The Strange Notion Of "gay Celibacy"

[Nihil Obstat]

How about addiction, which is directed toward sinful acts. Actually forget that.

I think you may be investing the concept of identity with too much power. How do you define identity.

Good question. I do not have a comprehensive answer right now, but I know off the bat that it will include a fundamental orientation towards God and therefore towards the Good. In the same sense as natural law.
The most perfect example of humanity of course is Christ. I think our identity must be fundamentally rooted in Him.

[Ark]

Peace be with you Maggie,

 

Gay people cannot ungay themselves any more than my mother can de bipolar herself. I feel like you are arguing that they should pretend they don't have the attractions or that it doesn't impact their lives in huge ways.

 

The interesting thing about your example is that people with bipolar disorder do take active measures to stabilize their mood and order themselves, so to speak. I know this is controversial, and I don't  mean to cause any offense, but I think in some circumstances it is possible to condition yourself out of it or at least order the attractions better. I had a peculiar experience that mirrors what Rilene in the documentary, Desire of Everlasting Hills, experienced. Some people who yearn for love and attention will accept whatever form the void is filled, even if that be with a person of the same sex. Daniel Mattson, also in the documentary, says that he was capable of having a loving relationship with a woman despite having SSA but ended because the woman was not interested in children. So what I'm trying to say is that this is a very complex human experience, not everyone comes to it the same way, or whether they even come to it are or born into it. 

[Ark]

This is a good interview. Daniel Mattson goes into some of the points Nihil Obstat addresses.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L41SEbk8UU4

[Norseman82]

 Not all heterosexuals can be happy being single,

 

 

Do we tell young people who want to get married "now remember you don't need romance to be fulfilled"? No. That's because most people in spite of knowing you can be fulfilled with other things nevertheless want to get married and have a family. Because it's part of being human.

I bet you would be the person who tells infertile women "you can be fulfilled by mentoring others and being involved in your parish and blah blah blah" none of which addresses the MATERNAL instinct inscribed on a woman's heart. Even if it's true.

 

I agree with both of you.  The problem is that people ARE being told this garbage - not only be secular feminism, but within the Church as well.  Look at the mess known as Catholic Answers Forums, or go to the majority of young adult ministry events (at least the ones I've been to, unless it's due to something in the Lake Michigan water).  I've even been told this in confession!

[franciscanheart]

I am amused at the frequency at which people assume gay people introduce themselves as gay. "Hi, I'm Lesbian Sarah." "Hi, before I tell you my name, I'm gay. My name is Dick."

Like, what? LOL! When has that EVER happened?

[Anomaly]

I agree with both of you. The problem is that people ARE being told this garbage - not only be secular feminism, but within the Church as well. Look at the mess known as Catholic Answers Forums, or go to the majority of young adult ministry events (at least the ones I've been to, unless it's due to something in the Lake Michigan water). I've even been told this in confession!

It's very tough to be a one in this world. Having a close freind come out as gay after ten years of marriage. It's what shut my mouth when I thought I was being the good Catholic was about voicing an opinion about a disorder. I also have a greater respect for priests and nuns. But they positively chose that. Single lay people don't necessarily choose that. Sharing the joys and sorrows of life with a life mate is a very primal human need. Sure it's great and ideal if everyone is fertile and finds someone of the opposite sex. But life doesn't work out like that.
I think the base premise of the original blog is warped. There is nothing wrong with being a celibate gay. No more wrong than being a celibate hetero. People should try to be a little more empathetic when discussing very difficult and painful life circumstances.

[superblue]

[beatitude]

Right. That's an obviously bad analogy. The discussion here that people found un-empathetic was not that of highly trained professionals discussing the details of how Bayesian inferences impacts the best response to conditions 'x', 'y', and 'z' arising. 

 

You don't get to play scientist about something unscientific. 
 

This discussion was a highly unrigorous and speculative discussion by individuals who have no expertise on the topic about a highly personal aspect of some phatmassers' identities. 

 

There's no royal road to science. If you want to have a rigorous, unemotional, and clinical discussion about this then do get some advanced training in theology/philosophy and social biology, start doing research, and publish your findings.

 

If you don't put in that work then you're not having a 'clinical' discussion. You're just talking out of your ass about a highly personal and emotional topic. And that's fine. You don't have to be an expert to talk about it. But you just shouldn't be so self-indulgent as to be surprised when someone who is offended by your uninformed discussion about a highly personal aspect of their identity takes offense at your uninformed opinions. 

 

To add to this, I think sometimes people mistake lack of compassion and insight for logic. It's not. It's also not logically possible to separate emotion and reason and we shouldn't try. Sexuality is about interpersonal relationships, so it involves emotion by definition - any discussion of it has to respect that.

 

To give a personal example, I am disabled, and recently I got into a debate about withholding medical care from babies who have an obvious severe impairment. I was told that I was taking it too personally, that I'm too emotionally involved to see this other person's very reasoned and rational point of view, that I need to be more logical about things. The patronizing subtext is that my personal proximity to the topic muddies my ability to think it through properly, while they are perfectly clear-headed and clear-sighted - so their opinion has more weight.

