Homosexuals And Our Attitude Towards Them

[XIX]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1585061' date='Jun 27 2008, 06:05 PM']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.[/quote]
So am I degrading myself if I call myself a distance runner? Or if a drug addict calls himself an addict? Or if a woman calls herself a wife? Or a sister? Or a conservative? Should people stop calling themselves "accountants" because it's a terrible injustice that a certain group of people is labeled with such a narrow minded term?

What if I call myself an American? A caucasian? A libertarian? A Phatmasser?

Why is "homosexual" the only adjective that people expect others not to identify themselves as?

[Galloglasses]

Because it isn't PC. =U

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1585624' date='Jun 28 2008, 12:25 PM']Unfortunately, every homosexual person that I have ever come across see it as a grave insult to have their lifestyle condemned and treat it as a personal attack on their character. We try to keep it separated. They don't.[/quote]"We" meaning you? "They" meaning the gay people you encounter? Maybe your approach puts them on the defensive.

That has not been my experience. I have many gay friends who know exactly how I feel about their lifestyle choice. They respect me while disagreeing with my beliefs. I respect them while disagreeing with their beliefs. My Catholicism is not ever hidden around them or their other gay friends, yet they keep inviting me over.

[Aloysius]

the term "homosexual" is a very problematic way of identifying someone. so is the term "heterosexual" for that matter. I realize my post was ridiculously long, but there's a big reason as to why using that term as an identification is terrible. on the sexuality side of things, you are either male or you are female.

and no, it's not about political correctness. in fact, my ridiculously long post on why they shouldn't be called homosexuals is probably one of the most politically incorrect things you'd ever hear.

if you can't see the clear difference between this terminology used to identify people and the other ones you listed, I don't know what to say... but it's really clear to me. one identifies a person based upon sexual fetishes, while others merely describe certain aspects of them. and you better believe it's an identity problem and no one should base their identity off of it.

[Galloglasses]

By certain characteristics, you mean people who are described as Metrosexuals? (Straight People who really seem Homosexual at first, but aren't)

Edited June 28, 2008 by Galloglasses

[JustJ]

[quote name='jmjtina' post='1585034' date='Jun 27 2008, 04:12 PM']Are you implying that it is genetic?[/quote]
I wouldn't necessarily say it's genetic, but I'd definitely say it's not a choice.
[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1585566' date='Jun 28 2008, 11:54 AM']Some people here believe that Homosexuals are born with 'homosexual Tendencies' Others believe that is wrong because it means that God is creating a person who is more likely to commit a sin that is labelled abomination by Scripture. Thats were this Defect controversy is coming into play.[/quote]
I was pretty qwerty when I was 3, for the record.

I love how some of these definitions can have straight guys be homosexuals.

[Veridicus]

It seems like this topic has been beaten to death again and again and again. Christians are called to be charitable to everyone at all times. Sometimes during discussion semantics leads individuals to respond in ways that are uncharitable which is regrettable.

Calling SSA a 'defect' is probably not the best term to use. It [i]is [/i]definitely disordered. As many people in this thread have mentioned, ALL of us suffer from spiritual/emotional/sexual/chemical/biological disorders of some sort. It is part of sharing a broken human nature. God does not 'make us bad' because that would be against His nature. My understanding is that we are created in the image and likeness of God but because our bodies exist in a broken, fallen world we acquire our 'defects' or 'disorders' (through Original Sin). Sometimes at birth, sometimes in development, sometimes in childhood, sometimes in adulthood. This is something inherent to living in a broken world; we are created good but are stained by bad. Trying to separate SSA from this general understanding of 'why we're bad' is simply illogical. There is no reason to separate any other disorder from this logic in my opinion; Does God make people with spina bifida? Does God make people with schitzophrenia? Does God make people with Type I Diabetes? Does God make people with phenylketonuria? Answering any of these questions affirmitively contradicts His nature. We are created good, but we are stained by bad...God allows bad to happen, He doesn't will or cause it. SSA should be recognized in the same manner.

