This isn't ok.

[hyperdulia again]

I really dn't think sexual orientation is decided by genes in any kind of determinist way--nonetheless it is beyond annoyng when people make absolute statements about things that simply are not absolute.

Homosexuality is genetic= (usually) someone propogating gay rights or some other modernist vaguery
Homosexuality is not genetic=(almost always) someone who on a whole range of issues takes basically conservative positions and tries to raise them to the level of dogmatic teaching. Either by directly saying so or by suggesting so.

I believe..., but the Church does not require you to believe...=someone propogating church teaching.

[Oik]

Hyper, in our culture, we want to protect others (and our selves from harm).

As Catholics, we don't advocate hatred.

However, we will all be judged according to whether or not we have led others to Christ or a way from Christ.

To say "I believe, but the Church does not require you to believe" is relativism and that is not compatible.

Jesus said, "I am the Bread of Life."

We must speak authoritativly and as Saint Paul says, be willing to give an count of our Faith.

Our Faith teaches that engauging in the Homosexual act is a sin.

Our Faith also teaches that lust is a sin.

Actively entaining the idea of having sex with someone whom you are not married to, whether they are the same or opposite of your sex, is sinful.

[Oik]

Furthermore, I am still confused how one can identify oneself as being gay and not act on it.

Your identity is Christ.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Oik' date='Dec 20 2004, 03:13 AM'] Hyper, in our culture, we want to protect others (and our selves from harm).

As Catholics, we don't advocate hatred.

However, we will all be judged according to whether or not we have led others to Christ or a way from Christ.

To say "I believe, but the Church does not require you to believe" is relativism and that is not compatible.

Jesus said, "I am the Bread of Life."

We must speak authoritativly and as Saint Paul says, be willing to give an count of our Faith.

Our Faith teaches that engauging in the Homosexual act is a sin.

Our Faith also teaches that lust is a sin.

Actively entaining the idea of having sex with someone whom you are not married to, whether they are the same or opposite of your sex, is sinful. [/quote]
I think what Hyper meant by "I believe... but the Church does not require...." is that the Church does not require us to hold one set of beliefs about what causes same sex attractions. He holds a belief about what causes it but no one is required to believe what he thinks or what anyone else thinks causes it.

Hyper holds all that the Church teaches to be true and sacred, no doubt about that.

As for how someone can identify themselves as gay and not act on it, I'd say that requires alot of strength of will and even more than that Grace from God. While in our general terminology the word seems to indicate sexually active homosexuals and not those striving to be celibate we can't always be too quick to "jump the gun" when we see the term used.

[hyperdulia again]

'To say "I believe, but the Church does not require you to believe" is relativism and that is not compatible.'

The above is limited to the conversation at hand, One can believe that homosexuality is caused by martians, the Church does not require anyone else to believe that it is and other than from a mental health standpoint she is not concerned a/b the first person's belief. The Church does not request or encourage, but commands her children to not engage in sexual activty outside of marriage. Marriage is an impossibility for two persons of the same sex.

Now regarding your question on my personal life, I am simply not engaging in any such convo on this forum--it tends to lead to hurt feelings.

My identity is a sinner, foul, fallen, unlovable, but still loved by the One Who Is Love.

[hyperdulia again]

and what katie said.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[qfnol31]

I was taught that "gay" is a way of describing the attraction while "homosexual" means you act on it..

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 20 2004, 03:35 AM'] I was taught that "gay" is a way of describing the attraction while "homosexual" means you act on it.. [/quote]
Look them up on dictionary.com... it gives "Usage notes" for both terms which might explain why you were taught that (mainly some people feel that the word "homosexual" places more emphasis on sexuality than "gay" or "lesbian" and that the latter two terms "stress cultural and social matters over sex").

Anywho, back to the topic at hand.....

[Oik]

Okay, I understand the I believe, the Church doesn't require...part.

I still don't understand how an individual can identify themselves as a homosexual and be in line with the Church.

Frankly, I wish you would get into your life if it's going to help me understand.

I think we talked about this on another post before.

My mother let my family to live with her gay lover.

I love my mother and we have a great realtionship. She knows where I stand and what the Church teaches. So you can talk to me about homosexuality all you want.

I think it's easy for people to forget that not everyone out there just thinks things because they haven't had any experience with it. (I am NOT speaking specifically)

[quote] My identity is a sinner, foul, fallen, unlovable, but still loved by the One Who Is Love.[/quote]

So your a Human being? Me too!

[quote]I'd say that requires alot of strength of will and even more than that Grace from God.[/quote]

See, this is where the conversation about homosexuality goes down here. This always makes the discussion about whether it's "innate" or not.

God created everything and saw that it was good.

Man is created to be good and be in communion with God.

To imply that homosexuality is innate seems to imply that Adam or Eve or the Virgin Mary could have "been homosexual". If it's innate, then that's possible right? If it's only sinful to act on it, then it's possible that they all struggled with that, right?

