Catholic commentary on culture, media, and politics.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Lesbians dominate women's sports?

Naw, do ya think?

22 Comments:

Anonymous joe said...

Patrick,

I'm amazed by the naiveté of some parents who have their daughters involved in high school basketball, softball, soccer, etc.

Check out this article about Sheryl Swoopes coming out as gay.
http://sports.espn.go.com/wnba/news/story?id=2204322.

She was married with a kid and some point she had marital problems. She had a lesbian friend was there for her and helped her through it. They are now "Partners."

Here are a couple of good quotes from the article (My comments in parenthesis):

"I didn't always know I was gay. I honestly didn't. Do I think I was born this way? No. And that's probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are."

(Wait, she says she wasn't born this way? I thought that was heresy, aren’t they all born this way?)

"Most of the players around the league already know I'm gay, and I do feel like there's a sisterhood among lesbian players. We know we're not going to get the support from a lot of other people. But the talk about the WNBA being full of lesbians is not true. I mean, there are as many straight women in the league as there are gay."

(Ohhhhhhhh! Only half of the WNBA is lesbian. Whew! And I thought it was disproportionate.)

4:36 PM

 
Blogger A. Carlton Sallet said...

Have to disagree here fellas. I think the claim that people can be made gay is pretty dubious.

Think about it - do you think YOU could be made gay? Even if you were on a team with gay guys?

I'm guessing - not a chance.

Are women different? Is their sexual wiring more succeptible to being turned gay? I don't think so.

Please fellas, lets not run off and join the crazies; file this one under "not necessarily true just because I can download it from the internet" and move on....

6:05 PM

 
Anonymous joe said...

“a. carlton sallet,

“I think the claim that people can be made gay is pretty dubious”

If you think that no people are made gay then I assume you believe they are born gay.

Did you read the article about Sheryl Swoopes?

The MVP of the WNBA told us she doesn’t believe she was born gay.

How do you explain that?

"Think about it - do you think YOU could be made gay? Even if you were on a team with gay guys?"

Interesting question. Many gay people like to joke that a straight person is only four beers away from being a homosexual. What do you think?

Do you think individuals can be immersed in a culture that harmful to their nature and be led into destructive behavior?

Are we as humans and Catholics disposed to concupiscence?


Regards,

Joe

Maybe I’m just another crazy

7:19 PM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

Joe M can speak for himself but I think you missed the point. Ms. Swoopes is making a claim that is repudiated by most gay advocates, namely that she wasn't born a lesbian.

Contrary to your (sincere I'm sure) opinion, according to gay-friendly researchers John Money and Simon LaVay -- and the majority of geneticists who have devoted their careers to the genetic dimesnion to sexuality -- there is no gay gene. Zip. No evidence.

There *is* most likely some degree of genetic predisposition, as there is for many disorders. This makes intelligible the minority of cases where the adult with SSA reports feeling "different" somehow from childhood. But the data doesn't support the "born that way" theory, despite the ardent wishes of the homosexualist movement, the MSM, the leftist Catholic press, and some very sensitive Upper Canadians.

While it is surely insufficient to put it as bluntly as "they're MADE that way," the vast majority of "gay" people testify to some incident(s) of molestation, early exposure to gay porn, an abusive or distant father, and/or a controlling, emotionally incestuous mother -- any combination of which led to homosexual feelings. The most common scenario by far is negative experiential influences first, genetic factors second.

Speaking of dubious, in your need to oversimplify the complex and the subtle, you're the one in greater danger of running off with crazies.

10:16 PM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

Can conservatives spend a few minutes worrying about more important things? I'm so sick of so-called conservatives and their obsession with homosexuality.

Patrick Prescott

11:31 PM

 
Blogger A. Carlton Sallet said...

JOE: If you think that no people are made gay then I assume you believe they are born gay.

Never assume. I accept the teachings of the Catholic faith, as clearly articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; according to CCC 2357, “Homosexuality … has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

While on the subject, I should probably mention the Catechism has some rather inconvenient advice for those pursuing active discrimination against homosexual persons, viz CCC 2358 – “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

JOE: : Many gay people like to joke that a straight person is only four beers away from being a homosexual. What do you think?

I think they drank too much beer.

JOE: : Are we as humans and Catholics disposed to concupiscence?

Yup. Speaking for myself only, I can tell you it’s of the hetero variety. Exclusively. Like Pat, though, I won’t speak for you.

PAT: : there is no gay gene. Zip. No evidence. There *is* most likely some degree of genetic predisposition, as there is for many disorders. …the data doesn't support the "born that way" theory, despite the ardent wishes of … some very sensitive Upper Canadians. The most common scenario by far is negative experiential influences first, genetic factors second.