With regard to SSA having genetic basis, someone has already mentioned that geneticists and scientists have doubts that there exists a 'gay gene.' I echo their sentiment; as I have explained in other threads at Phatmass (I just graduated w/ my Biology Degree btw and will be starting medical school in about a month), gene persistence in a population of organisms implies a reproductive advantage of some sort. I.E. bigger chimps gather more food and therefore have more energy to devote to mating and so have more offspring. If chimps get too big then their food requirements would be too great to sustain themselves and they would no longer have the energy available to devote to breeding. Regardless of the selective pressure, however, there needs to be a reproductive advantage either way. If there existed a strictly 'SSA gene' then those individuals would have a very profound reproductive DISADVANTAGE because their sexual energies would be wasted in the sense that their act would produce no offspring to carry their 'SSA gene' to the next generation and so forth. It just doesn't make genetic sense in my honest opinion (and I've completed several genetics courses). People may argue about allelic drift, etc., but the reality is that we are finding that many even genetic-based diseases often have many epigenetic factors that result in disease.

In my humble opinion, I would say that the same 'genetics' that makes a heterosexual straight are what make a homosexual gay. There IS a genetic basis for forming sexual attractions and developing sexual impulses...these attractions and impulses ensure that individuals engage in sexual activity which in turn ensures offspring with the persistence of genes in the population for that individual (speaking from a completely biological perspective of course). My guess is that people with SSA develop a disordered sexual attraction sometime between birth and around age 5 or so. So by the time they are 8 or 9 or 10 and have their earliest attractions to other children, they pretty much have ALWAYS felt SSA and so they may as well have been 'born gay.' I refuse to believe that they pop out of the womb with SSA though. By my own logic I am forced to admit that I don't think anyone is 'born with a sexual preference.' That is not to say that heterosexuality isn't the proper development by biological, philosophical, and spiritual standards, however. Sexual attraction is something that develops upon the genetic and chemical basis pre-extant in us during early development. Like the rest of our personality and behaviors.

I am really trying to be charitable but honest and forthright with my opinions. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Veridicus

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1585896' date='Jun 28 2008, 10:35 PM']It seems like this topic has been beaten to death again and again and again. Christians are called to be charitable to everyone at all times. Sometimes during discussion semantics leads individuals to respond in ways that are uncharitable which is regrettable.

Calling SSA a 'defect' is probably not the best term to use. It [i]is [/i]definitely disordered. As many people in this thread have mentioned, ALL of us suffer from spiritual/emotional/sexual/chemical/biological disorders of some sort. It is part of sharing a broken human nature. God does not 'make us bad' because that would be against His nature. My understanding is that we are created in the image and likeness of God but because our bodies exist in a broken, fallen world we acquire our 'defects' or 'disorders' (through Original Sin). Sometimes at birth, sometimes in development, sometimes in childhood, sometimes in adulthood. This is something inherent to living in a broken world; we are created good but are stained by bad. Trying to separate SSA from this general understanding of 'why we're bad' is simply illogical. There is no reason to separate any other disorder from this logic in my opinion; Does God make people with spina bifida? Does God make people with schitzophrenia? Does God make people with Type I Diabetes? Does God make people with phenylketonuria? Answering any of these questions affirmitively contradicts His nature. We are created good, but we are stained by bad...God allows bad to happen, He doesn't will or cause it. SSA should be recognized in the same manner.

With regard to SSA having genetic basis, someone has already mentioned that geneticists and scientists have doubts that there exists a 'gay gene.' I echo their sentiment; as I have explained in other threads at Phatmass (I just graduated w/ my Biology Degree btw and will be starting medical school in about a month), gene persistence in a population of organisms implies a reproductive advantage of some sort. I.E. bigger chimps gather more food and therefore have more energy to devote to mating and so have more offspring. If chimps get too big then their food requirements would be too great to sustain themselves and they would no longer have the energy available to devote to breeding. Regardless of the selective pressure, however, there needs to be a reproductive advantage either way. If there existed a strictly 'SSA gene' then those individuals would have a very profound reproductive DISADVANTAGE because their sexual energies would be wasted in the sense that their act would produce no offspring to carry their 'SSA gene' to the next generation and so forth. It just doesn't make genetic sense in my honest opinion (and I've completed several genetics courses). People may argue about allelic drift, etc., but the reality is that we are finding that many even genetic-based diseases often have many epigenetic factors that result in disease.

