Obama Asks *You* To Celebrate Gay Pride Month!

by Jimmy Akin

in Current Affairs, Homosexuality

IT'S TRUE!

The President has asked all Americans to observe this month, so if you're an American, this means he is asking you to do so.

In a proclamation posted on the White House web site, he writes:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

Earlier in the proclamation he detailed all the things he has done on behalf of these favored citizens:


KEEP READING.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 35 comments }

Jack June 2, 2010 at 2:22 am

Howabout we Catholics put an extra emphesis of celebrating the month of the Sacred Heart instead?

Nick June 2, 2010 at 5:54 am

Good! Let’s celebrate by promoting chastity, charity, and understanding :)

Yeoman June 2, 2010 at 7:51 am

The depth to which people have lost sight of reason is expressed by this quote in that proclamation:
“Much work remains to fulfill our Nation’s promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.”
Oh really?
“LGBT” folks have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry, which seems to be the big topic here.
What they can’t do is redefine marriage in most states, but neither can most other people either. That is, in most places, and in all cultures historically, marriage is between male and female.
LGBTers will state that that this means that they’re deprived the right to marry the person they love, but there is no such right to start with. We all hope to love the person we marry, but it’s not a legal requirement. And there’s no legal requirement to marry a person you love. If “love” becomes the defining criteria (and here we’d probably really have to substitute in one of the various Greek words that break love down into categories, as English doesn’t recognize a literary distinction between “loving” your spouse, “loving” some girl you just saw, and “loving” donuts) then people who might with to “love” children (pedophiles), or “love” dogs, or whatever, would have an equal right to marry into their “love”.
Recognizing legitimate categories for certain institutions is not prejudice. I’m not prejudiced at law because as a Roman Catholic the Presbyterians can refuse to ordain me as their minister. Nor am I prejudiced at law because I’m too old to join a Federal Law enforcement agency. Marriage serves real purposes associated with procreation at their core, and recognizing reality in that way isn’t prejudicial. This is particularly the case now that it’s legal everywhere to shack up with anyone, irrespective of the immorality of it. No, what Pres. Obama wants us to do is to accept that this disordered state isn’t disordered. And once we do that, there’s no legitimate argument against any sexual abnormality.

Patric June 2, 2010 at 8:16 am

I still think this is a very sad and confusing topic. We must be sympathetic to those, like Obama, who promote these things because surely they feel like what they are doing is the right thing.
And with the Catholic Church (and orthodox Christianity in general) giving us the reasons against homosexual marriage, we have the benefit in understanding this better.
But to me, at least, it would seem that without the Catholic Church it would be easy to promote these things. I trust the Church as Christ’s voice on Earth. But without it, I think my heart would move towards getting rights for this group of people.
You see, it’s all very confusing to me because I know a few homosexual people myself…
I am actually really struggling with this topic right now because of an encounter with my sister’s friend’s brother who is fifteen and (I think) gay. Of course, since I’m only sixteen, I may be ignorant to everything going on in the world. But I can’t help but feel sorry for these people. It hurts me.
I just can’t help but to be sympathetic to them.
Anyone, comment on this please.

j. christian June 2, 2010 at 10:57 am

But to me, at least, it would seem that without the Catholic Church it would be easy to promote these things.
Patric, I understand your concern. Often our instincts toward sympathy make this a difficult moral judgment. However, the Church is not simply arguing from a point of faith — as in all things, the Church appeals to faith and reason to make its case. There are very good arguments from reason to oppose same sex marriage. A resource that helped me was the following:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0064.html
Note that the co-authors of that article are not Catholic (which explains some of their divergence from Catholic moral teaching). Yet they make a strong case for why we should be more concerned about the effects of gay marriage on the common good, than its individual emotional effects.
I hope it helps.

