Homosexuals And Our Attitude Towards Them

[socalscout]

Does the Church recognize that homosexuality is not a choice? If so why do I see so many Christians here on this forum and in many Catholic writings and websites really berate homosexuals. I mean I am seeing some very judgmental people really laying into homosexuals as a whole and accusing them of being sinful people.

I am just glazing over pretty much what many Christians say about homosexuals. I saw a guy call it a “defect” on this forum and that comment implies that God makes defects.

It seems to me the majority of Christians assume that the homosexual is performing homosexual acts. Would I assume that since we are heterosexual that every unmarried person on this forum is performing fornication or some sexual act? Am I to assume every teenage heterosexual boy is masturbating and is therefore a sinner? Should we have a debate on whether that boy should have “rights”?

Don’t get me wrong I believe that marriage is reserved for a man and woman and parades, TV shows etc. that glorifies the sins of homosexuality is as much immoral to me as watching roommates having premarital sex on “The Real World” or all of those stupid dating shows or soap operas.

It seems to me to be ok to hate the sin AND the sinner when it comes to speaking about homosexuals. I can see where people might think that someone who comes “out” is glorifying a sin but is that what really is happening? I’m sure there are some that do but it could be a very personal thing that helps them cope with the fact they are expected to be celibate for the rest of their lives. I thought about this and they are the only group of people who have no choice but to be celibate and not experience the love that heterosexuals can experience in the Sacrament of Marriage. The bachelor/ette vocation is a choice for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

I would think given all that they would get a lot more empathy from us than they do. A lot more encouragement to fight the good fight everyday. A few “atta boys” for trying. But no they mostly get ridicule and scorn. Why is that?

Edited June 27, 2008 by socalscout

[jmjtina]

[quote]Does the Church recognize that homosexuality is not a choice?[/quote]

Are you implying that it is genetic? It has yet to be determined by science. Even the lead researcher in genetics has doubts that it is genetic.

Regardless, many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

The Catholic Church teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: [url="http://couragerc.net"]http://couragerc.net[/url]

for more from Catholic Answers click [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp"]here[/url].

Edited June 27, 2008 by jmjtina

[socalscout]

[quote name='jmjtina' post='1585034' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:12 PM']Are you implying that it is genetic? It has yet to be determined by science. Even the lead researcher in genetics has doubts that it is genetic.

Regardless, many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

The Catholic Church teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: [url="http://couragerc.net"]http://couragerc.net[/url]

for more from Catholic Answers click [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp"]here[/url].[/quote]

What you have said is that we still do not know why homosexuals are homosexuals least of all heterosexuals.It does not matter whether it is conditioned or inborn if the homosexual does not see a choice without betraying his/her true feeling then it makes no difference how those feelings originated. We know homosexual acts are sinful but that does not make a homosexual sinful.

The question you failed to answer was; Why is it percieved to be ok, as Christians, to act the way we do towards homosexuals?

[Adrestia]

IMHO, some of the uncharitable content may be the result of different semantics. For example, I have read posts where person A defines "homosexuality" as acting on "same sex attraction (SSA)" while person B defines "homosexuality" as having "same sex attraction," but not necessarily acting on it. This can lead to confusion and misunderstandings.

Also, person A may believe that SSA is a disorder. If person B disagrees, does that mean that person A is uncharitable? It can be very difficult to interpret a person's intent in this context. Person B may then assume that person A is judgmental, but that assumption may also be uncharitable.

I don't buy the argument that to say that SSA (or anything else, for that matter) is a defect implies that God makes defects. We're all sinners, we all have struggles. It would take me days to list all my defects... God still made me perfect in His image.

[socalscout]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1585049' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:36 PM']IMHO, some of the uncharitable content may be the result of different semantics. For example, I have read posts where person A defines "homosexuality" as acting on "same sex attraction (SSA)" while person B defines "homosexuality" as having "same sex attraction," but not necessarily acting on it. This can lead to confusion and misunderstandings.

Also, person A may believe that SSA is a disorder. If person B disagrees, does that mean that person A is uncharitable? It can be very difficult to interpret a person's intent in this context. Person B may then assume that person A is judgmental, but that assumption may also be uncharitable.

