The Politics of Homosexuality

[Snarf]

Please, everyone, read [url="http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/sull.htm"]The Politics of Homosexuality[/url]

I confess, I don't know Sullivan's life story, I don't know his polity, I don't know his stances on faith, et cetera, et cetera. But regardless, this was assigned reading for me at the University of Chicago in a class called Power, Identity, Resistance. In it, Sullivan discusses four political view of homosexuality, and the affect of each. He then proposes a fifth one, an ideal.

The first view is that homosexuality is an outright choice by people who are either psychologically vulnerable or subversive. The subversive must be punished, the sick must be cured. This is essentially the view I perceive most often on these boards.

The second view is that homosexuality is a choice, but it is also a right and an affirmation of one's chosen identity. There is no shame in homosexuality in this view, and therefore it should be encouraged at large.

The third view is that homosexuality is something that should simply not be discussed, an ugly step-child that should stay in the basement. "They are not intolerant, but they oppose the presence of openly gay teachers in school; they have gay friends but hope their child isn't homosexual; they are in favor of ending the military ban but would seek to do so either by reimposing the closet

The fourth view recognizes that homosexuality is for many individuals not a choice, but they wish to marginalize such victims as being a minority and thus in yet another way "different". They preach tolerance, but nevertheless either differentiate homosexuals from the norm or else try to ignore the issue completely.

The hypothetical ideal "begins with the view that for a small minority of people, homosexuality is an involuntary condition that can neither be deniednor permanently repressed." This idea "affirms a simple and limited criterion: that all public (as opposed to private) discrimination against homosexuals be ended and that every right and responsibility that heterosexuals enjoy by virtue of the state be extended to those who grow up different."

I've seen members of this board kick and scream that homosexuality is not inherited and that it is a choice. Perhaps this does represent a certain minority of homosexuals, but I find that view to be, when applied to the whole of all persons afflicted with homosexuality, to be naive, insensitive, and uncharitable. I've known many homosexuals since beginning in college, and a handful since high school. Why do you think anyone would choose that way of life? Yeah, there was the metrosexual fad, but that was nothing that permeates one's identity.

I agree that homosexuality runs contrary to nature. However, that doesn't make it voluntary in absolutely every scenario. For many people, being oriented in a certain way is not a choice. It is their responsibility to live morally and well, and for many the de facto resolution is chastity.

Thus, as I understand it, I agree with the current priesthood ban. It would be absolutely asinine to ban men from the priesthood because of their orientation, when a priest is in ideal LACKING sexual orientation. How many men, do you think, historically noted their lack of attraction in women, and applied it positively to a life of chastity in the religious orders?

The ban barrs anyone who is a PRACTICING or recently such homosexual from becoming a priest. But that should be applied to heterosexuals as well, as their is virtually no difference in the eyes of God unless the seminarian was previously married. An abuse of sexuality by a heterosexual should be no different than an abuse of sexuality by a homosexual.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 8 2005, 09:20 PM']Please, everyone, read [url="http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/sull.htm"]The Politics of Homosexuality[/url]

I confess, I don't know Sullivan's life story, I don't know his polity, I don't know his stances on faith, et cetera, et cetera.  But regardless, this was assigned reading for me at the University of Chicago in a class called Power, Identity, Resistance.  In it, Sullivan discusses four political view of homosexuality, and the affect of each.  He then proposes a fifth one, an ideal.

The first view is that homosexuality is an outright choice by people who are either psychologically vulnerable or subversive.  The subversive must be punished, the sick must be cured.  This is essentially the view I perceive most often on these boards.

The second view is that homosexuality is a choice, but it is also a right and an affirmation of one's chosen identity.  There is no shame in homosexuality in this view, and therefore it should be encouraged at large.

The third view is that homosexuality is something that should simply not be discussed, an ugly step-child that should stay in the basement.  "They are not intolerant, but they oppose the presence of openly gay teachers in school; they have gay friends but hope their child isn't homosexual; they are in favor of ending the military ban but would seek to do so either by reimposing the closet

The fourth view recognizes that homosexuality is for many individuals not a choice, but they wish to marginalize such victims as being a minority and thus in yet another way "different".  They preach tolerance, but nevertheless either differentiate homosexuals from the norm or else try to ignore the issue completely.