Anon June 2, 2010 at 11:13 am

Patric,
I agree with you that we must be sympathetic to people who are carrying this particular cross. I know some of them personally and I believe that they do not choose to be in the condition that they are in. I’m also convinced that many are sincerely trying their best to live good (and even celibate) lives. We should always pray and love them as best as we can.
With that being said, I do stand in line with the Lord and His Church which teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and do harm to a person’s soul (not to mention his/her body through STDs, etc). Living in a homosexual lifestyle can ultimately separate us from God eternally and lead us to hell. As Catholics, we believe that our true happiness lies in heaven with God and no temporary pleasures on earth can replace it.
Of course, it’s not easy to be a person in such a condition, so you should be supportive and pray for your sister’s friend’s brother and others who you will encounter in your life.
Lord, have mercy on us!

Tim J. June 2, 2010 at 11:22 am

The whole alphabet soup of sexual deviants – “LGBT” and whatever – made me start to wonder… when it comes to the repeal of this “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and we have homosexuals serving openly with official approval, where does that leave the sex-changers?
Does that mean Uncle George, who is now called “Georgina”, will be stamped “USDA 100% female” and be sent to bunk and shower with the women? Seems unavoidable.

Patric June 2, 2010 at 11:37 am

Thank you for your message, Anon. I agree with everything you said. And yes, I think everyone needs to be sensitive to this issue. It must be a very big cross to carry, and I know I will continue to be sympathetic.
And I can’t deny that I won’t continue to be sad. It was just an awful experience when I saw my sister’s friend’s brother, since he was with his friend (yes, only a friend) who is also gay… It just made me pause and think “why?” I know I’m focusing a lot on just this one experience, but it got me thinking.
And thanks for the link, j. christian. The aticle seems pretty long; I will try to read it. Of course, at the very beginning I could tell that the authors are not in line with Catholic teaching, since they accept homosexual relationships.
THanks for the messages!

Alan June 2, 2010 at 11:56 am

Does that mean Uncle George, who is now called “Georgina”, will be stamped “USDA 100% female” and be sent to bunk and shower with the women? Seems unavoidable.
Yup.
But on the other hand, would you want George/Georgina bunking and showering with you? Seems to be less complicated if they bunked and showered with those whose bits looked roughly the same….
More seriously though, will this mean that some nutters will stop suggesting that the President is a closet Muslim? Most Muslim countries imprison or even kill homosexual people.
Wikipedia article on LGBT rights in Vatican City

j. christian June 2, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Patric,
I encourage you to read the article, even if just the opening summary, because it refutes the claim that only hatred is motivating the anti-same sex marriage position. Once you can wrap your thoughts around the idea that it is good to give preferential treatment to heterosexual marriage for reasons apart from religion, it becomes much easier to let go of some of that sadness you feel. Perhaps not entirely, but no one is saying that following the Truth always leads to happiness.

Kyle June 2, 2010 at 2:04 pm

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that the last section of the president’s proclamation uses “in the year of our Lord” in reference to the date of signing.

Yeoman June 2, 2010 at 3:36 pm

“We must be sympathetic to those, like Obama, who promote these things because surely they feel like what they are doing is the right thing.”
It’s perhaps because I’m so much older than you, but sharing a common profession (law) with the President, but I’m cynical that the promotion of such things is because they “surely” “feel like what they are doing is the right thing.” While I cannot know what is in his heart, I suspect that what this is, is purely a political bone thrown to a demographic in his voting bloc which is designed to hold off the same demographic from demanding to know why “don’t ask, don’t tell” has not been repealed.
I am sure that for some this seems like a genuine civil liberties matter. But, for those who do feel that way, perhaps it’s time to reassess what true justice and liberty are. They do not stand for a world without standards. True equality before the law is holding everyone equal before common standards, not reducing the standard to no standard at all.
None of this is not to say that homosexuals do not deserve our love and understanding. They do. Their proclivity is a horrific affliction. For the most part, that should impact nothing they do on a day to day basis, and people shouldn’t treat them differently based solely on it. However, sadly, no amount of pretending that it isn’t abnormal will make it normal, nor will it make them happy. The proof of that lies in the desperate effort to have their unions decreed to be full marriages. In an era when marriage itself is valued so little by heterosexuals, the desperate belief that it will all be all right if only they could get “married” shows, more than anything else, a desperate craving for normality that cannot be achieved under these circumstances.
Wishing our crosses away doesn’t make them go away. Even if we won’t pick them up and carry them, they still are.

