The Church needs to change - but not in the way they all say

[Maggyie]

I think if you're going to use the term same sex attracted, then spell it and say it out. Giving it initials makes it sound like a wart someone has. Properly, people do not "have" same sex attraction, they "are" same sex attracted. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Papist, I see you're trying to clarify! Maggyie, sure there's no problem with it being spelled out. We can also say someone who is attracted to the same sex. However I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you say we shouldn't describe them as having an attraction. I mean I don't see attractions as an essence of a person. In the end they are something we have .. If Jessica has an attraction to John, can't we put it like that? Is it different if we are specifying types ofpeople one feels attacted to? I think some people who are Catholic and are attracted to the same sex may want to not identify themselves by that and talk about it more as thoughts they get, because they are trying to not consent to them. Others prefer the other term while also not identifying themselves primarily through that and also being faithful to the Church. So reasons can be personal without a theological disagreement. (Other times a disagreement can be there). But I think objectively, what is wrong with preferring or using the term "having" an attraction? 

Edited July 17, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Not The Philosopher]

This terminological debate is rather fascinating and in no way boring or dull after having been repeated 1 billion times here at Phatmass and at other places of the internet.

While we can indeed argue that one form of self-labeling is more appropriate than others, when you try to constantly police people about this, you'll usually just get pushback because you come across as scrutinizing them for faults, even if you are well-intentioned (as I think everyone here is).

[truthfinder]

I wan't to hear what the phatmass priests have to say. And just to be clear i am neither for or against it civil unions that is, it is outside of my jurisdiction and a matter for the world to deal with before GOD and since i am in the world and not of the world i honestly don't care , but inside the christian context yes i am against it, never should homosexual couples be married by a priest.

 

Look, I really don't want to get into a debate, but your understanding of what the church teaches on natural marriage is flawed.  Obviously, sacramental marriage is better, but a true natural marriage IS marriage. 

This is from wikipedia, but correctly cites the appropriate canons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_marriage "Natural marriage is the name given in Catholic canon law to the covenant "by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring", and is distinguished from a sacramental or Christian marriage, in which the two parties involved are baptized^[1][2][3] or Christian marriage.^[3][4]"

[MarysLittleFlower]

This terminological debate is rather fascinating and in no way boring or dull after having been repeated 1 billion times here at Phatmass and at other places of the internet.

While we can indeed argue that one form of self-labeling is more appropriate than others, when you try to constantly police people about this, you'll usually just get pushback because you come across as scrutinizing them for faults, even if you are well-intentioned (as I think everyone here is).

Yea I think its best to just leave it. In any case I'm leaving it. 

[franciscanheart]

I definitely push back when someone attempts to direct me in how I can and cannot describe my human experience. Certainly my patience for this behavior is much more limited after a number of arguments about the issue on this site. Consider that the debate seems centered around bloated meaning that strays far from the dictionary definitions and you can imagine how much more frustrating this ridiculous insistence becomes.

[Ice_nine]

It is neither stupid or really stupid. We all are tempted to commit sin but we do not all define ourselves by what sins tempt us. We do not define our being by sins that tempt us when we remain in the state of grace and do not act upon that temptation or entertain it. For example if a married man is tempted to think impure thoughts of an attractive woman who is not his wife, but does not act on nor entertain those thoughts, is it wise for him to define himself as an adulterer? It doesn't make much sense to define himself like that if he is in the state of grace and avoiding the temptation.

We are human beings with temptations (whether that be SSA or adultery, or any other sin), we are even human beings who sin. But our beings are not defined by our temptations. Our beings certainly are not defined by past sins after we have repented and abandon those sins. Saying someone has SSA isn't stupid it's a way to acknowledge that they are first a person, a person with a certain temptation that can be avoided and is not so powerful and unstoppable as to define their very being.

Hmm, I guess I should say I'm not a straight person. Wouldn't consider myself gay either but if anyone wanted to foist a label, like bi-sexual or SSSSA (sometimes sexually same sex attracted, if we're going for accuracy) or "oh honey you're just confused," all  of which make me feel icky, then that's really to make them feel more comfortable about things. Which is fine. It makes people anxious when they can't fit people neatly into the schema they've used to make sense of the world since probably forever, myself included. I would just be really irritated when people tell me what I should call myself when we clearly are not coming from the same understanding.

The reason I don't give myself any of the aforementioned labels is I don't think they're entirely accurate. I think sexual-orientation is a new social-construct, and it only has value in terms of social meaning, rather than intrapersonal meaning. Race is a social construct too, just as inherently meaningless, but since "whiteness" has social value I would still define myself as white. Although if you were to drop me in a different culture (maybe not now because the world is becoming more homogenous) but let's say a different time, my whiteness might not matter at all. Do you see what I am saying? That's the reason I don't identify because I don't feel a part of LGBT culture nor do I share in their general beliefs and goals about morality and such, and it might give that impression. I think that's what people are really anxious about. At the same time I don't fit into the heteronormative identity either where I've just always statically been straight yippee.