I don't buy the argument that to say that SSA (or anything else, for that matter) is a defect implies that God makes defects. We're all sinners, we all have struggles. It would take me days to list all my defects... God still made me perfect in His image.[/quote]

I see what you mean but that works when referring to homosexuality not homosexual.

But to use the term "homosexul" is pretty straight forward and that is what I really am talking about. It is the joing of homosexual and homosexuality. The cardinality of that statement implies that the homosexual cannot exist without homosexuality but actually the cardinality is that homosexual can exist without homosexuality and homosexuality cannot exist without homosexual unless you consider a hetero who commits homosexuality to actually still remain heterosexual then they can be exclusive.

Yes to say homosexuality is a defect does imply that God makes defects which is wrong so therefore homosexuality cannot be called a "defect" At least not a birth defect. right?

Edited June 27, 2008 by socalscout

[CatherineM]

The church teaches a lot of things that not all Catholics are on board about. There are people here who want to debate birth control or female priests, when both are well established as to what the church teaches and expects.

I am sometimes saddened when people who are obviously very devout in our faith lack charity when it comes to those who don't believe or aren't the same way as we are. That can mean other Christian denominations, other faiths, non-believers, those who can't or won't follow the church's teachings on moral issues, and/or those whose ideas of social justice don't agree with their political ideals.

What's most frustrating is that when dealing with someone who either doesn't agree with the church's teaching on an issue, or doesn't understand it, or doesn't want to understand it, they really often times don't want to be confused with the truth.

I am well versed in the church's teachings when it comes to same sex attraction. I am opposed to gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals. Every gay client I dealt with, I encouraged them to read John Harvey's books on the Courage ministry even if they weren't Catholic. Those that feel an extreme animosity towards those born with SSA would do well to read these books as well.

[Aloysius]

the solution is to NOT CALL THEM HOMOSEXUALS. It is a terrible injustice that a certain group of people in our society has been labelled with such a narrowminded term in and of itself. There are two categories of humans in our society: males and females. I not only wish to treat those who identify themselves as 'homosexual' with equal human respect as anyone else, I want to treat those who identify themselves as 'gay men' equally with every male of the human species and not look upon them differently. same thing with 'lesbians', I wish to treat them as I would treat any female of the human species.

there are people who have, as one trait among many of their personality traits, something which is properly classified as a sexual fetish: same sex attraction. I do not respect their wish to identify themselves by this fetish any more than I respect the wish of any person who wishes to identify themself by a fetish of theirs... and there are a lot of doozies out there.

the idea of a certain group of people who are exclusively attracted to the same sex and cannot be anything else is as ridiculous to me as the idea of a group of people who are exclusively aroused by feet (there is such a thing as a foot fetish). traditional pre-Christian societies all tended to recognize the spectrum of attraction and how males could come to be attracted to other males... but very rarely if ever was someone considered to exclusively have to only have sex with other males then. It's actually a bastardization of the Christian project of monogamy that has indirectly caused this beast by which all of the sudden if anyone has attraction to someone of the same sex they are labelled "homosexual" and it is declared that it would be unhealthy for them to engage in any other lifestyle than one which includes gay sex and likely committed gay relationships.

now, of course, I do not mean to diminish the struggle of those who have, because of a combination of their brain chemistry and the conditioning of their culture, become exclusively attracted to members of their same sex. there are two levels of that: there is the base animal attraction level, and then there is the higher level of human reason. so many come to the point where they have the high ideal in mind that they would like to engage in the natural human function of sex for the formation of a family but their base attraction doesn't sync up with it. that's probably one of the hardest struggles in our modern culture, because not many on either side of the fence are really offering them help. there's the fundies who want to do repression-based therapy... there's the Christians who have accepted secular culture's story and ask them to simply give up on that high ideal for marriage family, then there's the secular culture which tells them they'll be miserable unless they give up that high ideal and try to replace it by mixing gay sex with some concept of monogamy (there is no reason gay relationships should be monogamous according to human social structure except that it has grown up around Christian culture and wishes to emulate that model) and adoption.