Gene Branaman June 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm

Patric, I’d also urge you to look into the causes of same-sex attraction. Many homosexual activists would have us believe that there’s a “gay gene” & that they are born homosexual. (If one believes in Darwinian evolution, that’s untenable because such a mutation would be weeded out through natural selection.) These causes include pre-adolescent same-sex sexual abuse & other abusive situations. I think the website of the Catholic apostolate Courage has more info on this. Their website is CourageRC.net & I believe you can find more info there.
I was in a similar boat to you before I came back to faith. I was an actor & knew quite a number of homosexuals. Many were friends I respected & cared about. I was sympathetic, too. But in reading about the root causes of SSA, I began to realize these people are hurting. Those with SSA have significant increases in incidents of suicide, drug use, etc. They need our support as human beings, but not our support in sin – which can be said of everyone.

Neal June 2, 2010 at 6:34 pm

I can guarantee you I won’t be celebrating it, or recognizing it in any way.

Sebastian June 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm

I am in luck as I am not an American :) . Sorry Obama

mPR June 2, 2010 at 8:22 pm

Many homosexual activists would have us believe that there’s a “gay gene” & that they are born homosexual.

I really wish everyone would give this issue a rest. I mean, look. Whether being sexually attracted to the same sex is inborn, caused by childhood experiences, chosen, or somehow all three, is completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that men should not engage in sexual relationships with other men and women should not engage in sexual relationships with other women. The reason a man or a woman would desire to commit such an act is neither here nor there.
People with a tendency towards homosexuality generally feel they were born that way, so people who sympathize with them think so too. Every time someone counters that argument, they look ignorant and insensible in the potential convert’s eyes. Because this particular issue is irrelevant in the bigger picture, people should give it a rest – discussing it only does harm.
It would be perhaps a better tactic to argue that the existence of a “gay gene” would only prove that homosexuality is a congenital disorder much like a number of congenital disorders out there. And it is a fatal disorder because it makes an individual die, in a way, by rendering him incapable of passing on his genes.
But the above is decidedly unCatholic rhetoric. As Catholics, we believe that reproducing is not the end-all, be-all of existence; further, we believe the celibate life is the higher calling. There is nothing in Catholic teaching urging men who like men to like women, or vice versa. What the Church does say is:

CCC P. Three, S. II, Art. 6
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Moochie June 3, 2010 at 1:21 pm

mPR, I’d like to say something stronger but I’ll be polite & say only, you’re wrong.
When I was a boy (8-13) I was sexually abused by other, older boys in the neighborhood. These were boys I trusted. As a result, I was “rewired” to believe this behavior was correct.
I fought with this for years – I still do, frequently. I’ve never been sexually attracted to males but I used to relate sexual intimacy with guys as an aspect of friendship. Because of my Catholic upbringing, I fought that tendency; thankfully, I never acted on this after I broke contact with those boys. But the childhood abuse caused a lot of sexual acting out (in my case with females) & has led to many negatives in my life. I was incapable of having a close friendship with another guy without thinking of him sexually, though, again, as an adult I have never nor ever would act on it. It has been a very, very difficult thing to deal with. I’ve dealt with a lot of self-loathing & depression because of this condition. Thank God that He healed me over a period of 10 years through prayer & the Eucharist! Praise Him that I am in a better place now!
Gene is totally correct. The causes should be understood because they can be treated. The gay community doesn’t want you to know that; they want SSA people to act on that impulse & believe they were born this way. They don’t want it known that the vase majority of people with SSA were physically sexually abused prior to puberty. I’ve read extensively on this & I do encourage everyone to do the same. It’s so very important! We can help so many people & keep them from going through the hell I went through!
You may believe that “discussing it only causes harm” but, as someone who has been harmed by SSA tendencies, I know that it should be discussed! The harm that NOT discussing will cause could lead someone like me to commit suicide or end up in a lifestyle that is inherently harmful! mPR, you should thank God you don’t have to deal with this.
Jimmy, thanks for posting on this & giving me the opportunity to speak out. God bless!

