Bisexuality Debate

[Pontifite 7 of 10]

If a person claims to be "bi", having romantic interests in both males and females, if the person doesn't do anything with the same sex, is it evil?
Like, a girl claiming she's "bi" but has had nothing but boyfriends all her life, is she doing something evil?
Debate please.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pontifite 7 of 10' post='1426001' date='Nov 27 2007, 10:47 PM']If a person claims to be "bi", having romantic interests in both males and females, if the person doesn't do anything with the same sex, is it evil?
Like, a girl claiming she's "bi" but has had nothing but boyfriends all her life, is she doing something evil?
Debate please.[/quote]
The person's sexual attractions toward the same sex would be in themselves objectively disordered, but as long as the person did not willfully indulge them, she commits no moral evil. (This is the same principle as with exclusively homosexual inclinations).

This said, I really despise the modern tendency to use one's disordered inclinations as one's identity (calling oneself "gay" or "bi") If a person is capable of heterosexual attraction/intercourse, what is the point of identifying oneself as "bi"? Unfortunately, I think that for some kids today, this has become almost kind of a trendy thing, and people are under the delusion that lesbianism is somehow "sexy."

To paraphrase Batman, it's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.

And it would be wrong for a "bi" person to seek any sort of "romantic" relationship with the same sex, even if not explicitly sexual.

[ironmonk]

Yes.

It's wrong to promote an evil lifestyle. All wrongdoing is sin, sin is evil.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Didymus]

yeah, I would think it would be wrong just because it's promoting the agenda that says that a homosexual lifestyle is okay. but then again if the heterosexual side of their life were nothing but sodomy and fornication, then it would be no different (with regards to sin.)

[prose]

I relate bi-sexuality to hedonism. They can experience pleasure no matter where it comes from.

I think being gay is entirely different.

So I think that if someone declares they are "bi" but only dates men, I think they are creating scandal by placing that label on themselves. Why bother calling yourself "bisexual" if you are not experiencing both genders??

[Lena]

[quote name='Pontifite 7 of 10' post='1426001' date='Nov 27 2007, 09:47 PM']If a person claims to be "bi", having romantic interests in both males and females, if the person doesn't do anything with the same sex, is it evil?
Like, a girl claiming she's "bi" but has had nothing but boyfriends all her life, is she doing something evil?
Debate please.[/quote]


Well "doing something" suggests there is a physical act being committed, but if there isn't then I don't see how it's evil. evil is a strong word anyway.

[carrdero]

[quote]prose writes: I relate bi-sexuality to hedonism. They can experience pleasure no matter where it comes from.[/quote]

I relate bi-sexualty to honesty and someone who has tolerance towards extending and expressing their love towards someone not based on gender.

[quote]Ironmonk writes: It's wrong to promote an evil lifestyle. All wrongdoing is sin, sin is evil.[/quote]

My wife is bi-sexual and though she hasn’t had any experiences since we were married there is no indication that she should feel shameful or sinful nor does she display any evil tendencies.

Edited November 29, 2007 by carrdero

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1426017' date='Nov 27 2007, 11:08 PM']Yes.

It's wrong to promote an evil lifestyle. All wrongdoing is sin, sin is evil.

God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

such a grasp of subtle ties.

soc's response was scholarly though, and well formed.

if the person is claiming they are bi, tauting it, then they are promoting it and it's wrong as per the CC. if they are simply acknowledging they have the tnedency, but aren't going around telling everyone etc, i don't see how you'd call that promoting it.
[mod]Edited for: Personal Attacks/Negative Criticism -- IP[/mod]

maybe saying it in public at all is not good but mentioning it sometimes like to a spouse or priest cannot be bad.
it really dpends on the context as far as what iron is talking about.
maybe what the original post describe is so obviously about flaunting or openly and liberally telling people. i don't see it that way though.
casually telling people is where the debate is as far as iron's main point.

Edited December 1, 2007 by IcePrincessKRS

[track2004]

I think bisexuality is largely misunderstood. It isn't that bi kids would be with anyone (everyone has standards and preferences), it is just that they don't consider gender all that important to falling in love (or whatever).

In the Catholic view of homosexuality and queerness, being bi and never doing anything with a member of the same sex is about as good as one could get.

Personally, I think that The Church should bugger off about what we would like to do or fantasize about doing. If I'm going to be condemned I want to actually do something to earn it.

[Aloysius]

The Church is just following her Divine Founder on that, though, who said "whosoever lusts after a woman in their heart is guilty of adultery"

a big part of the message of Christ was the interior nature of sins in their damage to the soul.

that said, I am of the opinion that a relationship can and should be able to exist in which one of the spouses might be tempted to cheat with a member of their same sex in the same way any spouse is tempted to cheat with a member of the opposite sex. it should be something that the couple is honest with each other about.

there are two aspects to my problem with modern versions of homosexuality.

first, the secular version: I would rather see homosexuality exist as it did in the ancient world, where married men had sexualized frienships with members of the same sex. I do not like the attempt to parallel homosexual relationships to the monogamous institution and make them exclusive.

second, of course, I'd want to Christianize that and label the acts and the desires as sinful and wrong and they need to be rooted out.

but anyway, the important thing in a relationship is to work towards chastity, and the efforts towards chastity ought to be done mutually. the husband chastized by rejecting lustful thoughts for any other person, the wife chastized by rejecting lustful thoughts for any other person. a person who might be labeled "bi" by societies standards could have a very healthy marriage in which he chastizes himself against temptations to anyone else of either sex.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1435162' date='Dec 17 2007, 03:40 AM']The Church is just following her Divine Founder on that, though, who said "whosoever lusts after a woman in their heart is guilty of adultery"

a big part of the message of Christ was the interior nature of sins in their damage to the soul.