In my humble opinion, I would say that the same 'genetics' that makes a heterosexual straight are what make a homosexual gay. [b]There IS a genetic basis for forming sexual attractions and developing sexual impulses...these attractions and impulses ensure that individuals engage in sexual activity which in turn ensures offspring with the persistence of genes in the population for that individual (speaking from a completely biological perspective of course). [/b] My guess is that people with SSA develop a disordered sexual attraction sometime between birth and around age 5 or so. So by the time they are 8 or 9 or 10 and have their earliest attractions to other children, they pretty much have ALWAYS felt SSA and so they may as well have been 'born gay.' I refuse to believe that they pop out of the womb with SSA though. By my own logic I am forced to admit that I don't think anyone is 'born with a sexual preference.' That is not to say that heterosexuality isn't the proper development by biological, philosophical, and spiritual standards, however. Sexual attraction is something that develops upon the genetic and chemical basis pre-extant in us during early development. Like the rest of our personality and behaviors.

I am really trying to be charitable but honest and forthright with my opinions. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.

Peace,

Todd W.[/quote]

This kind of stuff (in bold) is what scares me the most. There always has to be some scientific explanation to everything. Oh no! Being gay is really something that happens in your brain. What about believing in God? Is that something that is just genetically bred in us? You do realize that there are present experiments in the scientific world to prove that people with a certain gene have a disposition to believing in a higher power. Oh yes, with science, everything can be solved, including that nonsensical idea of a supernatural deity. First comes the homosexual gene, then the religious one. There always has to be some type of scientific explanation and this is sad. For the people who live homosexual lifestyles I would like to say "man up" to your sins and stop blaming them on a gene. "Oh I was born this way, it's okay!" What about the person who is born with a disposition for molesting young girls. Is that okay? Will it be okay if they find a gene that is responsible for child molestation?

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote]"We" meaning you? "They" meaning the gay people you encounter? Maybe your approach puts them on the defensive.[/quote]

Right. I forgot. I am the only one feeling like this.

Nope. My approaches are fine. Don't you think I took that into consideration?

[quote]That has not been my experience. I have many gay friends who know exactly how I feel about their lifestyle choice. They respect me while disagreeing with my beliefs. I respect them while disagreeing with their beliefs. My Catholicism is not ever hidden around them or their other gay friends, yet they keep inviting me over.[/quote]

What a wonderful and peachy relationship you have with your gay friends. I commend you for that. By the way you talk it seems like the majority of the gays in the world are just so happily satisfied with Christians.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1586599' date='Jun 29 2008, 05:26 PM']This kind of stuff (in bold) is what scares me the most. There always has to be some scientific explanation to everything. Oh no! Being gay is really something that happens in your brain. What about believing in God? Is that something that is just genetically bred in us? You do realize that there are present experiments in the scientific world to prove that people with a certain gene have a disposition to believing in a higher power. Oh yes, with science, everything can be solved, including that nonsensical idea of a supernatural deity. First comes the homosexual gene, then the religious one. There always has to be some type of scientific explanation and this is sad. For the people who live homosexual lifestyles I would like to say "man up" to your sins and stop blaming them on a gene. "Oh I was born this way, it's okay!" What about the person who is born with a disposition for molesting young girls. Is that okay? Will it be okay if they find a gene that is responsible for child molestation?[/quote]


Please re-read my post in its entirety. I have this hazy suspicion that you have completely mis-taken my point... What you bolded is not scary. I simply said there is a biological basis for the CAPACITY to form sexuality in general. As in we are sexual beings...hence we have genitalia and sex hormones coursing through our blood. Plus I am not saying that there "always has to be a scientific explanation to everything." If you look up my other posts on phatmass you'll very clearly observe my views on the modern scientific perspective... I was just offering another point of view.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81762&st=100&start=100"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...0&start=100[/url]

Edited June 29, 2008 by Veridicus

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1586607' date='Jun 29 2008, 05:38 PM']Right. I forgot. I am the only one feeling like this.

Nope. My approaches are fine. Don't you think I took that into consideration?

What a wonderful and peachy relationship you have with your gay friends. I commend you for that. By the way you talk it seems like the majority of the gays in the world are just so happily satisfied with Christians.[/quote]Just the majority that I encounter... maybe I self select for the "happily satisfied with Christians" subpopulation of "gays in the world." I apologize if in guessing why your experience is so different than mine I offended you. That was certainly not my intent.