The hypothetical ideal "begins with the view that for a small minority of people, homosexuality is an involuntary condition that can neither be deniednor permanently repressed."  This idea "affirms a simple and limited criterion: that all public (as opposed to private) discrimination against homosexuals be ended and that every right and responsibility that heterosexuals enjoy by virtue of the state be extended to those who grow up different."

I've seen members of this board kick and scream that homosexuality is not inherited and that it is a choice.  Perhaps this does represent a certain minority of homosexuals, but I find that view to be, when applied to the whole of all persons afflicted with homosexuality, to be naive, insensitive, and  uncharitable.  I've known many homosexuals since beginning in college, and a handful since high school.  Why do you think anyone would choose that way of life?  Yeah, there was the metrosexual fad, but that was nothing that permeates one's identity.

I agree that homosexuality runs contrary to nature.  However, that doesn't make it voluntary in absolutely every scenario.  For many people, being oriented in a certain way is not a choice.  It is their responsibility to live morally and well, and for many the de facto resolution is chastity.

Thus, as I understand it, I agree with the current priesthood ban.  It would be absolutely asinine to ban men from the priesthood because of their orientation, when a priest is in ideal LACKING sexual orientation.  How many men, do you think, historically noted their lack of attraction in women, and applied it positively to a life of chastity in the religious orders?

The ban barrs anyone who is a PRACTICING or recently such homosexual from becoming a priest.  But that should be applied to heterosexuals as well, as their is virtually no difference in the eyes of God unless the seminarian was previously married.  An abuse of sexuality by a heterosexual should be no different than an abuse of sexuality by a homosexual.
[right][snapback]817625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
First theory:It is a disorder, its not natural, and if it can be cured why shouldn't it be? They are psychologically more vulnerable, more prone to depression etc.

The second view is asking homosexual people to identify themselves as normal, and it is not.

The third view seems to be the view of most people in general. I wouldn't one of my children to have SSA either, no parent would.

The fourth one is against catholic teaching in that no one is a marginal human being, all have dignity granted by God. However. homosexuality is about 2% of the population and not normal , it is a dis-order of nature.

The fifth one again seeks to normalize somethng that is not normal, and extend rights which are not possible to extend to homosexual individuals such as marriage.

There is no proof that SSA is inherited, and as the Catholic Church states the origins are not clear. Mostly likely it arises from issues in the womb or early psychological development. No one here [ that I know of] unequivically states that homosexuality is a clear choice for people, or has been naive or uncharitable. In fact, as catholics, we make clear differentation between orientation and activity, unlike other groups who automatically condemn homosexuals to hell.

As to your last point we agree.
The church wants no priest was is not totally chaste and never has, and the rules have always been applied that way.

[PadreSantiago]

why do you hate america?

[Theoketos]

I actually do not think that the link is approperiate. Snarf did a good enough job summing up Mr. Sullivan's critique.

To Sullivan's credit he is very logical and has valid conculsions, however they are based on false principles.

He says rightly that marriage is heterosexual only if it is linked intrinsically to procreation. And then he says that in West we have abandoned procreation as sacred, so why not accept homosexuality.

However, he does nothing to answer the claim that the Church and the Natural Moral Law have never seperated procreation from Marriage he just assumes that they should, based largely on the fact that SSA is not immidiately voluntary.

I would answer that just because something is involuntary does not mean it is naturally good.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Dec 9 2005, 10:16 AM']why do you hate america?
[right][snapback]818127[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This comment makes absoutely no sense in this thread.

[Matty_boy]

The author mentions "trapping" homosexuals in sexual behavior in parks and public restrooms as though it's a mean-spirited prank for the ake of arrest and prosecution. The author does not recognize that a willingness to engage in sex acts in public places is despicable in itself.

[Didacus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 9 2005, 09:22 AM']This comment makes absoutely no sense in this thread.
[right][snapback]818135[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think he means that accepting homosexuality is part of the American dream and that not accepting it as such is a hate crime....