Yeah, well, when you know for sure get back to me. Until then, I’ll go with the Catechism’s “largely unexplained” thing. You may wish to do the same, and focus instead on the formation of correct Christian attitude towards homosexuals. Just in case you’re not quite there yet. Hope I’m not being too sensitive for you.

PAT: : Speaking of dubious, in your need to oversimplify the complex and the subtle, you're the one in greater danger of running off with crazies.

I’m not sure why basing my attitudes on the teachings of the faith, or declining to scientifically explain everything about the human condition can be classified as oversimplification. I simply admit I do not know the how and why of human sexual orientation, and occupy myself instead with developing fit and proper conduct towards others, free of unjust discrimination. If that’s your idea of crazy, Pat, I have a lot of good company in my asylum.

PAT P.: : Can conservatives spend a few minutes worrying about more important things? I'm so sick of so-called conservatives and their obsession with homosexuality.

On this, Pat #2, we would agree. Regrettably, fixation with the marginalization of homosexuals is a distracting obsession in some quarters.

6:20 AM

 
Anonymous joe said...

A. Carlton Sallet,

Okay. You're not really interested in discussing the topic (Predominance of homosexuals in women's sports).

You seemed more interested in name calling (Accusing people of homophobia and discrimination).

If ad hominem attack gives you some perverse satisfaction I'm not interested

Maybe you should reread the comments and see how you’ve avoided any reasoned argument.

By the way, I get it. You’re: HETEROSEXUAL. I think you’ve made that sufficiently clear.

Joe

9:32 AM

 
Anonymous Patrick said...

Patrick P:

"Worrying"? "So-called conservative"? "Obsession"?
Ouch.
I'm sorry you're feeling "so sick." But I think you're talking about other blogs. I ignore plenty of "gay news stories" or issues in the Church. Most are of no interest to me. But it does come up, and now that the Vatican is set to release the protocol document re: US seminary visitations, I'll likely blog on it again at some point. All I want to be is close to Jesus Christ, in the bosom of his Church, where sinners like me belong. Expressing orthodox teaching on homosexuality, or any other issue, is not something I'm going to start apologizing for. If I could find a way for it not to piss you off so much, I would.


Carlton:

I'm going to start calling you Skirt. A real gift for skirting you've got there.

1) You're caught up in a contradiction on the causation question. You glibly assert, with a tone of irritation over how your stupid your opponents can be, that the Catechism uses the phrase "largely unexplained," and then you turn around and proclaim that gays are "born that way." That's hardly "largely unexplained." That's Carlton's kneejerk dogma. And yes, I'm aware that you have company in that camp.

Further, "largely unexplained" is not the same thing as "completely and hopelessly mysterious." It's a subtle, complex, even baffling condition. I accord it a measure of mystery, and decline to reduce it to this one thing or that other thing. I also decline to employ the same few words from the same single paragraph from the Catechism as some kind of invincible proof-texting device.

The "largely unexplained" has to do with the "psychological genesis." And I agree. But more broadly, the Catechism is a SUMMARY of doctrine and practice. It's brief treatment of particular issues does not exhaust the Church's pastoral wisdom on them.

2) For the zillionth time, UNJUST discrimination is not the same as JUST discrimination. It's now officially amusing how this one CCC sentence is used by homosexualists as a cudgel against those who think special screening for overt homosexuality in the seminaries is a -- if I can use the word -- *fabulous* idea. (And please don't rehash this one again -- I already have a headache.)

3) Your dismissive "when you know for sure, get back to me" is telling, and, frankly, should embarrass you. I do know for sure: There has been no gay gene found. There exist predispository factors but nothing like conclusive evidence of homosexual genetic hardwiring. Carlton, you're the one making the contrary claim. The onus is on you need to present scientific evidence of a gay gene. Knock yourself out.

4) Ms. Swoopes says she was not born that way, that somewhere along the line (one too many abusive men/just enough tender and friendly lesbian teammates and too much whiskey, etc) she began to develop lesbian feelings. That's her lived experience, not the distant analysis of s total stranger. It's a bit presumptuous, not to say arrogant, of you to say she's wrong and you're right.

5) If "being born gay" is so obvious to all clear-thinking, compassionate and tolerant people, why doesn't the Catechism say so, or even hint at it?

9:51 AM

 
Blogger A. Carlton Sallet said...

JOE:By the way, I get it. You’re: HETEROSEXUAL. I think you’ve made that sufficiently clear.

Good. Now you won’t have to buy me those beers.

Now, to Pat’s misquotes and straw-man arguments:
PAT: You glibly assert, with a tone of irritation over how your stupid your opponents can be, that the Catechism uses the phrase "largely unexplained," and then you turn around and proclaim that gays are "born that way."

Could you please cite the quote you attributed to me: born that way? I never wrote that. Anywhere. Were you just skimming, or deliberately misleading your readers?