[Socrates]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585025' date='Jun 27 2008, 03:00 PM']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?[/quote]
Sigh . . . It seems this topic keeps coming up every couple months or so, and the same stuff has to be repeated.

First of all, I think Kirisutodo and Aloysius, among others have made some excellent points here.
However, I thought I'd add some points of my own.

Socalscout, you seem to be making quite a few vague and unsubstantiated accusations here.
Contrary to pc opinion, pointing out that the homosexual "lifestyle" is sinful is not hateful, but is simply preaching the truth as always taught by Christ's Church.

Homosexual tendencies can indeed be considered a "defect," or disorder, as the Catechism defines homosexual tendencies themselves as "objectively disordered." (2358)
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued an official letter to the bishops [url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm"][i]On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons[/i][/url] which states:[quote]In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.[b] Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.[/b][/quote]

God does not create objective disorders, or tendencies towards intrinsic moral evil. Such tendencies toward evil are part of concupiscence, a defect in our natures that is the result of sin.
Sexual disorders (commonly known as perversions), or inclinations toward sin, are [b]not[/b] gifts from God; they are not vocations.

God did not create homosexuality anymore than He created sexual promiscuity, pedophilia, or zoophilia.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the politically-incorrect truth.
People do not sin if they do not act on their homosexual inclinations, but the inclinations themselves cannot be considered a good thing created by God.
Unfortunately, I see quite a bit of this pc "overly benign interpretation" of homosexuality from the bleeding hearts on phatmass and elsewhere.

And I've nowhere seen anybody on Phatmass argue for denying homosexuals actual legitimate human rights.
The thread on "denying homosexuals rights" was started by an antagonist claiming that states not legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" was denying them their rights.
No one has a right to special legal benefits for being in a homosexual "union," and I think this was made quite clear. Either you're not actually reading the threads in question, or willfully misinterpreting them. As for your masturbating boy example, no one would deny him legitimate rights, yet I think most of us would oppose the state granting him special benefits for his sin (tax-payer funded porn, or what have you).

And, like Aloysius, I am against the idea of people identifying themselves by their disordered tendencies. While you may disagree, in normal language, "homosexual" usually refers to someone who practices, or at least seeks out, sexual acts with members of the same sex. That is what people are condemning when they condemn homosexuality on here.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1586608' date='Jun 29 2008, 07:39 PM']Please re-read my post in its entirety. I have this hazy suspicion that you have completely mis-taken my point... What you bolded is not scary. I simply said there is a biological basis for the CAPACITY to form sexuality in general. As in we are sexual beings...hence we have genitalia and sex hormones coursing through our blood. Plus I am not saying that there "always has to be a scientific explanation to everything." If you look up my other posts on phatmass you'll very clearly observe my views on the modern scientific perspective... I was just offering another point of view.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81762&st=100&start=100"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...0&start=100[/url][/quote]

This wasn't a direct attack on you or your post or your point of view. It was a response to the modern idea that everything must be explained scientifically. Why is it so hard to say, "You made a choice to be gay, or you made a choice to follow your gay impulses?" Why must we always leave "choice" out of the equation? Is not "choice" the essence of free will--the choice to say yes or no to God. If one is born gay, can they say," I did not have the choice of not being gay?" Sorry, God gives you complete free will of choice, especially when it deals with sexuality. Yes, you and others will say that there is a biological basis for the capacity and it's all good and true, but coming up with a scientific explanation well...doesn't really explain anything. Don't get me wrong, science is great and I love science. As a theologian, I've spent many days obsessed with the relationship between science and religion. You say "as in we are sexual beings..."--be careful here -- we are spiritual beings above anything. Reducing the male and female being to just that...male and female, reduces the "tendency" to be homosexual to "a biological basis for the capacity to form sexuality in general..." It is a reductionist thought and yes, it's very scary.

[kujo]

Here's my opinion on homosexuality.