[photosynthesis]

i don't think my view on homosexuality is included in Sullivan's 5 theories...

I mostly agree with the first view, except I don't believe it is always a choice. There is no scientific proof that genetics causes homosexuality, but it could be true and so I wouldn't rule it out. Also, sometimes circumstances outside someone's control can shape someone to resort to homosexuality, even if naturally their orientation is heterosexual. Often people in the homosexual lifestyle are that way because they were sexually abused, or they came from a broken family, and often it is difficult to heal from homosexuality unless they heal from the things that caused their homosexuality. I don't believe it's an outright choice for all homosexuals

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Dec 9 2005, 09:18 AM']I actually do not think that the link is approperiate. Snarf did a good enough job summing up Mr. Sullivan's critique.

To Sullivan's credit he is very logical and has valid conculsions, however they are based on false principles.

He says rightly that marriage is heterosexual only if it is linked intrinsically to procreation. And then he says that in West we have abandoned procreation as sacred, so why not accept homosexuality.

However, he does nothing to answer the claim that the Church and the Natural Moral Law have never seperated procreation from Marriage he just assumes that they should, based largely on the fact that SSA is not immidiately voluntary.

I would answer that just because something is involuntary does not mean it is naturally good.
[right][snapback]818128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed.

I take much of Sullivan's writings with a grain of salt. He is a Catholic but has his own viewpoint about how the Church should be -- i.e. he thinks the church should "change."

I personally do not think that homosexuality is an outright choice, necessarily. Sometimes people "experiment" or go through developmental phases, or have become sexually abused, which might distort their sexuality. But I don't think everyone that is born gay necessarily "chooses" it. But the origins of it are beside the point. The church differentiates between the origins and very state of homosexuality, and the acting upon the inclination itself, which is what is forbidden.

Apparently Sullivan views this as being repressive -- but we are all imperfect humans, with all kinds of inclinations that we shouldn't act upon. Just because I feel like slapping someone who insults me on the street doesn't mean I should act on it. Christians view acts of homosexuality to be objectively wrong and incompatible with Christian living, and that is what Sullivan seems to take almost a personal offense at. (He certainly didn't have anything very nice to say about the new pope -- he said Benedict was as bad as John Paul, but "without the redeeming qualities".)

I disagree with him in that I do not view marriage as a right that everyone is entitled to. It is like having children -- a privilege and with it comes great responsibility. I blame the carelessness and mockery made by heterosexuals on the institution of marriage for the undermining of it -- Vegas marriages, divorce at the drop of a hat, contraceptive mentalities (take out any procreative aspect of marriage -- thereby leaving people with the belief that of COURSE you can have a marriage without children...marriage and familly life don't have to intertwine...) et cetera. They've done more to destroy the Christian concept marriage and family moreso than homosexuals -- they've chipped the foundation down enough that gays can step up and say "How would we, by marrying, seem any worse than them?"

[avemaria40]

I don't think people necessarily choose to be gay, and i don't think it can be changed, but no matter your sexuality, you're called to live in chastity, whether you're married, straight, gay, bi, priest, religious, single, w/e. And we should also remember that we have a calling to make sure people know of the dignity and sanctity of marriage and family, and also, not to judge people who are gay, but to pray and lead by example. We don't have to approve or defend the gay lifestyle, but we are called to tolerance and compassion. That said, I still don't approve of gay marriage, and I hate that ppl think the Catholic Church should just change their minds about the issue. Haven't they realized the Church is not a democracy and can't just simply change her doctrines and dogmas at will? It annoys me so much when ppl say that.

[Snarf]

My stance on gay marriage is that marriage should have nothing to do with government, and government should be as morally libertarian as possible. I'm not saying abortion is okay, because we define an embryo as possessing a distinct life. So, I support gay civil unions in a strictly secular sense, though I would never hope for the Church to ever allow gay marriage.

Yes, gay civil union encourages a sinful lifestyle, but it's not the responsibility of the state to regulate one's sinfulness until it infringes on the immediate rights of others.

