Since We've Been Talking About Lgbtq Stuff A Lot Lately...

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

Posted before but bears repeating: This doesn't mean that we are to turn a blind eye to things that may be foreign or hard to understand or accept, but seeing through them and beyond them to the person, with all their feelings and sufferings.  This manner of seeing others allows them to realize they are loved. And love makes it possible for them to improve.

 

This is how Christ looks at you and me. It is a glance that cares, and therefore also makes a difference.

 

Thank you Father for posting this again. I'm not perfect, and I needed to read that. 

 

You really are an amazing priest. I feel privileged to read your posts.

[cappie]

A few days ago,came across this statement: "There are those who are struggling with same-sex attraction and are trying to not act on that and then there are those who are celebrating it, who are intentionally living that lifestyle and feeling accepted by God."

 

I hear stuff like this all the time the word “lifestyle.” But stop and think about what kind of images the phrase “gay lifestyle” conjures up for you. What does a “gay lifestyle” entail? How would someone living a “gay lifestyle” live?

 

What does that person look like? What are their primary interests? How do they spend their time?

 

Got your image?

 

I don’t know about you, but most people seem to imagine a man—it’s usually a man unless a woman was specified—who spends his time working out, partying at gay nightclubs, drinking fruity alcoholic beverages, and seeking out numerous sexual partners who live similar lives.

 

This imaginary gay man’s life revolves almost entirely around sex: He has to work out and obsess over his appearance in order to attract sexual partners, whom he meets at the sexually-charged nightclubs where he dances with his shirt off—or perhaps in seedier locations like public restrooms or parks. But because both he and the other guy are always looking for the next hot sex partner, any “relationship” they might form is only a sham at its core, destined to fall apart as they age or when someone hotter comes along.

The one thing that gets this imaginary gay man really angry is when people try to suggest that his lifestyle is unhealthy. He rails against such suggestions, protesting and becoming politically active, but only in his own self-interest. Ultimately, it’s all about his sexual pleasure.

 

When most people describe a “gay lifestyle,” that’s the picture they paint.

 

Yes, that is a “lifestyle.” It’s a lifestyle of sexual addiction and escapism. And because it’s founded on self-centered pleasure-seeking rather than anything substantial (family, faith, the good of others, etc.), it’s ultimately hollow. It’s not sustainable.

 

So yes, it’s a lifestyle, but it’s not “the gay lifestyle.” It’s a stereotype.

 

Like most stereotypes, of course, there is a nugget of truth to it; I do know gay men who live that way. In fact, a number of the most prominent “ex-gay” leaders say they used to live that kind of lifestyle. In their minds, that really is “the gay lifestyle,” which is how they justify telling people that they’re no longer “gay” just because they stopped living that way—even though they’re still attracted to the same sex.

 

But see, there are also many straight people who live promiscuous lives based on sex and pleasure-seeking, and yet we would never call theirs a “straight lifestyle.” Why? Because we know that they don’t represent all straight people. They are a subset of straight people.

 

And the same is true for gay people. Not all gay people are male, for starters; there are plenty of gay women. Not all gay people drink, or go to clubs, or are self-centered, or like to dance, or work out, or are promiscuous, or even have sex at all. They are all really different from each other.

 

Being gay just means that some are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex. Some  respond by being celibate; some eventually find someone to fall in love and settle down with.

 

There is no “gay lifestyle.” And when people use that phrase, however well-intentioned they may be, it reduces people to a stereotype.

 

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

A few days ago,came across this statement: "There are those who are struggling with same-sex attraction and are trying to not act on that and then there are those who are celebrating it, who are intentionally living that lifestyle and feeling accepted by God."

 

I hear stuff like this all the time the word “lifestyle.” But stop and think about what kind of images the phrase “gay lifestyle” conjures up for you. What does a “gay lifestyle” entail? How would someone living a “gay lifestyle” live?