that said, I am of the opinion that a relationship can and should be able to exist in which one of the spouses might be tempted to cheat with a member of their same sex in the same way any spouse is tempted to cheat with a member of the opposite sex. it should be something that the couple is honest with each other about.

there are two aspects to my problem with modern versions of homosexuality.

first, the secular version: I would rather see homosexuality exist as it did in the ancient world, where married men had sexualized frienships with members of the same sex. I do not like the attempt to parallel homosexual relationships to the monogamous institution and make them exclusive.

second, of course, I'd want to Christianize that and label the acts and the desires as sinful and wrong and they need to be rooted out.

but anyway, the important thing in a relationship is to work towards chastity, and the efforts towards chastity ought to be done mutually. the husband chastized by rejecting lustful thoughts for any other person, the wife chastized by rejecting lustful thoughts for any other person. a person who might be labeled "bi" by societies standards could have a very healthy marriage in which he chastizes himself against temptations to anyone else of either sex.[/quote]
Good points about Christ's teaching on the Sermon on the Mount.

However, I'm afraid I find this statement rather problematic:
[quote][b]I would rather see homosexuality exist as it did in the ancient world, where married men had sexualized frienships with members of the same sex. I do not like the attempt to parallel homosexual relationships to the monogamous institution and make them exclusive.[/b][/quote]
While, of course, I am against the move to make homosexual "unions" juridicialy equal to marriage, I disagree that it is better that an actively homosexual person be married.

This seems to me to fail to take into account the wife and children. This is like adultery, but worse, because it involves unnatural vice. Homsexuality could have a disasterous effect upon a marriage. And what if a man's "sexualized friendships with the same sex" end up infecting his wife and kids with AIDS or such? (This is actually a real problem in certain parts of the world.)

If someone is unable to control his homosexual urges, quite frankly, he is probably better off not getting married. This is a problem he should get rid of [i]before [/i]exchanging rings and vows. The same could be said also for other serious sexual vices.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='track2004' post='1435152' date='Dec 17 2007, 02:49 AM']Personally, I think that The Church should bugger off about what we would like to do or fantasize about doing. If I'm going to be condemned I want to actually do something to earn it.[/quote]

So then would you tell Jesus to bugger off, too?

[quote]"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

My point was to see these things to be avoided as temptations, but not temptations to alternative monogamies but temptations to sexualized friendships; things to be avoided as such. I understand how the way I worded that could raise some eyebrows... but I do believe that part of the solution to homosexuality is extinguishing the idea of parallel homosexual relationships; the problem needs to be limited to the problem the Church initially faced in condemning homosexual acts, the type of homosexuality expressed by the ancient world being a lesser evil than the type of homosexuality expressed by the modern world.

I am not suggesting that active homosexuals ought to have wives/children whilest being active. And certainly the act of homosexual adultery is objectively worse than the act of heterosexual adultery, but what I am suggesting is that marriages (so long as they are open and honest about it) can exist where the temptation to adultery is partially a homosexual temptation... so long as the one spouse has a true attraction to their spouse and a true devotion to chastity and avoiding those temptations.

The homosexual attraction would have to be as under control as the heterosexual attraction has to be under control for the sake of the chastity of a marriage before getting married, of course.

[track2004]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1435485' date='Dec 18 2007, 12:04 AM']So then would you tell Jesus to bugger off, too?[/quote]

Probably not because I rarely say that aloud. I still want to actually do something to earn my damnation, though, something tangible.

[God Conquers]

I tend to categorize bisexuality under the term "chronic horniness".

I think it's sex obsession couple with same sex attraction very often.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='track2004' post='1436401' date='Dec 20 2007, 12:29 AM']Probably not because I rarely say that aloud. I still want to actually do something to earn my damnation, though, something tangible.[/quote]


Tangible? Just say NO to God. Pretty tangible. Ask Adam and Eve....


Cool thing is that you don't have to earn your salvation (not that anyone could)!

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1426014' date='Nov 27 2007, 10:05 PM']This said, I really despise the modern tendency to use one's disordered inclinations as one's identity (calling oneself "gay" or "bi")[/quote]


I agree with this. I find it sad the way some people use their sexual orientation to define themselves. It such a shallow thing...

[carrdero]

[quote]QUOTE(Socrates @ Nov 27 2007, 10:05 PM)
This said, I really despise the modern tendency to use one's disordered inclinations as one's identity (calling oneself "gay" or "bi")[/quote]

How is this different from people who describe themselves as “straight”, “heterosexual” or “normal”. I also do not see this as being any different from a human who tries to define themselves by their religion denomination. Some people who support the concept of sin require these definitions, it is the only way that they can pass their peculiar brand of uninformed judgment.

Edited December 22, 2007 by carrdero

[Justin86]

[quote name='God Conquers' post='1436446' date='Dec 21 2007, 12:06 AM']I tend to categorize bisexuality under the term "chronic horniness".

I think it's sex obsession couple with same sex attraction very often.[/quote]
Probably not.

Most people who identify themselves as "bisexual" that I've met claim they don't "go all the way" with both sexes. In my view its probably heterosexuality with an obsession over one's own genitalia.

[track2004]

[quote name='God Conquers' post='1436446' date='Dec 20 2007, 10:06 AM']I tend to categorize bisexuality under the term "chronic horniness".

I think it's sex obsession couple with same sex attraction very often.[/quote]

Bisexuality is largely misunderstood by the general public. Just because someone may find both genders sexually attractive doesn't mean they'd find everyone sexually attractive. No one finds everyone else attractive, everyone has standards and preferences.