Since We've Been Talking About Lgbtq Stuff A Lot Lately...

[MarysLittleFlower]

OK, and that's fine. People should be called what makes them feel comfortable.

 

All we're saying is that if you look them up in the dictionary, they mean the same thing. :) And that most people use them interchangeably.

 

yes, that is true. I was trying to think apart from the dictionary.

:huh: I didn't call you stupid.

I think the website you posted is laughable. "Hi, I'm attracted to people of the same sex [otherwise known as homosexual] but I don't want to be called gay [aka homosexual] because I'm attempting to distance myself from popular understanding of people just like me."

Um, sorry: You're gay. AND THAT'S OKAY.

I'm not saying it's wrong for someone to prefer the "SSA" descriptor over gay or queer; I'm just pointing out that they mean the same thing.

Ok, you said "I don't deal well with stupid".

 

I don't think it's laughable. If I had an attraction to something that went against God's law, I don't think I'd want to base my self-identity around that either. I'd see that as a temptation to overcome. And there actually was a time when I thought I was gay when I was younger so I know what it's like to wonder about that.

 

I don't understand why you say my post is "uncharitable" and then you say that how some people with SSA want to call themselves is, "laughable"...

 

I'm done with this thread.

[Ice_nine]

My mind's a bit of a freak. I may just be a little bit more screwed up than the rest of you, idk, there are some things about my psychosexual history that I'm not willing to admit underneath the safe blanket of anonymity of the internets. Let's just say sexual thoughts about the same sex were probably the tamer explorations of my base desires.

 

I also seem to have obsessive thoughts that are not really of the most pleasant variety. I don't choose to identify myself by these compulsions of thought, by every desire I encounter sexual or otherwise. They're usually in flux and over time I have the ability to somewhat shape them although I cannot execute 100% control over my body and my mind. Some things are broken. Some things will be broken until about three minutes before I die, such is life. I have faith that Christ will perfect me in time.

 

 

What I find really irritating and also terribly sad is the inherent mistrust we have with homosexuals loving each other. Like a deep and intimate or romantic love for a person of the same sex is just BOUND to end up in someone getting laid or, that deep down they both just want to bed each other so therefore the love between them is defiled. I think here even good Catholics have fallen for the old trappings of Freudian psychology, that deep down we just want to screw and survive and all of these higher feelings of "love" are simply masks for what is deep down a dark and disordered desire.

 

 

But I see multiple problems with this, mainly that there's an underlying belief that marital, sexual love is somehow the highest most intimate form of love. God forbid you get to close to someone of the same sex because that obviously means you want to get laid. It's like eros has procured a monopoly on passion and intimacy and I just don't by that.

 

 

 

Before this gets into tl;dr territory (lol like it hasn't already), I'll stop here.

[KnightofChrist]

ho·mo·sex·u·al  

/ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/

 

Adjective

(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

 

Noun

A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

 

 

How many same sex temptations can a male or female have before you would label them a homosexual or gay? One? Two? More than that? Would you label someone that does not want to be attracted to members of the same sex but is still tempted (against their will) to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex?

[franciscanheart]

yes, that is true. I was trying to think apart from the dictionary.
Ok, you said "I don't deal well with stupid".
 
I don't think it's laughable. If I had an attraction to something that went against God's law, I don't think I'd want to base my self-identity around that either. I'd see that as a temptation to overcome. And there actually was a time when I thought I was gay when I was younger so I know what it's like to wonder about that.
 
I don't understand why you say my post is "uncharitable" and then you say that how some people with SSA want to call themselves is, "laughable"...
 
I'm done with this thread.

I don't understand why "homosexual" is any more offensive than "heterosexual". They are just words. They describe something that IS.

[MissyP89]

How many same sex temptations can a male or female have before you would label them a homosexual or gay? One? Two? More than that? Would you label someone that does not want to be attracted to members of the same sex but is still tempted (against their will) to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex?

 

Typically, it's based on what the majority of your feelings are. But sexuality is fluid. Most people are not 100 percent heterosexual or homosexual.