Carlton, you're the one making the contrary claim. The onus is on you need to present scientific evidence of a gay gene.

Had you read what I wrote – and not what you imagine I wrote – you would know that all I said on this matter was that “I simply admit I do not know the how and why of human sexual orientation, and occupy myself instead with developing fit and proper conduct towards others, free of unjust discrimination.” In other words, I declined to be sucked into a silly debate about why some people are gay. Or think they are. Or whatever. Please do not misquote me again.

Ms. Swoopes says she was not born that way, that somewhere along the line (one too many abusive men/just enough tender and friendly lesbian teammates and too much whiskey, etc) she began to develop lesbian feelings. That's her lived experience, not the distant analysis of s total stranger. It's a bit presumptuous, not to say arrogant, of you to say she's wrong and you're right.

You can’t stop making stuff up, can you? I never stated any opinion about Ms. Swoopes, let alone asserted that “she’s wrong” or anything else about her particular case. Another fabricated straw-man argument.

If "being born gay" is so obvious to all clear-thinking, compassionate and tolerant people, why doesn't the Catechism say so, or even hint at it?

It’s a mystery. Get it?

11:17 AM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

Dear Skirt:

It was more fun when it was merely impossible to ask you to be logically consistent. No need to add Am Thin-Skinned to your resume.

It would be easier for me and my readers (and yours) if you'd stop reacting like a puddle of mercury, endlessly slipping away from the obvious meaning of your words.

In saying "Have to disagree here fellas. I think the claim that people can be made gay is pretty dubious" and then "Think about it - do you think YOU could be made gay? Even if you were on a team with gay guys?" you are clearly concluding that you believe the contrary; namely that not being made gay (ie being born that way) is less dubious (ie more likely to be true.)

Swoopes thinks she was made lesbian, and you opposed the idea. ("Are women different? Is their sexual wiring more succeptible to being turned gay? I don't think so.")

Now you're outraged to be so unfairly misquoted, and cry, "straw man attack, straw man attack!" Stick with one viewpoint, Carlton. There's a reason why Skirt fits as a nickname.

One more time: in teaching that "the psychological genesis of homosexuality is largely unexplained" the Catholic Church is not saying it is a hopelessly murky, impossible-to-ever-fathom mystery. As the work of Jeffrey Satinover, Rev. Mario Bergner, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Charles Socarides, Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Leanne Payne, Father John Harvey, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbon, and many others in the field have shown, there is a TON of scientific information and pastoral understanding of the causes of SSAD, as well as practical (albeit difficult and arduous) means of healing the condition to the point of true inner serenity and peace, if not exclusive heterosexual identification.

It is very probable that, as in the case of the amendments to the treatment of capital punishment, future revision of the Catechism will better reflect what we do know about the causes of homosexuality and proven methodologies fostering healing and deliverance from its debilitating effects.

12:00 PM

 
Anonymous joe said...

a. carlton sallet,

I’ll let Patrick continue the debate with you since he has more patience but I do have to admit that you are truly the master of taking people around the bush.

I suggest a new motto for you: "If you can't win an argument just baffle them with B.S."

A.: Good. Now you won’t have to buy me those beers.

What is it with you and the gay-baiting? You certainly aren’t showing compassion and sensitivity to homosexuals. I believe you’re familiar with ccc 2358.

Are you trying to reaffirm your heterosexuality by challenging that of others? You’re starting to sound like a classic closet case.

1:07 PM

 
Blogger A. Carlton Sallet said...

I see. Since I consider claims about people being turned gay by being proximate to homosexuals to be "dubious", you simply:

1. State for me that I must believe people are born gay,

2. Put words in my mouth, fake quotes and all, to set up an argument in my name, then

3. Demolish the argument that you constructed.

Here's a newsflash for you: I consider the argument that people can "catch" gayness a la Joe's musings and link to be dubious. As to whether people:

1. Are born into a fixed orientation
2. Develop one around puberty
3. Are sexuallly indiscriminate/confused
4. Any other possible explanation

I have no idea. As I stated! But no - you take it upon yourself to conclude that I must believe people are born gay, because I reject merely one of a whole array of other possible explataions as "dubious."

Sorry, Pat - I don't believe you're dumb, so I have to conclude that you're lazy.

PS - You and Joe can go on with the name calling (Skirt, Bush, etc.). That type of conduct is beneath me, though, so you'll have to play alone....

4:00 PM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

An "ad hominem" is the invalid substituting of personal attacks name IN THE PLACE OF addressing anothers' arguments. "Skirt" is nothing but a lighthearted nickname that I believe accurately describes your habit of reinventing or denying the plain meaning of your original statements, and ignoring the points I make that you don't like. (I keep giving *specific* examples, which may partly explain your annoyance.)