Moochie June 3, 2010 at 1:26 pm

BTW . . . I’d also like to address paragraph 2359 of the CCC, which mPR quoted in his comment above.
That paragraph perfectly states, beautifully & concisely, how I was healed of SSA! NOT that I’m perfect, of course. But I have been healed through prayer & the sacraments, led to self-mastery through spiritual direction, & I know the inner freedom this passage refers to! Praise God!
We are so blessed to have the Chatechism! It is truly a treasure!

j. christian June 3, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Moochie,
Is it possible that not all instances of SSA are caused by abuse? From what I’ve read over the years, it’s not that there is one, single trigger for it. It seems to vary from person to person, and it manifests in different ways.
I am happy to hear that your faith has helped you, though. I agree that that section of the Catechism states things beautifully.

Greg Williams June 3, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Moochie,
Thanks for sharing. That takes courage and I feel your story has increased my sense of understanding and sympathy. I thank God and you for your victory!

Eihcoom June 3, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Moochie, your claim that “the vas[t] majority of people with SSA were physically sexually abused prior to puberty” is not substantiated by science. We don’t even have an accurate objective definition of “people with SSA” or a way to determine who is in that pool of people. The research does suggest there may be a difference between the percentage of homosexual persons vs heterosexual persons who were sexually molested as children, and that it may also be different for gay men vs lesbians, but the true extent of any of these difference is unclear, and in particular, the significance. For example, at what age were the children aware of either being “different” from their peers or having same-sex attraction (which is not the same as later self-identifying as a homosexual person)? Because many “people with SSA” recall an awareness of a “difference” from a very early age (before being sexually molested), how can one claim that subsequent sexual molestation caused their SSA rather than the other way around or another interpretation? For example, it could be that their early childhood “difference” contributed to their eventually being brought to the attention of the predators. Or, to quote one of the researchers in the field, “Perhaps children or adolescents with a higher potential for homosexual behavior are more likely to enter a situation that leads to same-sex molestation. It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants [in this study] may not be representative of homosexual persons [at large].” Indeed, selecting people from a pride parade or bath house, or even from among people who are willing to participate, is not recognized as representative. And because such studies rely on self-reports, it may be that “out” gays are more likely to self-report past abuse but not because they actually experienced more past abuse but perhaps because they were more sensitive to it or more vocal about it or perhaps they tend to exaggerate more or make it up. The researchers don’t have the answers. So while a number of studies may indicate that “out” gays report more sexual molestation as children than straights, the implications are not so simple.
Also, your statement, “The causes should be understood because they can be treated,” only applies to some causes for some people. In general, we don’t know the cause for a particular person or even for most. The Church teaches that “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”
Likewise, your statement, “The gay community… want[s] SSA people to act on that impulse & believe they were born this way,” is an unproven generalization. It does not accurately describe all members, or perhaps even most members, of the “gay community” (whatever that is). Of course, many may believe they were “born this way”, but for all anyone knows, they may have been, particularly when the phrase “born this way” is open to many interpretations. Yes, some, perhaps most, may at some times want some other people to act on their impulse, but that can also be said of most all people, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
If something helped you, that’s great, but as you’ve “never been sexually attracted to males”, so you say, what relevance does your own case have to the “gay community” or even to SSA? After all, what percent of the “gay community” or adults with SSA have never been sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

Eihcoom June 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Moochie, also, if you’re male and you engaged in relations with another male but you’ve “never been sexually attracted to males”, that’s not homosexuality as “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” (CCC#2357)

mPR June 3, 2010 at 5:29 pm

Moochie,
First, I think we’re talking about two different things here. I’m referring to our work to convince others that traditional marriage is good, while you are thinking about the situation of people with SSA within the Church. So,
I have no problem with restorative treatment per se. What I have a problem with is when it’s thrown around as though it were a necessary part of the Church’s position about homosexuality. It’s not. The only treatment the Church calls for is leading a sacramental Catholic life full of prayer and sacrifice.
My problem with the what-causes-homosexuality debate is that it obscures the traditional marriage issue (as well as the issue of whether homosexual acts are moral). Some Christians insist upon the “sexual abuse” position with a lot zeal, indeed so much zeal that you would think that if it wasn’t true, then their case for traditional marriage would fall through. But that isn’t so! There’s plenty of reasons to favor traditional marriage and none of them is “homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse”. All that energy is better spent elsewhere.
Some of those who self-identify themselves as “gay” find the Church’s distinction between sinner and sin offensive.