No one takes issue when I call myself a sinner and/or a hypocrite. I am both. I'm pretty sure I've called myself such things on phatmass and no one has ever, ever taken issue which is why I'm not buying "you are not your tempatations" argument. When someone calls themselves an addict or an alcoholic, well some people take issue with that now in light of the current debate, but prior to the deluge of gay threads I've never heard complaint with someone saying "I am an addict" or something either. I think people get anxious because calling yourself "gay" seems to align you with the nefarious gay agenda. To be honest there are people in the LGBT movement who want to deliberately dismantle and deconstruct everything I believe in and I would say yes, they are my enemies. But I would also say there are people in that movement who are not. Probably most of them, so I don't need to have an annyuerism when a practicing Catholic just wants to "call it like they see it" and say "hey I'm GAAAAAY."

I absolutely am my weaknesses. They come along with the entire package. But that's ok because Christ is there to meet me at my weaknesses and complete me where I fail. Which is a lot.

So I still stand by my assertion that SSA sounds really dumb And it's a label to make others feel comfortable.

Peace be with you Knight. I doubt you'll be convinced as you're about as stubborn as the rest of us.

[CrossCuT]

It is neither stupid or really stupid. We all are tempted to commit sin but we do not all define ourselves by what sins tempt us. We do not define our being by sins that tempt us when we remain in the state of grace and do not act upon that temptation or entertain it. For example if a married man is tempted to think impure thoughts of an attractive woman who is not his wife, but does not act on nor entertain those thoughts, is it wise for him to define himself as an adulterer? It doesn't make much sense to define himself like that if he is in the state of grace and avoiding the temptation.

We are human beings with temptations (whether that be SSA or adultery, or any other sin), we are even human beings who sin. But our beings are not defined by our temptations. Our beings certainly are not defined by past sins after we have repented and abandon those sins. Saying someone has SSA isn't stupid it's a way to acknowledge that they are first a person, a person with a certain temptation that can be avoided and is not so powerful and unstoppable as to define their very being.

I know that in your mind this makes sense since youre viewing both from the perspective of sins. You say that we should not define ourselves by the sins we commit (or don't commit) and i agree. But this falls short when you consider the whole picture because homosexuality is something people have in their genes. It is not just a thought of sin, it is a part of their being. It would be better to draw an analogy with a physical characteristic as opposed to an action imo.

Edited July 17, 2015 by CrossCuT

[franciscanheart]

I was just about to ask if people who experience disabilities should avoid saying, "I'm disabled," lest anyone think they were assigning the totality of their being or of their human experience to the fact that they have some limitation in a particular area.

[Lilllabettt]

I was just about to ask if people who experience disabilities should avoid saying, "I'm disabled," lest anyone think they were assigning the totality of their being or of their human experience to the fact that they have some limitation in a particular area.

There is a lot of controversy about that. But a lot of people do feel that it should be avoided, yes.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[franciscanheart]

Well we have a difference of opinion. And my SD doesn't seem to mind me refering to homosexuality as homosexuality.

[superblue]

wait, if we can no longer refer to those who are disabled, as disabled.... and we can't refer people who are homosexual as homosexual.

what about the blind, deaf, and midgets ?

 

Do they become vision and hearing impaired ?

Do midgets become " short people " or vertically challenged ?

[franciscanheart]

wait, if we can no longer refer to those who are disabled, as disabled.... and we can't refer people who are homosexual as homosexual.

what about the blind, deaf, and midgets ?

 

Do they become vision and hearing impaired ?

Do midgets become " short people " or vertically challenged ?

I think they like to be called "little people" anyway, but yes: You cannot describe anyone's human experience by anything other than "child of God" around here. To use descriptive language about your human experience is to devolve it to whatever you're describing, according to the (phat)masses.

[Seven77]

I was just about to ask if people who experience disabilities should avoid saying, "I'm disabled," lest anyone think they were assigning the totality of their being or of their human experience to the fact that they have some limitation in a particular area.

I'm a disabled child of God...

[Lilllabettt]

Well we have a difference of opinion. And my SD doesn't seem to mind me refering to homosexuality as homosexuality.

No "we" don't. If by "we" you mean you and me. I use gay. Homosexual sounds like J.Edgar Hooverish.

SSA sounds like a wimp-out somehow. Like instead of masturbation people say "self-harm."

Euphemisms are for wimps. I am not a wimp.