 

Until it's deeply personal aspects of their life that are being 'clinically' dissected and discussed in detached terms in the name of philosophy or anthropology or whatever, then they're unlikely to understand what's so offensive about doing it. It's the same thing here. Some of these posts make gay people sound like pickled specimens in a bottle. This is not philosophy, this is not science, this is just plain callousness, even if it's not intentional.

Edited January 28, 2015 by beatitude

[Not The Philosopher]

This thread, guys, this thread

If Nihil (or anyone else) has said something that you guys find questionable, the proper response is usually to either post a substantive critique or to ask questions. Instead, most of the replies to this thread have been variations of, "that's insensitive!"

 

The way I see it is that if there's a topic on a thread that we genuinely feel is too sensitive for us to discuss, the best course of action is just to ignore the thread. This isn't a case of your boss or coworker trying to pester you about stuff. It's totally avoidable. Life's too short to get worked up over these things.

Otherwise it just comes across as an attempt to use emotion to strong-arm the terms of the discussion, which is poisonous to being able to have a genuine discussion at all.

[franciscanheart]

This thread, guys, this thread

If Nihil (or anyone else) has said something that you guys find questionable, the proper response is usually to either post a substantive critique or to ask questions. Instead, most of the replies to this thread have been variations of, "that's insensitive!"
 
The way I see it is that if there's a topic on a thread that we genuinely feel is too sensitive for us to discuss, the best course of action is just to ignore the thread. This isn't a case of your boss or coworker trying to pester you about stuff. It's totally avoidable. Life's too short to get worked up over these things.

Otherwise it just comes across as an attempt to use emotion to strong-arm the terms of the discussion, which is poisonous to being able to have a genuine discussion at all.

Ultimately, this discussion will be fruitless. Anyone who asks for some empathy or understanding of the part of the homosexual you want to question, is called emotional. Unable to reason. Illogical.

Until acknowledgment is made, nothing will progress. Everyone will continue to talk past each other, hoping upon hope that eventually the other will listen.

Let me say this: WE HEAR YOU. I HEAR YOU. I understand that you think my proximity to the situation is impacting my ability to stay rational, reasonable, and logical. That's your opinion. But your opinion of the feelings I have about the topic at hand change nothing about the facts surrounding it. It does nothing to give your uninformed arguments merit, or to strengthen your image in Christ.

Hasan and Beatitude specifically (who, for the record, are not close friends of mine) have both made beautiful points in response. Perhaps you want to respond to those perfectly calm, well-thought-out posts before you decide that everyone is just an emotional wet rag, unable to have any kind of civilized discussion without devolving into a puddle of pitiful tears?

[PhuturePriest]

All the emotion in this thread is really upsetting my testosterone and its manliness.

[franciscanheart]

Fran, I have those posts you linked to up on my browser, and at my next opportunity I will respond to them as well as I am able. That may be tonight, or it may be tomorrow.

Take your time.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am going to start replying to one post at a time. I am also in class, so it may be a bit slow.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yah. But what you are missing is that sometimes life smells of elderberries in life altering, identity altering ways. I imagine this has never happened to you.

Impotent man is a great example. his inability to have an erection (which has nothing to do with his capacity to form lasting emotional bonds and in every other way fulfill the role of spouse) means he is robbed of the opportunity to fall in love, live with a partner, parent children etc. I imagine he would wake up every day pretty aware of his impotence and how this affects his sexuality.

 

 

I have no doubt that it is awful. But the real question is how do we respond? We cannot change reality; we can only respond to it.

Obviously, for a Catholic, we have to respond in a way that is open to grace and allows for our sanctification. Resignation to the Divine Will.

No, it is not easy. It is the hardest thing in the world, doubly so for those people who suffer from major disorders or tragedies through no fault of their own. But sometimes reality imposes on us obligations that we did not ask for and do not want.

 

I clarified further later, but when we face major disorders and obstacles in life, in my opinion that is a call from God to unite our suffering to that of Christ. The suffering and justification therefrom should be part of our identity, but the sin and brokenness and tragedy that causes the suffering should not to the extent that those sins are not a part of God's active Will.

[Nihil Obstat]

The problem with Mattson is that he reduces sexuality to the biological. This is a huge emphasis of Tushnet and others, that there is a difference in how one relates with the world. I think it's a fair critique in some senses.

I am only somewhat familiar with Ms. Tushnet, but if you have an article handy that really summarizes her position I would be glad to read it.

I do not think - at least from this article - that Mr. Mattson is reducing sexuality to a mere biological reality. I think, rather, that he is rooting his understanding in natural law, of which biology is one aspect. I think it is more accurate to say that a major part of his understanding deals with the complementary of the sexes, which is both biological and, in a transcendent manner, also spiritual.

I think if one is committed to saying that Mattson's position is merely biological, and flawed as a result, one is likewise committed to making the same critique of the Church's position against homosexual acts. But as I said, natural law is more than biology, though biology does play a significant role.