lifestyles and want to crush any opposition.

  43. snowshoes says:

    Mike, Scott, thank you for the excellent documentation. To recapitulate, we are all called to holiness. As Mouse said, “through the Lord’s power they can be redeemed of their disordered affections.”

    Those afflicted with SSD are called to live a holy life of chastity NOW. But, as with the case of Down Syndrome Catholics who are called to a fruitful, holy life, males with SSD are NOT called to Holy Orders.

    Men called to Holy Orders would otherwise, if called to Holy Matrimony, make excellent husbands and fathers. The Priest is alter Christus, in the image of the Bridegroom, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Even our Holy Father, Card. Bertone, and many others have said that homosexual men should never have been ordained. Homosexual priests are being removed from the active presbyteral ministry now, those who still remain in active ministry must leave today. They should either go to the monastery to pray quietly and do penance, or request laicization. This is the will of God the Father for them.

    We need to say that this is Charity, not a lack of charity. If and when a SSD afflicted priest has been cured, if he has never acted on those disordered affections, then he may apply to re-enter active presbyteral ministry. Those who have acted on those disordered affections with others may never again return to active ministry. But they certainly should pursue the curing of their SSD and pray and work to attain the heights of sanctity. Our individual death and judgment is swiftly approaching. Heaven is our goal. Maranatha. Ss. Felicity and Perpetua, pray for us.

  44. Scott W. says:

    The brilliant John C. Wright over at Mark Shea’s blog answers the question of what Cultural Marxism is (my emphasis).


    Cultural Marxism is Political Correctness. Whoever is calling you this name does not know what it means.

    A cultural Marxist is one who applies the analysis (I use the word loosely) of Marx to cultural rather than economic issues. The analysis of Marx, in turn, was an attempt to apply Darwinism to economics rather than to biology. Marx held that all historical phenomena could be understood as a by product of a ruthless and irreconcilable war between what he called different economic classes, the capitalists, who were rich and the oppressors, who invested, and the proletarians, who were poor and oppressed, who labored for a wage. Marx did not mention what happens when a poor man invests, or a rich man, such as a lawyer, takes a wage, because his mythology only allowed for a simple combat of perfectly pure poor and perfectly evil rich.

    The events of the Twentieth Century have clearly and abundantly demonstrated that Marx was an ignoramus when it came to economics. Russia and China and other places that attempted various socialist schemes of nationalization and collectivization did not achieve the promised prosperity, much less achieve the promised people’s utopia.

    The Marxists in academia, undeterred by the failure of their idol, merely applied the Marxist myth to cultural issues in the form of Political Correctness.

    Political Correctness is a quasi-religious dogma that says that it is virtuous to believe certain things that are not true, and the harder they are to believe, and the more obviously false they are, the greater is the virtue in believing them. The primary manifestation of this is in a self imposed speech code, where words are perverted from their ordinary meaning, and phrased used instead which either mean nothing, or mean the opposite of what they pretend they mean.

    The certain things a somewhat arbitrary list of Politically Correct pieties, but not completely arbitrary: they all have in common two things. First, each entry on the list is a rebellion against traditional authority, either worldly authorities such as plutocrats and monarchs, or otherworldly authorities such as bishops and popes. Second, each entry on the list portrays the world as an irreconcilable Darwinian power struggle between groups of oppressors and oppressed.

    Finally, the Cultural Marxist seeks an overthrow of the current culture and its replacement by a Politically Correct utopia.

    So, for example, the nuclear family, ruled by a father with an obedient wife and children, is anathema to Cultural Marxist. He seeks a revolution where families will consist of sexual partners of any number or either sex, existing only for so long as each sees fit, and no social disapproval of any particular arrangement can be permitted in speech or thought. In race relations, the historical hegemony of the Caucasians (a group whose membership either includes or excludes Spaniards and Jews as the rhetorical need requires) must be obliterated and disparaged, so much so that even to refer to it in this sentence, I run the risk of being accused of racism. In religious matters, the Christians are always wrong, and the Catholics most wrong of all.