 

What does that person look like? What are their primary interests? How do they spend their time?

 

Got your image?

 

I don’t know about you, but most people seem to imagine a man—it’s usually a man unless a woman was specified—who spends his time working out, partying at gay nightclubs, drinking fruity alcoholic beverages, and seeking out numerous sexual partners who live similar lives.

 

This imaginary gay man’s life revolves almost entirely around sex: He has to work out and obsess over his appearance in order to attract sexual partners, whom he meets at the sexually-charged nightclubs where he dances with his shirt off—or perhaps in seedier locations like public restrooms or parks. But because both he and the other guy are always looking for the next hot sex partner, any “relationship” they might form is only a sham at its core, destined to fall apart as they age or when someone hotter comes along.

The one thing that gets this imaginary gay man really angry is when people try to suggest that his lifestyle is unhealthy. He rails against such suggestions, protesting and becoming politically active, but only in his own self-interest. Ultimately, it’s all about his sexual pleasure.

 

When most people describe a “gay lifestyle,” that’s the picture they paint.

 

Yes, that is a “lifestyle.” It’s a lifestyle of sexual addiction and escapism. And because it’s founded on self-centered pleasure-seeking rather than anything substantial (family, faith, the good of others, etc.), it’s ultimately hollow. It’s not sustainable.

 

So yes, it’s a lifestyle, but it’s not “the gay lifestyle.” It’s a stereotype.

 

Like most stereotypes, of course, there is a nugget of truth to it; I do know gay men who live that way. In fact, a number of the most prominent “ex-gay” leaders say they used to live that kind of lifestyle. In their minds, that really is “the gay lifestyle,” which is how they justify telling people that they’re no longer “gay” just because they stopped living that way—even though they’re still attracted to the same sex.

 

But see, there are also many straight people who live promiscuous lives based on sex and pleasure-seeking, and yet we would never call theirs a “straight lifestyle.” Why? Because we know that they don’t represent all straight people. They are a subset of straight people.

 

And the same is true for gay people. Not all gay people are male, for starters; there are plenty of gay women. Not all gay people drink, or go to clubs, or are self-centered, or like to dance, or work out, or are promiscuous, or even have sex at all. They are all really different from each other.

 

Being gay just means that some are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex. Some  respond by being celibate; some eventually find someone to fall in love and settle down with.

 

There is no “gay lifestyle.” And when people use that phrase, however well-intentioned they may be, it reduces people to a stereotype.

 

I wish I could prop this a gazillion times.
 

[franciscanheart]

A few days ago,came across this statement: "There are those who are struggling with same-sex attraction and are trying to not act on that and then there are those who are celebrating it, who are intentionally living that lifestyle and feeling accepted by God."

I hear stuff like this all the time the word “lifestyle.” But stop and think about what kind of images the phrase “gay lifestyle” conjures up for you. What does a “gay lifestyle” entail? How would someone living a “gay lifestyle” live?

What does that person look like? What are their primary interests? How do they spend their time?

Got your image?

I don’t know about you, but most people seem to imagine a man—it’s usually a man unless a woman was specified—who spends his time working out, partying at gay nightclubs, drinking fruity alcoholic beverages, and seeking out numerous sexual partners who live similar lives.

This imaginary gay man’s life revolves almost entirely around sex: He has to work out and obsess over his appearance in order to attract sexual partners, whom he meets at the sexually-charged nightclubs where he dances with his shirt off—or perhaps in seedier locations like public restrooms or parks. But because both he and the other guy are always looking for the next hot sex partner, any “relationship” they might form is only a sham at its core, destined to fall apart as they age or when someone hotter comes along.
The one thing that gets this imaginary gay man really angry is when people try to suggest that his lifestyle is unhealthy. He rails against such suggestions, protesting and becoming politically active, but only in his own self-interest. Ultimately, it’s all about his sexual pleasure.

When most people describe a “gay lifestyle,” that’s the picture they paint.