Chai Feldblum
It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to ‘be’ gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?

This is the sort of thinking we should be directing our energy towards. The propensity towards homosexuality does not mean you must engage in homosexual acts. Denying your desires does not make you a lesser person – whether you were born with them or acquired them later, your desires do not define you. Insisting on “homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse” only deals with the identity issue in a round-about and, for many of those who favor same-sex marriage, unpersuasive way.

Skygor June 3, 2010 at 5:59 pm

@Patrick
Some clarifying words of wisdom: Sin and Temptation are two different things.
James Every, a Catholic writer and speaker for teenage chastity, lists four reasons for the temptation of same sex attraction. However I speak personally about the fourth. The fourth is that while children develop as teenagers they learn about their sexuality. Boys learn what is to be men, and girls women. They do not know what it is to be a man or women (as opposed to children) so they have to learn it. As humans the one of the most useful means is by observation. Since they are teenagers at hormonal peaks of their lives, they can become infatuated at the drop of a hat. So the reality is that the teenager finds an exemplar model for their own sex. The GLBT turns that into “you are a homosexual” or “you where born into the wrong sex.”
@General
I wish I could remember the name of the guest on Charlie Rose that wonderfully explained the structures of morality and government between the two parties. On homosexual marriage he did state that there was a just, unbiased, and successfully way to resolve the situation: abolish government marriage.
Paraphrasing the guest, at the core there is a quasi-religious status in the US government. Since the government is supposed to help it citizenry, just and moral laws are passed. This is reason why the GLBT community wants to legalize marriage. However marriage is cultural and not necessary to be regulated by the government. It is only there to collect a tax with the marriage license and to smooth things away with certain laws such as inheritance and medical treatment.
Now for my two cents. This is so true since nearly all legal rights can be acquired be drawn on by a lawyer since my sister and I have done this with our father. He decided to remarry but we took him to a lawyer to see what documents need to be drawn up. Basically he made his Living Trust, Living Will, and medical Legal Power of Attorney. As far as benefits go my sister and I are more spouses to our father than his new wife. I think the only thing that cannot be changed is spousal social security, but social security is a whole fiasco in of itself.
I find it amusing that I lot vocal people with same sex attractions with the vocal atheists. If you are very serious about a situation you would go and live it rather than vocalize it.

Eihcoom June 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Skygor, in regard to your statement, “The GLBT [community] turns that into ‘you are a homosexual’”, you’re generalizing and improperly so. By and large, the GLBT community does not presume or claim that every or even most teenagers who experience same-sex attraction is “a homosexual”. However, many teenagers do indeed “experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” and will continue to do so well beyond their teen years. Therefore, “you might be gay” is not entirely inappropriate, even for teens, and should not be interpreted in the reductionist sense (that many Christians try to claim) whereby the entire person is defined in terms of or down to nothing more than his/her sexuality.
As to “nearly all legal rights can be acquired be drawn on by a lawyer”, the lawyer won’t do it for $75, the cost of a civil marriage license, and paperwork drawn up by a lawyer is not recognized anywhere near as widely as a marriage, nor does it carry the same weight (or at times any weight at all) in many important situations that couples may face, including those with children. Also, it would be rare for a man and his wife to have to travel about with a satchel of legal papers in case of emergency, but that’s precisely what many LGBT couples have to do, and it still doesn’t provide the same benefits. Your statement, “my sister and I are more spouses to our father than his new wife” underscores the weakness of the approach.