 

And just because you don't want to be attracted to men doesn't mean you aren't a homosexual. I might wish for all the world that I weren't white, for example, but I am. It is what it is.

 

Homosexuality is just an attribute of a person. They can either deny it and pretend it doesn't exist, or acknowledge it as a part of their unique quirks. But, be aware: acknowledging homosexuality does not have to mean "go out and have sex and march in parades."

[Basilisa Marie]

Many educated people believe sexuality is actually a spectrum, and few people are actually completely gay and completely straight.  I have a friend who is so straight that he has a hard time telling if other guys are objectively attractive, but has no problem with the same question for women.  I think that shows further proof that what matters is your actions, not your desires.  

 

There's no quantitative definition for what makes you gay, no magic number of attractions.  You either know or you don't, it's only something you can know for yourself.  People know that they're heterosexual, right? You know it intrinsically about yourself.  You didn't have some magic number of attractions to the opposite sex to make it happen.  The only person who can actually label a person is that person.  

 

And honestly, if we can't trust gay people to have friendships with members of the same sex, why the heck do we trust heterosexual people with friendships of the opposite sex? Because if that's the case then I need to make some phone calls to my dude friends, because it's suddenly become an automatic occasion of sin to hang with them. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

My mind's a bit of a freak. I may just be a little bit more screwed up than the rest of you, idk, there are some things about my psychosexual history that I'm not willing to admit underneath the safe blanket of anonymity of the internets. Let's just say sexual thoughts about the same sex were probably the tamer explorations of my base desires.

 

I also seem to have obsessive thoughts that are not really of the most pleasant variety. I don't choose to identify myself by these compulsions of thought, by every desire I encounter sexual or otherwise. They're usually in flux and over time I have the ability to somewhat shape them although I cannot execute 100% control over my body and my mind. Some things are broken. Some things will be broken until about three minutes before I die, such is life. I have faith that Christ will perfect me in time.

 

 

What I find really irritating and also terribly sad is the inherent mistrust we have with homosexuals loving each other. Like a deep and intimate or romantic love for a person of the same sex is just BOUND to end up in someone getting laid or, that deep down they both just want to bed each other so therefore the love between them is defiled. I think here even good Catholics have fallen for the old trappings of Freudian psychology, that deep down we just want to screw and survive and all of these higher feelings of "love" are simply masks for what is deep down a dark and disordered desire.

 

 

But I see multiple problems with this, mainly that there's an underlying belief that marital, sexual love is somehow the highest most intimate form of love. God forbid you get to close to someone of the same sex because that obviously means you want to get laid. It's like eros has procured a monopoly on passion and intimacy and I just don't by that.

 

 

 

Before this gets into tl;dr territory (lol like it hasn't already), I'll stop here.

I have obsessive thoughts too and I wouldn't want to base my whole identity about that. It's something I struggle with but I don't want to say that the core meaning of my being is - having obsessive thoughts.

 

Regarding what you said with homosexuals loving one another... I'm not sure if it's "Freudian".. I mean if they love one another as friends, no I don't think they just want something sexual. Friendship is something else. But "romantic" love is ordered towards procreation - that's why it's there, for procreation and the family - which explains why homosexual acts are intrinsincally disordered.... it's not "Freudian" or something like "getting laid" - it's targeted towards marriage and family - for homosexuals though, since it's an attraction to the same sex, that doesn't work out and so that's why the Church says not to act on such desires or consent to them.

 

I absolutely don't believe that marital love is the highest or most intimate form of love. The highest is charity, and God's love. ANd when I was talking about getting close to someone of the same sex, I meant for those with SSA, and getting close not as in friendship, but romantically.

Edited May 23, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Ice_nine]

When it comes to identity I don't know if anyone's on the same page but, I don't like to identify myself by sexual orientation because I don't think it's a real or solid thing. That means I don't call myself gay or bi, but I also can't honestly call myself straight. That's one reason I'm not so open with people in my life about this, because half of them would be sad that I'm not "normal" and the other half would insist I embrace it as part of who I am as if there is something innate within that marks me as a bit off center. 