Yes, that is a “lifestyle.” It’s a lifestyle of sexual addiction and escapism. And because it’s founded on self-centered pleasure-seeking rather than anything substantial (family, faith, the good of others, etc.), it’s ultimately hollow. It’s not sustainable.

So yes, it’s a lifestyle, but it’s not “the gay lifestyle.” It’s a stereotype.

Like most stereotypes, of course, there is a nugget of truth to it; I do know gay men who live that way. In fact, a number of the most prominent “ex-gay” leaders say they used to live that kind of lifestyle. In their minds, that really is “the gay lifestyle,” which is how they justify telling people that they’re no longer “gay” just because they stopped living that way—even though they’re still attracted to the same sex.

But see, there are also many straight people who live promiscuous lives based on sex and pleasure-seeking, and yet we would never call theirs a “straight lifestyle.” Why? Because we know that they don’t represent all straight people. They are a subset of straight people.

And the same is true for gay people. Not all gay people are male, for starters; there are plenty of gay women. Not all gay people drink, or go to clubs, or are self-centered, or like to dance, or work out, or are promiscuous, or even have sex at all. They are all really different from each other.

Being gay just means that some are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex. Some respond by being celibate; some eventually find someone to fall in love and settle down with.

There is no “gay lifestyle.” And when people use that phrase, however well-intentioned they may be, it reduces people to a stereotype.

YES. THANK YOU. :like:

(I'm out of props. Slow down on the awesome, please! ;) Hahaha!)

[Papist]

I love how this sort of statement is like a badge of honor for people around here. "Oh look at me, I'm a great person because I treat gay people with dignity and don't externalize the hateful, bigoted feelings I have for them." 

.

Yeah. That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for your help.

[Apotheoun]

The whole idea that a person is gay is a modern progressive political viewpoint that is ultimately contrary to the Church's doctrinal and moral Tradition, and as such it should be rejected by Christians. In patristic teaching that progressivist perspective would be rejected as contrary to the good of man, and the Holy Fathers would say that it should be avoided at all costs. To be blunt, the Church Fathers (and the Scholastic theologians of the West as well) would say that it is improper for a person to turn a disordered desire or passion into an identifying characteristic constitutive of his very being. In fact, in the moral theology of the Holy Fathers a person is instructed to reject the disordered passions that tempt him to commit evil acts, and to embrace ascetic discipline instead, because a man can only be freed from evil thoughts through moral discipline that is aimed at giving him control over those desires that lead to acts that are contrary to God's law. Moreover, the Church's great ascetic saints would say that it is absurd to tell a man who suffers from a disordered desire - especially a desire that may continue over time - to embrace that destructive passion, or worse encourage him to identify himself with that baneful craving as if it were some kind of defining aspect of his being (i.e., a defining aspect his personal existence).

 

It is a really bad idea - according to the Fathers - to tell a person to embrace the evil desires with which he is afflicted, and make them the focus of his personal existence.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Little Flower]

I love how this sort of statement is like a badge of honor for people around here. "Oh look at me, I'm a great person because I treat gay people with dignity and don't externalize the hateful, bigoted feelings I have for them." 

.

 

Don't you think you're being a little rude?

 

What people are trying to say is, yes I think that homosexuality when acted upon is a sin, but that doesn't mean that I am judging them individually in their particular circumstances, and that I am trying to treat them with love and dignity as Christ would. Some people were accusing others of judging or personally hating gays, and so they were saying no, I just hate the sin, not the sinner.

 

Perhaps you would rather they left that off and just stated the official Church teachings with no attempt at charity??? Or maybe you just don't want to hear the truth at all, and thats why you don't want something charitable added in.

[Little Flower]

Sorry I wrote that last post in a hurry, I don't think I was very nice.