mPR June 3, 2010 at 10:43 pm

Skygor,
Marriage is a little bit more than a “cultural” thing. It’s the basic unit of our society. Its pays for government to subsidize marriage because marriage creates a stable environment for a nation’s future citizens to mature in. Etc.
Said in another way, the trappings of marriage – the ceremony, what’s considered an appropriate marrying age, and such – is merely cultural in that it varies from culture to culture. But the essence, man+woman -> kids, is fairly universal because it makes for a solid foundation block for society. Etc. Because it’s so important, it should be supported by all societal institutions, which includes government.
Eliminating civil marriage is a libertarian solution to the marriage controversy, not a Catholic one. There’s nothing inherently anti-Catholic about libertarianism, but this solution, like “let’s leave abortion to the states”, doesn’t jive with Catholicism.
Here’s an article that kind of contradicts my position but it strikes me as relevant so I’ll link to it: http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/28/sb-906-a-back-door-to-same-sex-marriage-in-california/ . As long as we have the idea that government provides benefits to spouses because it wants to benefit individual couples, and not because it wants to benefit itself through individual couples’s work, this is what a sharp distinction between civil and religious marriage creates.

mPR June 3, 2010 at 11:10 pm

Eihcoom,
I’d agree that the “gay community” doesn’t tell everyone that has felt the least sexual attraction for a person of the same sex that they are gay. Not explicitly that way. They’re more subtle than that.
From what I’ve seen, at least a portion of those who support “gay rights” have this theory that people’s sexuality is a continuum, with “straight” on one end and “gay” on the other (I believe it was Kinsey who came up with or at least popularized this idea). Because it’s a continuum, it’s entirely possible to feel a little attraction to people of the same sex without being a full-fledged gay person. So they don’t say everyone who has felt that way is gay.
What they actually do is encourage people to experiment, to “explore their sexuality”. According to their own theory of the sexuality continuum, most people would fall around the middle, “bi”. This means that most people would not find experimenting with the same sex to be completely unpleasant – thus, most people who do experiment with the same sex will “discover” themselves to be bi or even gay. This is an under-handed way of telling people they’re not straight.
In a related note, y’all must look over this (about the strategy of the gay rights advocates).

Eihcoom June 4, 2010 at 2:32 am

mPR, you spoke of “a portion” of the LGBT community that encourages people to “explore their sexuality”. Indeed there is. There’s also “a portion” of the straight community that encourages it, even encouraging exploration with persons of the same sex. There’s also “a portion” of the membership of the Catholic Church that encourages it too.
But you painted the whole community by the actions of “a portion”. Specifically, your lead in describes the activities of the “gay community” in general as “subtle” rather than simply a portion of the gay community, and you then proceeded to explain that by “subtle” you mean “underhanded”, thus painting the gay community in general in a false light much as one might do by claiming the Catholic Church is underhanded because of whatever “a portion” might do.
Anyway, if by “telling people they’re not straight” you mean telling people whose attractions are in fact not 100% heterosexual that their attractions are not 100% heterosexual, that’s calling a spade a spade. Rather than “underhanded”, calling a spade a spade is quite direct. According to you, they’re also consistent in that they tell people whose attractions are in fact not 100% homosexual that their attractions are not 100% homosexual. Maybe that’s “underhanded” to you, but to someone else, that’s being “straight”. If something is not white, why label it white? If something is not black, why label it black? I suppose many people may prefer to be labeled as “straight” rather than as the shade of gray they may actually be, and if you use a broad enough brush, you can paint everyone as “straight”, but who is really straight? The Church teaches, “In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time.”

The Sarge June 4, 2010 at 9:47 am

“President Obama can give hundreds of speeches, trying to reconcile contradictions that are irreconcilable…dreaming of the magic of his well-articulated phrases…(Obama) makes concessions to personalities and groups totally lacking in ethics and draws fantasy worlds that only fit in his head and that unscrupulous advisers, knowing his tendencies, plant in his mind.”
–Fidel Castro (quoted at michellemalkin.com).
Hell has officially frozen over.

Laura June 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Hmmm. So atheists can get upset over the declaration on a National Day of Prayer, and a judge can declare it unconstitutional, and Pres. Obama can decide to not participate, but it’s perfectly OK for him to declare a National LGBT Pride month and ask us all to participate. Riiiiight.

