John Money as a psychologist criticized the view that categories of mental disorder are only a codification of social morals; his research appears to have indicated that paraphilia occurs among both straight and LBGT people, a paraphilia being some thing (e.g., one type of clothing) or some other issue (e.g., rape) which must be present for straight or LBGT satisfaction; see “Lovemaps” (1986) or “Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation” (1988), Oxford University Press, both by Money.
Money reasoned that right sexual activity leads to the integration of lust and love in a reciprocal, mutually responsive, pairbonded relationship…and that people with restrictive paraphilic conditions have disorders of love, not sex or sexuality.
Moving back in time to the “medical model” of our age, its adherents use value-neutrality to change “bad” to “pathology”, and following Immanuel Kant (“Lectures on Ethics”, 1775-1781)merely presume LBGT people have a pathology because of failure to reproduce. But looking at prolific research evidence such as in “The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality”, inter alia, by John C. Gonsiorek (1991), it seems valid evidence does not support that being LBGT per se relates to psychopathology or psychological adjustment. A subgroup of LBGT people appear to respond to social stigma and prejudice with drug or alcohol abuse, attempted suicide, and use of mental health services, but per cited research stigma survivors tend toward superior adjustment.
Would “natural-law theory” be solid enough to support that LBGT don’t use their anatomy as God intended for one and only use? Aquinas might have used Aristotelian logic when saying a fetus can’t receive a soul until it has sufficient form, I disagree with Aquinas (and Kant) here, because as critics abundantly point out, a mouth for example is used for the purpose of speaking, tasting, eating…yet which of these is the “proper” ontological function? So such natural-law theory goes in circular logic and sheer polemics.
Then, is there non-epigenetic or non-epiphenomenal valid Christian theological argument that being LBGT per se is a “curse”, “sin”, or other stigma? Well, the early Christian approach was to accept the Greek and Roman practice of evaluating not the biological sex of the persons in a relationship, but how sexuality led to relationships of permanence and fidelity while avoiding idolatrous cultic practices…the people closest to Christ’s earthly Person had only the same concern over paraphilia as did John Money thousands of years later!
In that I believe stigma of the LBGT just for being so is mere conflation of human ego into religion and public policy (and often thus for otherwise pointless political control), I continue to support the LBGT community in pursuing the same rights, freedoms, and privileges as do all other humans. I plead for all other ULC Monastery ministers to join in this, and recommend they attempt to educate or inform themselves of what signs are reasonably those of abuse or emotional/paraphilic distress (and which are NOT) in regard to ALL people, refer those in need to proper licensed professionals, and even where that is the case continue to spiritually support anyone as they progress through separate non-theological counseling or therapy.