It all starts with chastity. Chastity, in short, is saving your sexuality for your spouse, the man or woman who God has designed and created for you to marry. Thus, prior to marriage, you are not to indulge in any sort of sexual act because the person you are doing it with is not your spouse; rather, you are called to wait and live a chaste lifestyle, saving yourself for marriage. Furthermore, chastity does not end when you get married, but continues as you remain faithful to your husband or wife.

Thus, it can me said that ALL are called to chastity for their whole lives.

Now, homosexuality is one of the many inclinations towards sin that a person can struggle with. And, just like any other sinful inclination, we must take that struggle to the Lord, abstaining from any and all indulgences of it. Thus, there is a difference between a homosexual and person who indulges in homosexual acts, just like there is a difference between a recovering alcoholic and an active alcoholic. The person and the action are completely separate, each deserving a different response. To the person, we should show nothing but love, compassion and understanding, aiming to build them up and encourage them in their struggle to live a chaste life, for they are not going to have a spouse, but will, rather, be called to the single life. Their chastity, like ours, is perpetual.

Any thoughts?

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='kujo' post='1586643' date='Jun 29 2008, 09:14 PM']Here's my opinion on homosexuality.

It all starts with chastity. Chastity, in short, is saving your sexuality for your spouse, the man or woman who God has designed and created for you to marry. Thus, prior to marriage, you are not to indulge in any sort of sexual act because the person you are doing it with is not your spouse; rather, you are called to wait and live a chaste lifestyle, saving yourself for marriage. Furthermore, chastity does not end when you get married, but continues as you remain faithful to your husband or wife.

Thus, it can me said that ALL are called to chastity for their whole lives.

Now, homosexuality is one of the many inclinations towards sin that a person can struggle with. And, just like any other sinful inclination, we must take that struggle to the Lord, abstaining from any and all indulgences of it. Thus, there is a difference between a homosexual and person who indulges in homosexual acts, just like there is a difference between a recovering alcoholic and an active alcoholic. The person and the action are completely separate, each deserving a different response. To the person, we should show nothing but love, compassion and understanding, aiming to build them up and encourage them in their struggle to live a chaste life, for they are not going to have a spouse, but will, rather, be called to the single life. Their chastity, like ours, is perpetual.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

I like it. Beautifully put.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1586641' date='Jun 29 2008, 07:09 PM']Why is it so hard to say, "You made a choice to be gay, or you made a choice to follow your gay impulses?" Why must we always leave "choice" out of the equation? Is not "choice" the essence of free will--the choice to say yes or no to God. If one is born gay, can they say," I did not have the choice of not being gay?" Sorry, God gives you complete free will of choice, especially when it deals with sexuality. Yes, you and others will say that there is a biological basis for the capacity and it's all good and true, but coming up with a scientific explanation well...doesn't really explain anything. Don't get me wrong, science is great and I love science. As a theologian, I've spent many days obsessed with the relationship between science and religion. You say "as in we are sexual beings..."--be careful here -- we are spiritual beings above anything. Reducing the male and female being to just that...male and female, reduces the "tendency" to be homosexual to "a biological basis for the capacity to form sexuality in general..." It is a reductionist thought and yes, it's very scary.[/quote]

What sense does it make to say "this wasn't an attack on your point of view" and then to quote me again and again in a subsequent attack...

I just don't think one rationally chooses to have SSA. No more than someone chooses to be tempted by alcoholism. Or gluttony. Temptation exists as it is outside of our choosing to respond to it. What people DO choose is their actions. No one is trying to belittle the responisbility of individual choice in action. I am not sure what underlies your assertion that "God gives you complete free will of choice, [b]especially [/b]when it deals with sexuality." I mean Dante placed those who lust/fornicate in the shallowest pit of hell (yes they still went to hell I know) but this hierarchical approach demonstrates its historically relatively lesser nature compared to the 'lower sins' of Dante's hell. I just don't understand how you can say that God gives us "more free will" when it comes to sexuality than any other temptations. I do not see any supported logic behind this.

We are not [i]'more [/i]spiritual' than physical. Human nature subsists in the fact that our spiritual and corporeal natures are intrinsically-linked. We are destined to be given glorified resurrected bodies at the Second Coming...we aren't just gonna live in some ethereal spiritual ecstasy...it will be a real, substantial physical & spiritual existence. We [i]are [/i]sexual beings. I wasn't trying to reduce our spirituality with this statement. Our sexuality itself points to God...don't assume that my statements are pushing some reductionist agenda when you have no idea what my underlying beliefs are. Do not take my statements out of context and try to insinuate an outside perspective into my thoughts.

