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

[Lilllabettt]

franciscan heart , maybe you should take a break from this thread. You're a little out of control.

 

I know a LOT of people who do not use the term  gay to describe themselves for various reasons. They prefer the term SSA. They and their choices and their feelings are not "ridiculous."

 

People who cannot correct ignorance with patience and charity should not do it.

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't understand why "homosexual" is any more offensive than "heterosexual". They are just words. They describe something that IS.

 

I guess the people on that website - don't want to base their identity around these inclinations, but to just say that they have the inclinations, but since they don't want to act on them, their identity is more in what they will.

[Ice_nine]

. But "romantic" love is ordered towards procreation - that's why it's there, for procreation and the family - which explains why homosexual acts are

 

Is it? For the first 1000 years or so of Christian history, marriages were by and large not romantic. I know it's really hard to separate yourself from the entrenched cultural context you find yourself in, but there is nothing about marriage that requires romantic love. Again I know it's super duper hard because today we look at an unromantic marriage and say "something must be wrong" but it has not always been so.

 

Additionally do you know about how people of yore wrote about familial and brotherly (friendly) love? Seems pretty romantic to moi.

[franciscanheart]

I don't understand why you say my post is "uncharitable" and then you say that how some people with SSA want to call themselves is, "laughable"...
 
I'm done with this thread.

:rolleyes: That's what the Church needs: more people to get upset and run away from enlightening conversation. We definitely need to drink more haterade to go with all our ignorance. No wonder the people think the Church is a joke!

Oh and regarding the uncharitable bit: Did I call your post uncharitable? Which one? I've a terrible memory.
 
 

How many same sex temptations can a male or female have before you would label them a homosexual or gay? One? Two? More than that? Would you label someone that does not want to be attracted to members of the same sex but is still tempted (against their will) to have sexual relations with a member of the same sex?

I don't label anyone. But if someone tells me they have a predominant sexual attraction to people of the same sex, I'm going to classify that as homosexuality. Why? Because that's what it is.

Why is this such a difficult (and offensive, apparently) concept?

[MarysLittleFlower]

For example... Our Lord says that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (the Church says homosexuals here refers to those who consent to it, since sin is in in the will, not those who don't consent and are chaste, same with adulterers: not those who are tempted to adultery, but those who commit it). If someone has SSA and is trying to live a good Catholic life, and doesn't at all want these inclinations, doesn't consent to them, - it could be confusing for them to think of themselves as homosexual. It might make it easier for them to think of themselves as a Catholic with SSA that they're trying to avoid and live chastely. If someone acts on it, of course that is different... that's why some people prefer to call "homosexual" those who act on that lifestyle or consent to it internally, not those who see it as a temptation to avoid. This is what I was told as I was investigating the Church so it stuck with me.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[CrossCuT]

con·de·scend·ing  

/ˌkändəˈsendiNG/

 

Adjective

1. Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.
2. (of an action) Demonstrating such an attitude.

 

Synonyms

patronizing

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

What I find really irritating and also terribly sad is the inherent mistrust we have with homosexuals loving each other. Like a deep and intimate or romantic love for a person of the same sex is just BOUND to end up in someone getting laid or, that deep down they both just want to bed each other so therefore the love between them is defiled. I think here even good Catholics have fallen for the old trappings of Freudian psychology, that deep down we just want to screw and survive and all of these higher feelings of "love" are simply masks for what is deep down a dark and disordered desire.

 

I agree. I think there is a reluctance to attribute the word "love" to it because some believe that it's not actually love. The word "disorder" is thrown around so freely that people forget that gay people are just like us. There seems to be an assumption, based solely on opinion, that the love a gay couple experiences is nothing like the love experienced by two heteros. The language I find in these discussions is at times counterproductive. It gives the false impression that the Catholic Church is repulsed and disgusted by gay people, not compassionate and loving towards them. 

[KnightofChrist]

Typically, it's based on what the majority of your feelings are. But sexuality is fluid. Most people are not 100 percent heterosexual or homosexual.

 

And just because you don't want to be attracted to men doesn't mean you aren't a homosexual. I might wish for all the world that I weren't white, for example, but I am. It is what it is.

 

Homosexuality is just an attribute of a person. They can either deny it and pretend it doesn't exist, or acknowledge it as a part of their unique quirks. But, be aware: acknowledging homosexuality does not have to mean "go out and have sex and march in parades."

