keltic63
01-31-2009, 04:53 PM
my friend and former pastor, Tracy, is writing a 4 part series on how she became an ally to the lgbt community. you can see it here: http://preacherlady.wordpress.com/
I particularly like this section on pathololgy:
With the choice argument flatly rejected, I turn now to the pathology argument. That one goes something like this: “maybe they choose to be that way and maybe they don’t, but then, addicts and child rapists don’t ‘choose’ to be the way they are either, do they? Are we going to say that it’s okay for people to be addicts and child rapists? shouldn’t we be praying for a cure, rather than saying OK, go on ahead and sin all you want?”
Cutting through the strong (and flatly insulting) language in which it’s often couched, the bare-bones logic of the pathology argument runs something like this:
“Pathology” is defined as “any deviation from a healthy, normal, or efficient condition”.
Heterosexuality is the “healthy, normal, [and] efficient condition” for human sexuality.
Non-heterosexual relationships deviate from that norm.
Therefore, Non-heterosexual relationships are pathological.
followed up with an excellent example and simple explanation:
Anyone who’s ever been scorched in any way by addiction or sexual violence can tell you that there’s nothing “healthy” or “efficient” about either one. The pathology of addiction is such that, once that switch is on, it takes the addict and everyone/everything around him or her into a long and hellish downward spiral that can only be “cured” by one of two things: abstinence, preferably with supportive therapies, or death. The pathology of sexual violence is such that, at this point, it can only be “cured” by intensive therapies at best, and, at worst, the forcible confinement or death of the one who suffers from it and causes others to suffer because of it.
Now let’s look at same-gender attraction. Following the patterns above, it “should” be curable, or at least manageable, by some combination of abstinence and supportive therapy. A non-heterosexual person, sufficiently motivated and committed, “should” be able with Divine and mortal help to live a “healthy, normal, efficient” life, much as recovering addicts or the managed mentally-ill can do.
“Should.” There’s just one problem: they don’t (http://www.beyondexgay.com/conference). Curiously, the “norm” among LGBT folk seems to be that, the more a gay person tries to be straight, the more “pathological” they become. An alcohol addict grows progressively sicker from living into his reality and consuming alcohol. A sexual predator grows progressively sicker from living into her reality and preying. And in their sickness, they sicken and wound many around them. But gay folk seem to grow healthier, more efficient, and less pathological when they live into their reality and seek out monogamous, loving relationships with one another. A reality that blesses the one who lives into it and curses the one who denies it is not a pathology.
I particularly like this section on pathololgy:
With the choice argument flatly rejected, I turn now to the pathology argument. That one goes something like this: “maybe they choose to be that way and maybe they don’t, but then, addicts and child rapists don’t ‘choose’ to be the way they are either, do they? Are we going to say that it’s okay for people to be addicts and child rapists? shouldn’t we be praying for a cure, rather than saying OK, go on ahead and sin all you want?”
Cutting through the strong (and flatly insulting) language in which it’s often couched, the bare-bones logic of the pathology argument runs something like this:
“Pathology” is defined as “any deviation from a healthy, normal, or efficient condition”.
Heterosexuality is the “healthy, normal, [and] efficient condition” for human sexuality.
Non-heterosexual relationships deviate from that norm.
Therefore, Non-heterosexual relationships are pathological.
followed up with an excellent example and simple explanation:
Anyone who’s ever been scorched in any way by addiction or sexual violence can tell you that there’s nothing “healthy” or “efficient” about either one. The pathology of addiction is such that, once that switch is on, it takes the addict and everyone/everything around him or her into a long and hellish downward spiral that can only be “cured” by one of two things: abstinence, preferably with supportive therapies, or death. The pathology of sexual violence is such that, at this point, it can only be “cured” by intensive therapies at best, and, at worst, the forcible confinement or death of the one who suffers from it and causes others to suffer because of it.
Now let’s look at same-gender attraction. Following the patterns above, it “should” be curable, or at least manageable, by some combination of abstinence and supportive therapy. A non-heterosexual person, sufficiently motivated and committed, “should” be able with Divine and mortal help to live a “healthy, normal, efficient” life, much as recovering addicts or the managed mentally-ill can do.
“Should.” There’s just one problem: they don’t (http://www.beyondexgay.com/conference). Curiously, the “norm” among LGBT folk seems to be that, the more a gay person tries to be straight, the more “pathological” they become. An alcohol addict grows progressively sicker from living into his reality and consuming alcohol. A sexual predator grows progressively sicker from living into her reality and preying. And in their sickness, they sicken and wound many around them. But gay folk seem to grow healthier, more efficient, and less pathological when they live into their reality and seek out monogamous, loving relationships with one another. A reality that blesses the one who lives into it and curses the one who denies it is not a pathology.