 

I guess I disagree with FH on this aspect. I would really hate people to tell me "you're gay and it's fine," I'm more than OK with sharing all the goings on inside my skull, but if people were to impose a label on me I'd get a little defensive and perhaps pissed off. And of course there are many who would interpret that as "repression" which would only be more irritating.

 

So it IS much easier to keep to myself especially people who have not experienced it but are somehow experts on it. Did you know there are people who think that you must either be "gay" or "straight" and "bi" just means you're probably gay, but you're just confused about it now. Many people believe that, and I'm not good at dealing with those people.

[Papist]

Hey Papist,

 

To offer you some perspective ... if someone were to ask you, you'd say you were heterosexual, or colloquially "straight." But it doesn't mean you are currently sexually active with women. It just denotes your attraction to them.

 

The colloquial term for homosexual is "gay" or "lesbian." But there are celibate lesbians and sexually active lesbians. The name does not (and will never) imply that the person is currently in a relationship with someone of the same sex. It also does not reference whether or not they're sexually active. Someone who says "I am gay" can very well be celibate. It's just a description, like "tall" or "Chinese" or "Catholic."

 

At the same time, if I say I'm bisexual, it doesn't mean I am currently sexually active with one or both genders. It just means I am attracted to both.

 

I hope that helps clarify this stuff for you.

I'm not stupid. I understand the explanation. I asked for clarity b/c something didn't seem right in this thread. Seemed people were talking apples and oranges. :wall:

 

And for the record, I treat people gay or not as a person, not by their inclinations...whatever they are. However, when I become aware of their sinful behavior, I must address it. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

  

 

And honestly, if we can't trust gay people to have friendships with members of the same sex, why the heck do we trust heterosexual people with friendships of the opposite sex? Because if that's the case then I need to make some phone calls to my dude friends, because it's suddenly become an automatic occasion of sin to hang with them. 

 

I didn't mean friendships but romantic relationships......

[Lilllabettt]

franciscan heart , maybe you should take a break from this thread. You're a little out of control.

 

I know a LOT of people who do not use the term  gay to describe themselves for various reasons. They prefer the term SSA. They and their choices and their feelings are not "ridiculous."

 

People who cannot correct ignorance with patience and charity should not do it.

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't understand why "homosexual" is any more offensive than "heterosexual". They are just words. They describe something that IS.

 

I guess the people on that website - don't want to base their identity around these inclinations, but to just say that they have the inclinations, but since they don't want to act on them, their identity is more in what they will.

[Ice_nine]

. But "romantic" love is ordered towards procreation - that's why it's there, for procreation and the family - which explains why homosexual acts are

 

Is it? For the first 1000 years or so of Christian history, marriages were by and large not romantic. I know it's really hard to separate yourself from the entrenched cultural context you find yourself in, but there is nothing about marriage that requires romantic love. Again I know it's super duper hard because today we look at an unromantic marriage and say "something must be wrong" but it has not always been so.

 

Additionally do you know about how people of yore wrote about familial and brotherly (friendly) love? Seems pretty romantic to moi.

[franciscanheart]

I don't understand why you say my post is "uncharitable" and then you say that how some people with SSA want to call themselves is, "laughable"...
 
I'm done with this thread.

:rolleyes: That's what the Church needs: more people to get upset and run away from enlightening conversation. We definitely need to drink more haterade to go with all our ignorance. No wonder the people think the Church is a joke!

Oh and regarding the uncharitable bit: Did I call your post uncharitable? Which one? I've a terrible memory.
 
 

How many same sex temptations can a male or female have before you would label them a homosexual or gay? One? Two? More than that? Would you label someone that does not want to be attracted to members of the same sex but is still tempted (against their will) to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex?

I don't label anyone. But if someone tells me they have a predominant sexual attraction to people of the same sex, I'm going to classify that as homosexuality. Why? Because that's what it is.