[hyperdulia again]

You do not seem to grasp the Church's teaching here. I'm responding to the part that is in the most urgent need of response, then I'm going to bed. Maybe tomorrow I will respond, maybe I won't sign on until '05 I dunno.

"To imply that homosexuality is innate seems to imply that Adam or Eve or the Virgin Mary could have "been homosexual". If it's innate, then that's possible right? If it's only sinful to act on it, then it's possible that they all struggled with that, right?"

Re: the Virgin. Mary's nature in any event was an unfallen one. Therefore it seems to me that she wouldn't have had the inclination towards sin (at least not in any way that we could understand) so my answer is no. But what if she did? How do you define homosexual? She and Her Son were both tempted in the same ways we all are. They never fell into sin and had no inclination towards sin; but both were tempted. In both cases I could see it making theological sense that they (especially Our Lord) were literally tempted by Satan in every way that He tempts us all.

[hyperdulia again]

Ya know I'm sitting here thinking...I'm really not sure wo is more obsessed with homosexuality. My active friends, or heterosexuals..both groups seem to spend a lot more tme tinking about this than I do. I am satisfied being obedient to the Church.

My personal opinions, my inclinations, my thought process, my opinion, my shibboleths mean nothing. I am dust. Holy Church is immortal. Christ is eternal. And suddenly I feel positively giddy on grace. Church teaching matters, not the opinion of any human being. You all have fun. And thank you. I'm done with this thread.

Please remember to pray for the scientologists and the homosexuals and the liberas and the conservatives and well everybody.

God Bless and Mary Keep

Michael

[Oik]

[quote]She and Her Son were both tempted in the same ways we all are.[/quote]
I agree that Christ was tempted with all that we were tempted with, but not in the same way. There was no chance that Christ would have chosen sin.

[quote]They never fell into sin and had no inclination towards sin; but both were tempted.[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote]In both cases I could see it making theological sense that they (especially Our Lord) were literally tempted by Satan in every way that He tempts us all. [/quote]

There was no chance of Jesus sinning. The Virgin Mary was able to sin. Through the Grace of God, she was presevered. I agree that a case could be made that Satan tempted Jesus and Mary to sin.

[Oik]

I am satisfied being obidient to the Church as well.

"Homosexuality" is a major issue in our time, so accusing people of being obsessed with it seems a bit over the top. It's in the news, it's in the Church, it's even in elementary schools now.

I want to do God's Will and that's all.

[quote]Church teaching matters, not the opinion of any human being. You all have fun. And thank you. I'm done with this thread.[/quote]

Sorry not to be able to talk with you more. God Bless.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Dec 20 2004, 03:20 AM'] You do not seem to grasp the Church's teaching here. I'm responding to the part that is in the most urgent need of response, then I'm going to bed. Maybe tomorrow I will respond, maybe I won't sign on until '05 I dunno.

"To imply that homosexuality is innate seems to imply that Adam or Eve or the Virgin Mary could have "been homosexual". If it's innate, then that's possible right? If it's only sinful to act on it, then it's possible that they all struggled with that, right?"

Re: the Virgin. Mary's nature in any event was an unfallen one. Therefore it seems to me that she wouldn't have had the inclination towards sin (at least not in any way that we could understand) so my answer is no. But what if she did? How do you define homosexual? She and Her Son were both tempted in the same ways we all are. They never fell into sin and had no inclination towards sin; but both were tempted. In both cases I could see it making theological sense that they (especially Our Lord) were literally tempted by Satan in every way that He tempts us all. [/quote]
Rest assured Our Lord and Our Lady did not struggle with homosexual temptations!
I find this suggestion blasphemous.

[hyperdulia again]

And here we go again.

I actually think it's kind of blasphemous to drag the sacred names into these things, but once they are, I really don't know what one expects.

If my statement was blasphemous, then I need more than how you "find it". I need the voice of the Church. Has She said that it is blasphemous to suggest that the temptaion of Christ might have *gasp* actually involved temptaion to commit some indecent act, murder, blasphemy, etc.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 20 2004, 10:38 PM'] Rest assured Our Lord and Our Lady did not struggle with homosexual temptations!
I find this suggestion blasphemous. [/quote]
Are you sure?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 20 2004, 10:19 PM'] Are you sure? [/quote]
Of course they didn't struggle with such disordered inclinations, because neither of them were subject to concupiscence.

God bless,
Todd

[qfnol31]

Oh duh. LoL.

Thanx.

Edited December 21, 2004 by qfnol31

[hyperdulia again]

Now we are making headway. Neither suffered from the inclinaton to sin, right? Does one have to be inclined towards what Satan tepts us with? I am not particularly inclined towards murder, but recently the temptation to the act has made its presence felt.

Marry and CChrist can't have strggled to resist temptation, but why can they not have been tempted? Is homosexuality the only sin we feel this way about or have we decided that they were tempted with nothing by no one?