 

Language and terms are also fluid. I believe the way the term "homosexual" and "gay" is being used in a very black and white and absolute sense. I don't believe ones sexuality can really be compared to ones skin pigmentation. Because homosexual temptations can be overcome where as what race one was born into cannot.
 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Is it? For the first 1000 years or so of Christian history, marriages were by and large not romantic. I know it's really hard to separate yourself from the entrenched cultural context you find yourself in, but there is nothing about marriage that requires romantic love. Again I know it's super duper hard because today we look at an unromantic marriage and say "something must be wrong" but it has not always been so.

 

Additionally do you know about how people of yore wrote about familial and brotherly (friendly) love? Seems pretty romantic to moi.

 

I know it seemed romantic but maybe that's the language they used, or just emotion.

 

I am aware that marriages in the past were not often based on romantic feelings. I'm not a very modern person actually so I don't base everything on "romantic feelings" including definition of love :) I think choice is important in love. Feelings come and go.

 

But - what are romantic feelings for? They do somehow relate to sexuality imo... I mean their effects do. It seems linked somehow.

[Basilisa Marie]

Language and terms are also fluid. I believe the way the term "homosexual" and "gay" is being used in a very black and white and absolute sense. I don't believe ones sexuality can really be compared to ones skin pigmentation. Because homosexual temptations can be overcome where as what race one was born into cannot.
 

 

But "overcoming" your temptations doesn't make them go away. You can't just not be gay anymore.  A celibate priest doesn't stop being attracted to women, even if he's 80.   

[KnightofChrist]

But "overcoming" your temptations doesn't make them go away. You can't just not be gay anymore.  A celibate priest doesn't stop being attracted to women, even if he's 80.   

 

It's not easy that's for sure, some cannot ever seem to overcome it. But I know that it is possible.
 

[Ice_nine]

Sure romantic love and sexuality seems linked, but this maybe because of the cultural context you find yourself in.  To answer your question "what is romantic love for" maybe it's for intimacy, loyalty, a shared pursuit-not things that belong solely under the sexual domain.

For example... Our Lord says that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

 

Did he? The concept of homosexuality was not even a thing around 33 AD. It was not even a concept recognizable until a few hundred years ago max.

[franciscanheart]

When it comes to identity I don't know if anyone's on the same page but, I don't like to identify myself by sexual orientation because I don't think it's a real or solid thing. That means I don't call myself gay or bi, but I also can't honestly call myself straight. That's one reason I'm not so open with people in my life about this, because half of them would be sad that I'm not "normal" and the other half would insist I embrace it as part of who I am as if there is something innate within that marks me as a bit off center. 
 
I guess I disagree with FH on this aspect. I would really hate people to tell me "you're gay and it's fine," I'm more than OK with sharing all the goings on inside my skull, but if people were to impose a label on me I'd get a little defensive and perhaps pissed off. And of course there are many who would interpret that as "repression" which would only be more irritating.
 
So it IS much easier to keep to myself especially people who have not experienced it but are somehow experts on it. Did you know there are people who think that you must either be "gay" or "straight" and "bi" just means you're probably gay, but you're just confused about it now. Many people believe that, and I'm not good at dealing with those people.

We don't disagree as much as you might think. I'm sorry if I have come off that way. I usually identify myself as queer because it's comfortable for me and I think establishes that I'm not so super straight. Have you seen this post?

I know a LOT of people who do not use the term  gay to describe themselves for various reasons. They prefer the term SSA. They and their choices and their feelings are not "ridiculous."

I think it's ridiculous to deny that you are a homosexual. THAT is what I think is ridiculous. I've said at least once already that someone should absolutely identify themselves in a way that makes them comfortable, but it doesn't change the truth of the situation: they are gay.

(Add some snapping in there and you have my real response. Just kidding. GAY JOKE. Bad time?)

 

I guess the people on that website - don't want to base their identity around these inclinations, but to just say that they have the inclinations, but since they don't want to act on them, their identity is more in what they will.

Here's where I think I have an issue: Just because I am a homosexual does not mean I base my whole identity around it. You do not, I assume, as a heterosexual base your whole identity on being hetero. It's really no different. YES: I am sexually attracted to women. NO: I do not base my whole identity on this fact.

[franciscanheart]

It's not easy that's for sure, some cannot ever seem to overcome it. But I know that it is possible.

:huh: So overcoming heterosexuality is a possibility? You mean, we can make sure that all celibate religious never again have to choose chastity and celibacy because they'll suddenly just stop having any sexual feeling whatever?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Why is this such a difficult (and offensive, apparently) concept?

 

Back when same sex attraction was recognized as a disorder, "homosexuality" was the official term listed in the DSM. For that reason, I tend to stay away from that word, mainly because some gays get offended by it. Dat being sed, I'm not the type to pick on people for saying "offensive" terms. Words lose meaning after extended use. People give power to words when they attempt to censor them.