few and far between are those who really understand that these people just need to be treated like their own gender... and that the best way is not to directly fight it (it may sound like an Eastern principal but the more energy you put into struggling directly against it, the more power you grant it over your identiy)... that they need to be given the oppurtunity to, over a long period of time, not be identified by that whilst still having disinterested friendships that help them to avoid covertly continuing the practices... they need the oppurtunity to exist in a way that their "homosexuality" is not a social fact... because when it is a social fact it has power over them... and then it cannot be a self identifier either... not in any way shape or form. if they identify themselves as "ex-gay" that's a problem, because they've shifted that different way they look upon themselves into another specialized group and still given power to the identity of homosexuality... that even when they're "cured" of it or "converted" or whatever they call it they are still defined in relation to homosexuality.

I am of the firm opinion that any true success story about someone with same sex attraction is usually not going to be told, because that person will have moved on and learned how to not define themself in relation to "homosexuality"... they probably will even re-interpret their own past and upbringing to no longer understand themself as having been exclusively gay even back then when they thought they were. now, this is done all the time so don't tell me it doesn't happen: people re-interpret their childhoods and their adolescence and their teenage years when they are older and wiser in ways that their child self or adolescent self or teenage self would abhorantly disagree with... and it happens in the spectrum of sexuality too.

there is not binary opposition when it comes to what secular society calls "sexuality"... there are merely varying degrees of fetish-variation on the ordinary sexual instinct/desire. everyone has an innate desire to connect with a mate and to engage their sexual organs to create unity with that mate and pass on their genes... and that's what everyone's doing... some people direct it towards incorrect mates to the point that it frustrates that passing on of the genes and makes the sexual pleasure they engage in futile from a biological perspective... so when human reason is involved they have every capacity of first developing a sound philosophy of sexuality and then having their bodies come into accord with that sound philosophy... but their bodily animal-level sexual attraction can always vary in degrees between male and female and amongst different fetishes, but can find true sexual satisfaction in true intellectual satisfaction whilst they discover chastity and self-discipline through the ignoring of their fetishes, even if they still exist.

is it a defect? yes. is all original sin a defect? yes. is all concupiscence a defect? yes. is same sex attraction a more problematic defect than opposite sex attraction if both are untamed? yes.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585055' date='Jun 27 2008, 05:50 PM']I see what you mean but that works when referring to homosexuality not homosexual.

But to use the term "homosexul" is pretty straight forward and that is what I really am talking about. It is the joing of homosexual and homosexuality. The cardinality of that statement implies that the homosexual cannot exist without homosexuality but actually the cardinality is that homosexual can exist without homosexuality and homosexuality cannot exist without homosexual unless you consider a hetero who commits homosexuality to actually still remain heterosexual then they can be exclusive.

Yes to say homosexuality is a defect does imply that God makes defects which is wrong so therefore homosexuality cannot be called a "defect" At least not a birth defect. right?[/quote]

Okay, there are a lot of things just not right with this post and a lot of speculation. First, you are generalizing. I love how you say "we as Christians". There are some Christians that have a destructive attitude towards homosexuals (I have no qualms about calling them homos-it is what they are if they practice homosexuality) and there are some Christians that are caring towards them as a person. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that it should be condemned, but that the homosexual person should be loved, but this does not mean that the Christian is allowed to party and hang out with the gay person and go to the gay couple's "adopted" child's birthday party or celebrate their homosexual civil union. It means that they should treat the homosexual with love and try to show them the errors of their lifestyle; give them neighborly love.

Second, we live in a fallen world and YES a world that has "defects." Homosexuality is definitely a defect since it is contrary to natural law. Can homosexual couples procreate? How do homosexuals fit in the circle of life? It is an abnormality and whether it is proven genetic or by choice, it is still an "abnormality" just like blindess or retardation is an abnormality. But of course in our modern age, society depicts and has rule over what is normal and abnormal of course? Not God right? Wrong.

Third, you're implying that we should believe that a vast majority of homosexuals are what...celibate? That they do not practice homosexuality. All I have to say is "right on" for those homosexuals who are celibate and who try to live a "normal" life, but to the ones that are not and practice their homosexuality then I pray to God they see the light one day and repent.