Why is this such a difficult (and offensive, apparently) concept?

[MarysLittleFlower]

For example... Our Lord says that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (the Church says homosexuals here refers to those who consent to it, since sin is in in the will, not those who don't consent and are chaste, same with adulterers: not those who are tempted to adultery, but those who commit it). If someone has SSA and is trying to live a good Catholic life, and doesn't at all want these inclinations, doesn't consent to them, - it could be confusing for them to think of themselves as homosexual. It might make it easier for them to think of themselves as a Catholic with SSA that they're trying to avoid and live chastely. If someone acts on it, of course that is different... that's why some people prefer to call "homosexual" those who act on that lifestyle or consent to it internally, not those who see it as a temptation to avoid. This is what I was told as I was investigating the Church so it stuck with me.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[CrossCuT]

con·de·scend·ing  

/ˌkändəˈsendiNG/

 

Adjective

1. Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.
2. (of an action) Demonstrating such an attitude.

 

Synonyms

patronizing

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

What I find really irritating and also terribly sad is the inherent mistrust we have with homosexuals loving each other. Like a deep and intimate or romantic love for a person of the same sex is just BOUND to end up in someone getting laid or, that deep down they both just want to bed each other so therefore the love between them is defiled. I think here even good Catholics have fallen for the old trappings of Freudian psychology, that deep down we just want to screw and survive and all of these higher feelings of "love" are simply masks for what is deep down a dark and disordered desire.

 

I agree. I think there is a reluctance to attribute the word "love" to it because some believe that it's not actually love. The word "disorder" is thrown around so freely that people forget that gay people are just like us. There seems to be an assumption, based solely on opinion, that the love a gay couple experiences is nothing like the love experienced by two heteros. The language I find in these discussions is at times counterproductive. It gives the false impression that the Catholic Church is repulsed and disgusted by gay people, not compassionate and loving towards them. 

[KnightofChrist]

Typically, it's based on what the majority of your feelings are. But sexuality is fluid. Most people are not 100 percent heterosexual or homosexual.

 

And just because you don't want to be attracted to men doesn't mean you aren't a homosexual. I might wish for all the world that I weren't white, for example, but I am. It is what it is.

 

Homosexuality is just an attribute of a person. They can either deny it and pretend it doesn't exist, or acknowledge it as a part of their unique quirks. But, be aware: acknowledging homosexuality does not have to mean "go out and have sex and march in parades."

 

Language and terms are also fluid. I believe the way the term "homosexual" and "gay" is being used in a very black and white and absolute sense. I don't believe ones sexuality can really be compared to ones skin pigmentation. Because homosexual temptations can be overcome where as what race one was born into cannot.
 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Is it? For the first 1000 years or so of Christian history, marriages were by and large not romantic. I know it's really hard to separate yourself from the entrenched cultural context you find yourself in, but there is nothing about marriage that requires romantic love. Again I know it's super duper hard because today we look at an unromantic marriage and say "something must be wrong" but it has not always been so.

 

Additionally do you know about how people of yore wrote about familial and brotherly (friendly) love? Seems pretty romantic to moi.

 

I know it seemed romantic but maybe that's the language they used, or just emotion.

 

I am aware that marriages in the past were not often based on romantic feelings. I'm not a very modern person actually so I don't base everything on "romantic feelings" including definition of love :) I think choice is important in love. Feelings come and go.

 

But - what are romantic feelings for? They do somehow relate to sexuality imo... I mean their effects do. It seems linked somehow.

[Basilisa Marie]

Language and terms are also fluid. I believe the way the term "homosexual" and "gay" is being used in a very black and white and absolute sense. I don't believe ones sexuality can really be compared to ones skin pigmentation. Because homosexual temptations can be overcome where as what race one was born into cannot.
 

 

But "overcoming" your temptations doesn't make them go away. You can't just not be gay anymore.  A celibate priest doesn't stop being attracted to women, even if he's 80.