Moochie June 4, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Eihcoom . . . why the personal attack? I don’t know you, nor do I know your background. Perhaps you’re a researcher in this area? What you’ve written has some merit but I’ve read information that is inclusive of so much more. How can you put people with SSA in a box that fits your view? I was trying to show support & that there can be a light at the end of the tunnel for people with SSA, my path being just 1 of many. This is a difficult & complex issue. Yes, the Church is 100% right: the psychological genesis of this condition remains largely unexplained. But there are discernible patterns of behavior that are well-documented – I’ve read the data! Heck, I am part of the data! I lived it.
I was on a break & only had limited time to post something & didn’t want to go into too many details. Some things I said were not fully expressive of what I’ve gone through. I’m sorry if that post was misleading, that was never my intention. Was I never sexually “attracted” to males? No, I was very much. But I understood that it was wrong to act on that, per Catholic teaching. My attraction was linked to friendship but it was deeper than that, too. My attraction to women was . . . buried, in a manner of speaking. I thought I was gay though, again, I never acted on it, knowing Church teaching. I actually lost my faith for a while, partly because of my SSA, but I never acted upon the attractions I felt. I worked in theater so, believe me, there were plenty of opportunities. I would go to parties but I would make a point of chatting up a girl & taking them home. I acted out sexually with women as a way to “treat” myself, much as I used alcohol. It was a co-morbidity sort of thing; I was trying to self treat, much like a bipolar person will use cocaine during the lows & downers during the highs, to get to an even keel, if you will. (Treat the underlying condition & the substance abuse virtually goes away, in many cases.) In wanted to be “normal” I sinned horribly to the other extreme, maybe trying to convince myself I didn’t have a problem. I acted like most other guys I knew, sadly; I’m sure nobody even knew what I was really going through. When I realized how I was treating others, when I truly saw my sin, I shut down, I went through 3 years of severe clinical depression, alienating all my friends & much of my family. Jesus was the only person I could turn to. That was the beginning of healing for me, coming back to the Church. That’s when my reading started, books I was led to through the CourageRC apostolate – a phenomenal help! Even this is a horribly incomplete picture of that complex & dizzying time of my life.
I’m sure even what I’ve written here could be picked apart by someone who wants to prove a point without looking at the bigger picture of those actually suffering. As a Catholic, I’m a “both/and” kinda guy. I want to know the reasons for this condition & help actual, real people. It’s easy to count the angels on the head of the pin, but so very difficult to get in live in the trenches.
Again, I’m kinda rushed here (& I think I’m late getting back) – please, please forgive me if I’ve offended or caused injury. That’s not my intent. I only wish to tell a bit of my story so others can benefit by it. If someone who’s reading this was experiencing something similar to what I have, I hope to give them hope. It’s possible to heal.

Eihcoom June 4, 2010 at 5:32 pm

Moochie, what “personal attack” is that? I commented on your post, on the claims you made, not about you personally.
You asked, “How can you put people with SSA in a box that fits your view?”, but who is doing that? As I said, “We don’t even have an accurate objective definition of ‘people with SSA’ or a way to determine who is in that pool of people.”
You claimed, “the vas[t] majority of people with SSA were physically sexually abused prior to puberty”. But the research overall shows that the vast majority of persons who identify as homosexual do not report experiencing any sexual abuse prior to puberty. Perhaps you’ve confused that with research which finds many people who were sexually abused as children by someone of the same sex self-identify as homosexual. I addressed that issue in my post, but I’ll elaborate a bit more here.
Many people who were sexually molested as children experience confusion as to their sexual orientation, and experiencing some amount of pleasure during the molestation events and reconciling that with the fact that one was molested or one’s sexual orientation can be confusing. There can be many consequences. However, the problem of determining cause and effect is that such abuse is unlikely to occur exclusive of other factors such as family and social problems, and the effects of the abuse are likely to be amplified or modified by other psychological, developmental and situational difficulties/factors. Therefore, sexual abuse as a child is only one of many potential factors, and it was, as best the research can determine, experienced only by a small minority of people in the “gay community” and no research has isolated it as being the cause of their homosexual orientation or SSA or sexual confusion, all of which are or may be different depending on how one defines them.