Edit: I don't hate America. My signature comes from an episode of The Critic, and I was hoping everyone could recognize the sarcasm therein.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Snarf

[Didacus]

THUNDER THUNDER THUNDER CAAAAATTTTTSSSSSS!!!!




(sorry)

[Laudate_Dominum]

The concept of gay marriage strikes me a contradiction. Unless by it one simply means merry and joyful marriage. In this sense, I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Dec 9 2005, 12:37 PM']THUNDER THUNDER THUNDER CAAAAATTTTTSSSSSS!!!!
(sorry)
[right][snapback]818477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]





[quote]The concept of gay marriage strikes me a contradiction. Unless by it one simply means merry and joyful marriage. In this sense, I'm a strong supporter of gay marriage.[/quote]

[img]http://www.ezthemes.com/previews/f/flinstones-updated.jpg[/img]

We'll have a gay old time!

[scardella]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 9 2005, 10:07 AM']i don't think my view on homosexuality is included in Sullivan's 5 theories...

I mostly agree with the first view, except I don't believe it is always a choice.  There is no scientific proof that genetics causes homosexuality, but it could be true and so I wouldn't rule it out.  Also, sometimes circumstances outside someone's control can shape someone to resort to homosexuality, even if naturally their orientation is heterosexual.  Often people in the homosexual lifestyle are that way because they were sexually abused, or they came from a broken family, and often it is difficult to heal from homosexuality unless they heal from the things that caused their homosexuality.  I don't believe it's an outright choice for all homosexuals
[right][snapback]818180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ditto.

It's irrelevant how they got that way. It's still disordered.

I just had an odd thought: why is it that people can recognize genetic disorders (I'm fuzzy on those, sorry!) and genetic dispositions as being bad and they have a brain fluffy air extraction when they argue that homosexual lifestyle is ok "because they're born that way." It's inconsistent. If someone is ok because they're born that way, well, it opens up a nice little pandora's box...


BTW, the economics of homosexuality is interesting too, esp. considering something I heard regarding Ford's advertising. Basically, homosexuals, because they are not gonna have kids unless they adopt, wind up having more disposable income than heterosexual couples who do have kids...

Edited December 9, 2005 by scardella

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 9 2005, 02:37 PM'][img]http://www.ezthemes.com/previews/f/flinstones-updated.jpg[/img]
We'll have a gay old time!
[right][snapback]818747[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


dang, I hope my marriage is as gay as theirs.

[Nathan]

PadreSantiago has quite a nerve accusing other people of hating America.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 8 2005, 08:20 PM']Please, everyone, read [url="http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/sull.htm"]The Politics of Homosexuality[/url]

I confess, I don't know Sullivan's life story, I don't know his polity, I don't know his stances on faith, et cetera, et cetera.[/quote]
Unfortunately, I am familiar with Sullivan and his agenda. He's a common "talking head" in the media. He's a "Catholic," a Republican, and used to be a "conservative" commentator, but since "coming out of the closet," he's had a single-track obsession with his homosexuality and demanding that the Church change her moral teachings on this issue. He's become a rather typical moral liberal, who is fanatically opposed to the "religious right," even joining in with the "Passion"-bashing crowd, negatively (and absurdly) comparing Mel Gibson's film to Moore's "Farenheight 911."

[quote]The hypothetical ideal "begins with the view that for a small minority of people, homosexuality is an involuntary condition that can neither be deniednor permanently repressed."  This idea "affirms a simple and limited criterion: that all public (as opposed to private) discrimination against homosexuals be ended and that every right and responsibility that heterosexuals enjoy by virtue of the state be extended to those who grow up different."[/quote]
Seems they already do.

[quote]I've seen members of this board kick and scream that homosexuality is not inherited and that it is a choice.  Perhaps this does represent a certain minority of homosexuals, but I find that view to be, when applied to the whole of all persons afflicted with homosexuality, to be naive, insensitive, and  uncharitable.  I've known many homosexuals since beginning in college, and a handful since high school.  Why do you think anyone would choose that way of life?  Yeah, there was the metrosexual fad, but that was nothing that permeates one's identity.