I am free to exercise my rational faculty to speculate on the biological basis of whatever I choose. It is speculation...I am not writing any textbooks, merely expressing my views which you seem incapable of understanding outside of your own compulsion to fit my beliefs into some stereotype that you can place on me based on two posts you have read of mine.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Veridicus

[Alycin]

[quote name='kujo' post='1586643' date='Jun 29 2008, 08:14 PM']Here's my opinion on homosexuality.

It all starts with chastity. Chastity, in short, is saving your sexuality for your spouse, the man or woman who God has designed and created for you to marry. Thus, prior to marriage, you are not to indulge in any sort of sexual act because the person you are doing it with is not your spouse; rather, you are called to wait and live a chaste lifestyle, saving yourself for marriage. Furthermore, chastity does not end when you get married, but continues as you remain faithful to your husband or wife.

Thus, it can me said that ALL are called to chastity for their whole lives.

Now, homosexuality is one of the many inclinations towards sin that a person can struggle with. And, just like any other sinful inclination, we must take that struggle to the Lord, abstaining from any and all indulgences of it. Thus, there is a difference between a homosexual and person who indulges in homosexual acts, just like there is a difference between a recovering alcoholic and an active alcoholic. The person and the action are completely separate, each deserving a different response. To the person, we should show nothing but love, compassion and understanding, aiming to build them up and encourage them in their struggle to live a chaste life, for they are not going to have a spouse, but will, rather, be called to the single life. Their chastity, like ours, is perpetual.

Any thoughts?[/quote]




I LOVE IT.

Very catholic response. the whole shebang. Orthodox, charitable... yay

See people? It really isn't that hard to avoid bein' a jerk about the matter.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1586628' date='Jun 29 2008, 08:53 PM']Just the majority that I encounter... maybe I self select for the "happily satisfied with Christians" subpopulation of "gays in the world." I apologize if in guessing why your experience is so different than mine I offended you. That was certainly not my intent.[/quote]

I was not offended and I'm sorry it came out that way, but you know what, I truly have not encountered a gay person that was perfectly okay with the "practicing" Christian (meaning actually tries to live an orthodox Christian life.) Though I have seen a lot of my "bent" Christian co-workers (meaning they are perfectly happy with the notion of gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, etc...well because to them God is love and everyone should be tolerant, of course right?) have meaningful friendships with their gay friends or co-workers, but I'm not going to sacrifice my orthodoxy so I can be a Christian who doesn't live in the "dark ages." I am glad to hear though that you have gay friends that respect you. That's really the way it should be.

[Veridicus]

Despite the stereotype, you should be assured that there are individuals with SSA who live chaste lives in quiet dignity and submission to the Church's teaching. My guess is that they aren't wearing tight neon green V-neck shirts and walking around with a limp wrist and a lisp so they probably went by unnoticed.

[XIX]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1585666' date='Jun 28 2008, 03:33 PM']the term "homosexual" is a very problematic way of identifying someone. so is the term "heterosexual" for that matter. I realize my post was ridiculously long, but there's a big reason as to why using that term as an identification is terrible. on the sexuality side of things, you are either male or you are female.[/quote]
If you walk into any SA meeting, or AA, or EDA, or NA, or anything else that's a clone of Alcoholics Anonymous, you'll have people "identifying" themselves as addicts. Is that a problematic way of defining someone? If not,

[quote]if you can't see the clear difference between this terminology used to identify people and the other ones you listed, I don't know what to say... but it's really clear to me. one identifies a person based upon sexual fetishes, while others merely describe certain aspects of them. and you better believe it's an identity problem and no one should base their identity off of it.[/quote]
Just because you have a disordered tendency, that means you shouldn't describe yourself that way? Should you just pretend you are not a homosexual? Should then some other guy then pretend he's not an alcoholic, since that's also a disordered tendency that you shouldn't base your identity off of?

At the very least, I think it's fair to say that you can describe yourself as a homosexual without making that your identity. It's...just an adjective. It's semantics. Really, it's not worth yapping at others over.