Patric June 9, 2010 at 10:18 am

On EWTN’s Threshold of Hope on Tuesday, Fr. Mitch answered my question concerning this!!! Really cool, I think. He helped out a lot.
To see him answer my question, see the video:
http://www.youtube.com/ewtn#p/u/2/hSKOdUa8PQ4
Mine is the 2nd email.
Small world,
PATRIC

Tabs June 20, 2010 at 1:54 pm

Yes, Mr. President, I WILL celebrate LGBT Month!
I will celebrate by frequent confession of my soul for my sins, that I may be a better Catholic. I will celebrate by frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist.
I will celebrate by loving the God-given sacrament of holy matrimony, where a man and a woman are joined and become one flesh.
I will celebrate by remembering the promises of Divine Mercy, that God will pour out graces on those who we pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for, and that the Rosary will be our weapon of spiritual warfare! I will celebrate by knowing that God can help convert the most hardened of sinners, and I will celebrate that God has given Reconciliation to all people!
I will celebrate Truth, Justice, Mercy, and Love. I will not hide behind false truths or question what is truth. I will promote good will and love of God to all I know by being the best Catholic I can be, by trying to steer people away from evil practices, and by bringing people to understand the loving Lord. I will devote myself to His Sacred Heart. I will pray to the saints for their intercession on behalf of our brothers and sisters who are mislead by Satan. I will pray for their conversion and that the devil will not claim their souls.
So, who’s with me on celebrating?

67 June 20, 2010 at 2:37 pm

As is so often the case with religious groups with supposed “high moral standards” they invariably treat anyone who does not conform to their belief system with contempt – and usually hatred. So it is with Muslims who decide to change their faith and commit the evil sin of “apostasy”. For that the penalty is death. Some tribes in Africa still believe in female genital mutilation, some religions believe in never eating pork – or cows, or meat on Fridays. Our own Old Testament appears to suggest (Lev 11:10) that eating seafood without fins or scales (lobsters, crabs, prawns etc.) is an “abomination”.
So I like to ask myself the question, how would my fellow Christians treat someone, even if it is just one individual, who does not conform to our particular version of what is “normal”. Take, for example, the “chimerics” of this world. I guess that Karen Keegan and Lydia Fairchild would be two such examples. For anyone unfamiliar with chimerism it involves our fellow human beings who are born with two or more separate lines of DNA. These two ladies were featured in the documentary “I am my own twin” where the medical community initially believed they could not be the mothers of their own children.
Why raise the issue of chimerism? Well, there have now been numerous cases of chimerism, which may or may not be manifested as physical abnormalities. One such case was discovered in 1998 when doctors at the University of Edinburgh examined a man who complained about an undescended left testicle, and they were shocked to find an ovary and a fallopian tube in this so-called male patient. He/she was blessed with two sets of DNA, half male and half female.
So is he/she male or female? Was this person born in the image of God? Does he/she have human rights? Who will decide on which gender he/she should adopt? Should it be by some sort of religious committee? Is he/she evil? Is this some kind of punishment passed on by an angry God for sins committed by the parents?
I suspect that our ancient ancestors never heard of chimerism and would have had no comprehension about what it could be, except for maybe concluding that a child born with both male and female sexual organs was clearly an abomination caused by the evil sins of the parents under the influence of Satan. (thank you Tabs for the quote)
Is it just possible that President Barack Obama is proclaiming that all of us, whatever race, creed, colour, sexual designation, should have equal human rights and not be subject to prejudice hatred and contempt. This, to me, sounds an awful lot like my idea of what it means to be a true Christian. I wonder what Jesus would say? Would he just lump him/her in with all of the rest of the LGBT community as an evil abomination? Personally, I believe that we should treat everyone with dignity and do what the President suggests – fight prejudice and discrimination wherever we find it because prejudice and discrimination is alive and well – even in our Christian churches.

Previous post:

Next post: