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

[MarysLittleFlower]

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 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?)

 
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.

 

I'm going to have to respond to the rest a bit later cause I have to run somewhere....

 

but regarding your last sentence: that's exactly what I'm trying to say though! that people don't want to base their whole identity around SSA so some would rather use the word SSA which describes the attraction, and not them, rather then calling themselves "gay". hmmm I dont' know if we're talking past each other or what because i've been saying the same thing..........no idea.

[franciscanheart]

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.

Here's the deal. Homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is not an offensive word.

I feel the same way about a certain C word most people dislike. I read all about it in a book on midwifery (of all things). It's become an offensive word to some, but it doesn't have to be.

That's an extreme case, but it is what it is. I can say "dog" in a tone that makes it negative, but that doesn't mean that suddenly "dog" and "canine" don't mean the same thing.

[Ice_nine]

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 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?)

 
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.

 

Yes I did see that post, and I think I tried to pm you because I didn't want to resurrect the thread, but your inbox was full. I felt I could relate on some points, even if not some others.

 

 

You say we might not disagree but here's what throws me, when you say things like "but it doesn't change the truth of the situation: they are gay," I can't really jive with that. I mean maybe because I am not even, being totally honest, unequivocally gay. I know there are some people who from a very early age have exclusive sexual feelings for the same sex, and it wasn't like that for me. So maybe for these people, for whom thinking about the opposite sex causes them to recoil in disgust, it's different. Are you talking specifically about these people or anyone who falls outside of the rigid straight paradigm?

[franciscanheart]

Yes I did see that post, and I think I tried to pm you because I didn't want to resurrect the thread, but your inbox was full. I felt I could relate on some points, even if not some others.
 
 
You say we might not disagree but here's what throws me, when you say things like "but it doesn't change the truth of the situation: they are gay," I can't really jive with that. I mean maybe because I am not even, being totally honest, unequivocally gay. I know there are some people who from a very early age have exclusive sexual feelings for the same sex, and it wasn't like that for me. So maybe for these people, for whom thinking about the opposite sex causes them to recoil in disgust, it's different. Are you talking specifically about these people or anyone who falls outside of the rigid straight paradigm?

Pretty much anyone who falls outside the rigid straight paradigm. Which is why I often prefer to call myself queer. I have been in relationships with men before and still find myself attracted to some. So I go by queer instead of gay or bi because of all the things we've already discussed. Personal preference. (Though in my case, my attraction to women is predominant and has been for as long as I can remember.)

Oh... I also think I said in that post you are mentioning that if the person tells me they have a predominant attraction to persons of the same sex. Which is not to say they don't have some sexual attraction to the opposite sex, just that their main focus would be on the same. Make sense?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Here' just how I see it.

 

I assume we all agree that homosexual actions are sinful.

 

So is adultery. So is blasphemy. etc. I'm talking about the ACTIONS and consented thoughts.

 

Let's say I have reoccurring temptations to adultery. But I wouldn't want to be called an "adulterer", if I don't consent to them. If they're only temptations, and I don't consent to them at all, I wouldn't be an "adulterer".

 

Neither would I be a blasphemer if I was tempted to blasphemy but said no.

 

ETC.

 

If someone is tempted to homosexuality and dont' consent, why do we still call them homosexual? why not say - they're persons with same sex attraction, but they're not consenting to that, living chastely, are Catholic, etc. If I had SSA, I'd much rather be known as a Catholic with SSA, than a "homosexual".

 

Maybe my post is offensive to some, but - if someone has desires that they DON'T want, why label them according to these desires? what if they don't want to be labelled this way? what if they just want to be Catholic?

 

Maybe I'm just reacting against calling someone homosexual when homosexuality is a sin and they're not DOING anything homosexual. It's like calling yourself by the same name as a sin, when you're not doing the sin. I don't understand. SSA implies something else cause "attraction" doesn't mean you consent to it.