I agree that homosexuality runs contrary to nature.  However, that doesn't make it voluntary in absolutely every scenario.  For many people, being oriented in a certain way is not a choice.  It is their responsibility to live morally and well, and for many the de facto resolution is chastity.[/quote]
Whether or not it is voluntary is completely irrelevent to the issue here.

[quote]Thus, as I understand it, I agree with the current priesthood ban.  It would be absolutely asinine to ban men from the priesthood because of their orientation, when a priest is in ideal LACKING sexual orientation.  How many men, do you think, historically noted their lack of attraction in women, and applied it positively to a life of chastity in the religious orders?

The ban barrs anyone who is a PRACTICING or recently such homosexual from becoming a priest.  But that should be applied to heterosexuals as well, as their is virtually no difference in the eyes of God unless the seminarian was previously married.  An abuse of sexuality by a heterosexual should be no different than an abuse of sexuality by a homosexual.
[right][snapback]817625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Vatican document says specifically that those with "deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" should be barred fro the priesthood. This reaffirms what was said in a 1962 document.
The issue is not simply whether the priest commits homosexual acts, but the whole problem of sexual/psychological maturity of which homosexual attraction is a symptom.

In 1985 Card. Baum, who was head of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education stated in a Memorandum to the U.S. BIshops:

"A high standard of chastity and integration of the personality is required before admission to a seminary, such that latent or repressed homosexuality is also a counterindication requiring that the candidate not be accepted -- it would not be fair to the individual nor to the seminary community."

Says Bishop D'Arcy against allowing homosexually oriented candidates into the seminary:

[quote]To be happy, a priest must be convinced in his heart that he would be a good father and a good husband.  Like marriage, the priesthood involves making a gift of oneself to another.  Pope John Paul II called it an [i]'officicium caritatus[/i],' that is, an office of love.  It cannot be an escape for someone who is afraid of marriage, believed he would not be happy in marriage or would not be a good spouse or father.

The priest gives up something very beautiful--a lifelong relationship with a good woman, children and grandchildren, needs that are deep within our humanity.  He gives it up for something beautiful -- to be a priest and shepherd after the heart of Christ.  He must believe that Christ is calling him.

It is a sacrifice.  It is not supposed to be a sacrifice in the same way for a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.  He is not drawn to marriage in the same way.  Thus, immediately, there is a division in the priesthood.[/quote]

Says Catholic psychologist Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg:

[quote]I agree with the formula Auxiliary Bishop Andreas Laun of Salzburg, a man who tries to help people with homosexual problems both charitably and realistically.  Candidates for the priesthood should be well-balanced heterosexual men.  That is an indispensable condition for functioning optimally in contact with those who are married and who are preparing for marriage.[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 9 2005, 12:07 PM']My stance on gay marriage is that marriage should have nothing to do with government, and government should be as morally libertarian as possible.  I'm not saying abortion is okay, because we define an embryo as possessing a distinct life.  So, I support gay civil unions in a strictly secular sense, though I would never hope for the Church to ever allow gay marriage.

Yes, gay civil union encourages a sinful lifestyle, but it's not the responsibility of the state to to regulate one's sinfulness until it infringes on the immediate rights of others.
[right][snapback]818384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The idea that government should be completely divorced from morality is a foolish, false, and completely un-Catholic idea.

Law and governence never exists in a moral vaccum. It either supports or acts contrary to the Natural Law of God.
And even the most deistic of the American founding fathers realized this.

What defines the "rights of others"? What about the right of people to live lives and raise families without being constantly assaulted by perversion and immorality?

And even if you claim the state may not "regulate one's sinfulness," why is it required to give sinfulness and perversion legal benefits and honor??
This is nonsense.

This absurd line of thinking is what is dragging the world deeper and deeper into moral insanity.

A government that makes no distinction between right and wrong becomes an evil and tyrannical government.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 9 2005, 07:42 PM']
A government that makes no distinction between right and wrong becomes an evil and tyrannical government.
[right][snapback]819053[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So does a government that decides to define right and wrong on its own terms.