Hell, maybe you're right about Joe M. Maybe he actually believes that mere physical proximity to lesbians causes lesbianism or that you can "catch it." If you believe that's what he meant, then, in absence of evidence that you're lazy, it's awfully tempting to conclude you're...at least...deliberately obfuscating, the common synonym for which is skirting.

And I like your "I have retained the high ground" sign off. Oh, dear.

4:28 PM

 
Anonymous joe said...

A.: I consider the argument that people can "catch" gayness a la Joe's musings and link to be dubious

Wow. Talk about putting words in people’s mouths.

For the record. No I don't believe there is a gay flu that can be caught by being in proximity to homosexuals.

I will say that I believe in the "Propinquity effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propinquity_effect) as do most in the field of psychology. Does it apply to SSA? I’m not sure, but it’s possible.

Since A. never bothered to ask me what my thinking on this matter is but instead chose to cast aspersions we never had an intelligent discussion about the topic.

Let me put it this way, having spent time in collegiate sports I witnessed the overt lesbian culture that exists; I don’t really want my daughters exposed to that broken culture. Maybe I’m over protective but that’s the way it is.

6:04 PM

 
Anonymous joe said...

Just to be clear on the topic. I don't think propinquity alone can make someone "turn" gay. For example, I don't think you can drop a happy, healthy, mature heterosexual like A. Carlton in the middle of the Castro in San Fran and by the next month he'll be twirling a baton in the gay pride parade. However, I do think a confused kid from a broken home with mental and drug problems might be vulnerable in that environment.

I was thinking about two girls from my high school that I knew well. Both were popular, intelligent, attractive, cheer leaders who became lesbians for a while at their liberal universities. One even became a militant women's study major who shaved her head and had a very butch girlfriend for three years. I found out that after college both went on to marry men and have children. These are strange times.

4:38 AM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

Uh oh. Just sitting this close to my computer while reading about women's sports has induced lesbian feelings in me.

8:26 AM

 
Anonymous joe said...

That is fetish known as called "Techno-Propinquity by proxy." It's rare but well documented. You should seek help immediately.

8:34 AM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

Expressing orthodox teaching on homosexuality, or any other issue, is not something I'm going to start apologizing for. If I could find a way for it not to piss you off so much, I would.

I think my frustration has a lot to do with the fact that people in the Church and “conservatives” talk about homosexuality in such a detached fashion, as if it is merely a point of theological theorizing. Or worse, it is discussed as a matter of “Those poor reprobates. What are we gonna do with ‘em?"

10:54 PM

 
Blogger Nârwen said...

Have any of you read "Beyond Gay" ? The author, David Morrison, formerly lived the homosexual lifestyle, and was something of an activist. He states that while he has never come across a gay man who believes his orientation was a choice, he did come across a small minority of lesbians who were absolutely adamant that they chose their lifestyle. Many times these women have been violently sexually abused or otherwise treated like dirt by boyfriends or husbands, and they believe that their choice to 'partner' with other women is perfectly reasonable, given that men are- in their experience- not worth the effort.

11:24 PM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

PDP:

Question: How can a non-homo discuss it in much else besides detached tone? Can you discuss Nepalese sword juggling based on personal experience?

Also, you won't find a drop of "poor reprobates, what will we do with them" on my blog.

Come to think of it, will WILL we do with them? lol.

10:35 AM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

Narwen:

I've read some of Mr. Morrison, thjough nto his book. The lesbian thing I 've heard before. There's actually an acronym LUG (lesbian until graduation) to describe this choice-experiemental-transitory thing.

10:37 AM

 
Blogger A. Carlton Sallet said...

Not that I'm nearly as informed as others here on the scientific front, but to feed your morbid fascination with the "why" question, there does seem to be some science behind the "born gay" theory.

From today's Toronto Star (the link is at bottom and is a dog's breakfast to cut and paste - sorry):

"Sexual biology
Nov. 15, 2005. 01:00 AM


When it comes to same-sex attraction does biology play a part?

"There isn't any slam dunk biological theory," says University of Western Ontario professor Guy Grenier. For example, in 1991 scientists Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard released a study in which they revealed that in identical male twins (who share DNA), in cases in which one identified as gay, both identified as homosexual 52 per cent of the time.

When they studied fraternal twins — that's same womb, but different DNA — 22 per cent of the time in which one twin identified as gay, both were gay. In cases involving plain-old brothers, just 5 per cent of the time if one identified as gay, both identified as gay.

That evidence suggests genetics isn't everything — or 100 per cent of the time the DNA matched, sexuality would, too. But the higher rate suggests there's a biological link of some kind.

EMILY MATHIEU"


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1131967296403&call_pageid=968332188492

9:15 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home