 

What I mean is that if people don't say that, others might assume that they don't treat gays with dignity. They are saying that they are trying to practice the maxim, hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

I don't think any of us do have the as you call it "hateful bigoted feelings" for gays, but rather that we hate the sin itself. I doubt any of us hate individual persons, regardless of whether or not they are in sin.

[PhuturePriest]

OK back, here goes, maybe in a few parts:

 

The brokenness of the fallen world afflicts us all in various ways. We will be conscious of different battles to varying degrees at different moments of a day and in different seasons of our lives. No one battle, of the many we face, however strongly, defines us, but our identity as Christians flows rather from our relationship with Christ.

 

All of us are sinners, and sexual sinners. But, in Christ, we are new creations,as St Paul puts it, redeemed from slavery to sin through our union with Christ in his death and raised with him by the Spirit to a new life of holiness, while we wait for a glorious future in his presence when he returns. These amesome realities define me and direct me to the kind of life I should live.

 

The world stresses freedom and authenticity and says: ‘Everyone is born straight, gay or bi. You need to be true to yourself and accept who you are’. Same-sex attraction is seen as being entirely natural for some, who are therefore encouraged to embrace their identity as gay people and live it out in whatever way they choose. This message is supported by the individual stories of many whose openly gay lives offer a model of a particular way of living.

 

By contrast, however, we in the church are too often heard to be presenting only a negative message which can leave them feeling deep shame and discourage them from emerging from the isolation of a lonely and private battle, which creates a fertile soil where temptation increases and compromise becomes more likely.

 

The problem is largely caused by the fact that most of our comments on homosexuality are prompted, not primarily by a pastoral concern for struggling Christians, but by political debates in the world and the church. We do need to engage in these debates, but it’s vital that we’re alert to the messages that some of our brothers and sisters may be hearing.

 

Media reporting often doesn’t help and can give the impression that we think this particular sin is especially heinous. Also, in countering the simplistic binary model of the world that people are either born gay or straight (or, occasionally, bi), we are prone to make overly dogmatic comments ourselves about causation and cure. These can be heard to imply that homosexual attraction is just a matter of personal choice. This only increases the sense of shame already felt by those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction and can leave them with the impression that this is a battle that is not safe to share with others in the church. I have become convinced, therefore, that we need not only a greater openness in discussing issues of sexuality, but also a more positive vision and presentation of the nature of faithful discipleship for those who struggle in this area.

 

Father, I'm starting to think the only reason you post on this thread is to get props. Greed is rather unbecoming of a Capuchin Franciscan. ;)

[PhuturePriest]

Sorry I wrote that last post in a hurry, I don't think I was very nice.

 

What I mean is that if people don't say that, others might assume that they don't treat gays with dignity. They are saying that they are trying to practice the maxim, hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

I don't think any of us do have the as you call it "hateful bigoted feelings" for gays, but rather that we hate the sin itself. I doubt any of us hate individual persons, regardless of whether or not they are in sin.

 

Don't bother with Kujo. He thinks what he thinks and he calls what he thinks is a spade a spade, and there's no changing his mind about it.

[franciscanheart]

Don't bother with Kujo. He thinks what he thinks and he calls what he thinks is a spade a spade, and there's no changing his mind about it.

To be fair, that's quite true on both sides of the table. There are plenty here who relate gays to child rapists and won't choose to say it any other way. We might all have some learning to do.

[PhuturePriest]

To be fair, that's quite true on both sides of the table. There are plenty here who relate gays to child rapists and won't choose to say it any other way. We might all have some learning to do.

 

I haven't been following the thread thoroughly, but I don't believe anyone equated gays with child rapists.

[Winchester]

We are co-heirs with Christ.

 

Thank you for the completely humourless observation.
 

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

I haven't been following the thread thoroughly, but I don't believe anyone equated gays with child rapists.

 Page 2, post # 24.

 

Yes, it happened.

[PhuturePriest]

 Page 2, post # 24.

 

Yes, it happened.

 

That's rather depressing.