    Political Correctness could not possibly last a second in the mind of any sane man if its true nature were revealed. Political Correctness is a stalking predator rather than a hunting predator: that is, it camouflages itself. The Marxist concern for the poor and downtrodden is part of the camouflage. Anyone who has been to Soviet Russia or Red China or the bloodstained realm of Pol Pot or the island-sized concentration camp of Cuba can tell you the poor are far, far worse off there than in any so-called capitalist country, where the main health risk of the poor is obesity. Nonetheless, Marxist concern for the poor and downtrodden makes them talk and sound like Christians when we talk about justice for the poor. Marxist hatred of the rich and powerful, and their desire to have that power for themselves to work an imagined revenge can also sound, to dull ears, like Christian warnings against the spiritual dangers of riches, how camels cannot pass through the eye of a needle, and so on.

    So, having not seen the comment, I assume your accuser either did not know what a Cultural Marxist was, or he was deceived by the camouflage of Marxism and mistook your Christianity for its opposite, the spirit of antichrist we call socialism.

    End Quote

  45. Sassy says:

    Mouse, I stand corrected! My wrong! 🙂

    From my experience having a close (unrelated) family member with SSA, I think it would be near impossible to get parents to admit that they poorly parented their child. It is much easier to place blame outward than inward. This is true with many aspects in life, not just parenting, as I am sure you will agree.

    That being said, I was confused about the gender roles played by the parents of said member with SSA. I remember thinking that, in this family, the mom acted more like the dad and vice-versa. It was a weird dynamic that, in all charity, creeped my out. Also in said family, I was never “allowed” to mention that chastity was the preferred path to take. Rather, I was fed the line that “life is so hard for people with SSA” and “it isn’t fair that they can’t express their love sexually.”

    I think too many people have lost sight of the fact that life just isn’t fair, we are all fallen, and that we are here on Earth to work towards our eternal reward in Heaven. We have become a society of self-centered, over-indulged people, and I truly fear where society is headed. I pray every day for a good strong Pope to emerge from this conclave.

  46. Richard Thomas says:

    There’s a lot of parental pain, knowing their child or children have same sex attraction. I think many are in denial explaining why some of them are involved promoting gay rights

  47. Sassy says:


    Do you mean denial of the possible role their parenting may have played?

    This is all so interesting (and beginning to make sense) when I look at my family in retrospect. I was criticized (forgetting the fact that my husband also had a say) for wanting to be a SAHM. Rather, I was told that I was throwing away a good education and selling out. After reading the blog recommended here (Dale O’Leary), I now realize how subtly I was being worked on by these family members to change my position. I never understood why I wasn’t getting the support. In retrospect, I was seen as a threat to them.

  48. Mike says:

    Scott W. wrote, “The Marxist concern for the poor and downtrodden is part of the camouflage.”

    Bella Dodd was one of the leaders of the American Communist Party until the late 1940s when she was kicked out for what amounted to questioning of party doctrine. She later described her experiences in both congressional testimony and her book, “School of Darkness.”

    From page 228 of an online edition of her book …

    In my time with the Party I had accumulated a large store of information about people and events, and often these had not fitted into the picture presented by the Party to its members. It was as if I held a thousand pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and could not fit them together. It irritated me, but when I thought of the testimony of witnesses before the Congressional Committee, some of whom I had known as Communists, much of the true picture suddenly came into focus. My store of odd pieces was beginning to develop into a recognizable picture.

    There had been many things I had not really understood. I had regarded the Communist Party as a poor man’s party, and thought the presence of certain men of wealth within it accidental. I now saw this was no accident. I regarded the Party as a monolithic organization with the leadership in the National Committee and the National Board. Now I saw this was only a facade placed there by the movement to create the illusion of the poor man’s party; it was in reality a device to control the “common man” they so raucously championed.

  49. Richard Thomas says:


    I’m afraid so. It must be humiliating for these parents. After all, there is some revulsion by people demonstrating homosexual conduct. It just goes against the natural law. I don’t think it’s abnormal but we must never act in a hateful way.

    I think homosexual conduct reflects on the parents. They intended to raise a child to marry and have a family but the child turned out very different. So p[erhaps parents are embarrassed and think the behavior of the child reflexcts negatively on them. They are embarrassed what others think as well.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-