I agree with you though that homosexual and homosexuality need to be separated, but the kicker is most homosexuals I come across or we see in the media and around us practice homosexuality and it gets hard to keep them separated.

Although, I see a lot of this in reverse. As Christians we say, "Homosexuality is a sin." And we hear back, "Why do you hate homosexuals?" And we say,"We do not hate homosexuals, we acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin." And they say, "then if you don't hate us then let us get married and have children and let us teach the children about the reality of homosexuality in our schools." And we say, "You cannot because you will be promoting homosexuality." And they say, "Why do you hate homosexuals?"

I'm sorry, but in today's modern culture and the fact that if I even mention that homosexuality is a sin I get sneered at and called names, I see the Christians today as the underdogs, not the homosexuals.

[Galloglasses]

Kristudo just hit alot of nails on the head.

[Nihil Obstat]

My post will be short and sweet.
It looks to me like:
Any person can have homosexual 'tendencies'.
This doesn't make them a bad person.
They are wrong, however, if they act on it.
Ergo, one could say that homosexual 'tendencies' are really just another particular, especially challenging vocation to the single life.

I wonder how many practicing, orthodox Catholics have these 'tendencies'...? It seems to me that as long as they don't act on it, they have every bit as much of a chance as being moral as anyone else does.

[Alycin]

Most of the people on phatmass that make derogatory remarks are not just uncharitable toward people with SSA (*note I didn't say homosexuals... I will try not to say that anymore, but I never ever use it an a derogatory matter.) but are uncharitable a lot of the time in general...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1585317' date='Jun 27 2008, 08:21 PM']Most of the people on phatmass that make derogatory remarks are not just uncharitable toward people with SSA (*note I didn't say homosexuals... I will try not to say that anymore, but I never ever use it an a derogatory matter.) but are uncharitable a lot of the time in general...[/quote]
Is there some sort of weird fixation with the word 'charitable' or 'uncharitable' on PM? It's just that I hardly ever hear it used in the context of discussions until I come onto this forum.
Sorry though, I'm off topic.

[Farsight one]

I just have a few points.

First - I would say that God does create defects. People are born with them all the time. It is overcoming those flaws that help us to grow as people. Why some of you are so vehemently opposed to the idea that God makes people gay (or with gay tendencies) is beyond me - especially when you have no problem accepting that God makes some people alcoholic (or with alcoholic tendencies). I've had problems managing my anger for years. My fight to over come that has made me a better person.

Second - I believe that most certainly the approach of many of us towards homosexuality is not simply incorrect, but rather completely twisted and wrong. I am reminded of a gay man that went to my college (of Benedictine). He hid his homosexuality for the first year, but near the end of it, at a retreat called "stoning the stereotypes", he came out as gay. The VERY NEXT DAY he had over a dozen people try to talk to him about being gay. They didn't even try to be subtle about it - trying to preach to him in the middle of the cafeteria. Mind you, the guy had simply admitted to being gay. He mentioned nothing about a boyfriend or about being involved in any homosexual activity. He just admitted that he had SSA. What did this preaching do? Well, he's now vehemently atheist, and frankly, I don't think there's anything on this earth that can change his mind about it.

A couple years later, a monk (who happened to be gay) was forced to leave the order at my college because he couldn't take the way people talked anymore. Most students seemed to not know he was gay(which I find odd, because it was SO obvious), and so would openly bash being gay right in front of him. He was getting quite depressed and falling into alcoholism. This man was not just a believer. He was a monk. He had devoted his life to God, he loved it, and he was a good teacher too. But he had to leave the order to save his life.

About one in six gay people commit suicide within a year of coming out as gay. That's the cold hard facts for you. If you want that to stop, then we desperately need to fix the way that the religious right (i.e. US) acts towards them. There's plenty of ways to disagree with someone's lifestyle choices without belittling them.

[ardillacid]

You paint with broad strokes.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1585452' date='Jun 28 2008, 12:44 AM']You paint with broad strokes.[/quote]
Werd

Edited June 28, 2008 by Galloglasses