 

If a person doesn't identify themselves as homosexual, but sometimes gets homosexual thoughts because let's say they get all kinds of intrusive thoughts they don't want, wouldn't they rather say: "I was tempted with a homosexual thought" rather than saying "I was homosexual at that moment". And that's too confusing anyways. It's the will that counts...

Edited May 23, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Lilllabettt]

Sexual arousal is stimulus-response. It can be conditioned. (That does not mean "changed" per se.)

 

I suspect that theories of permanent, pervasive sexuality have their foundation in homophobia.

[KnightofChrist]

: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?

 

I don't know about overcoming heterosexual temptations. I've never been able to completely overcome those temptations. Do we still call Paul, Saul?

[Papist]

Lol, when we figure that one out, let me know what the tendency to act "straight" is called. 

Gez. If people are going to discuss something, that something needs to have a term. 

[Ice_nine]

Pretty much anyone who falls outside the rigid straight paradigm. Which is why I often prefer to call myself queer. I have been in relationships with men before and still find myself attracted to some. So I go by queer instead of gay or bi because of all the things we've already discussed. Personal preference. (Though in my case, my attraction to women is predominant and has been for as long as I can remember.)

Oh... I also think I said in that post you are mentioning that if the person tells me they have a predominant attraction to persons of the same sex. Which is not to say they don't have some sexual attraction to the opposite sex, just that their main focus would be on the same. Make sense?

 

I guess I understand where you're coming from. Maybe we don't agree fully. That's fine. I've given up on the fantasy of forcing everyone to see things as I see them. The world would be an insane place.

 

I guess my personal preference is not to call myself anything. This may confuse people or may just lead them to conjecture "she must be gay/queer/bi whatever" but people are gonna do that anyway. I'm mostly an introverted person and I'd like to think I have a rich and nuanced internal life so I find it frustrating when people fail to understand the nuance (and how could I expect them to? While normal people are off being social and productive members of society, I'm introspecting. I've logged a lot of hours lol). So if people really want to psychoanalyze me I'll make that conversation as uncomfortable as possible for them. Do they really want to get down to the nitty gritty of my psychosexual history? There's some scary shit in there.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Here' just how I see it.

 

I assume we all agree that homosexual actions are sinful.

 

So is adultery. So is blasphemy. etc. I'm talking about the ACTIONS and consented thoughts.

 

Let's say I have reoccurring temptations to adultery. But I wouldn't want to be called an "adulterer", if I don't consent to them. If they're only temptations, and I don't consent to them at all, I wouldn't be an "adulterer".

 

Neither would I be a blasphemer if I was tempted to blasphemy but said no.

 

ETC.

 

If someone is tempted to homosexuality and dont' consent, why do we still call them homosexual? why not say - they're persons with same sex attraction, but they're not consenting to that, living chastely, are Catholic, etc. If I had SSA, I'd much rather be known as a Catholic with SSA, than a "homosexual".

 

Maybe my post is offensive to some, but - if someone has desires that they DON'T want, why label them according to these desires? what if they don't want to be labelled this way? what if they just want to be Catholic?

 

Maybe I'm just reacting against calling someone homosexual when homosexuality is a sin and they're not DOING anything homosexual. It's like calling yourself by the same name as a sin, when you're not doing the sin. I don't understand. SSA implies something else cause "attraction" doesn't mean you consent to it.

 

If a person doesn't identify themselves as homosexual, but sometimes gets homosexual thoughts because let's say they get all kinds of intrusive thoughts they don't want, wouldn't they rather say: "I was tempted with a homosexual thought" rather than saying "I was homosexual at that moment". And that's too confusing anyways. It's the will that counts...

 

I assume we still call homosexual people homosexual because "homosexual" does not refer to an action (like adultery and blasphemy) but to an inclination or attraction. The words you've listed don't all follow the same paths. People are homosexual because they have the attraction to members of the same sex, not because they act upon it. They don't have to identify with the word, they can call themselves SSA, but ultimately (as Franny has said repeatedly) the terms gay, homosexual, and SSA boil down to the same thing. An attraction, NOT an action. Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Sodomy is a sin. Homosexuality and sodomy are NOT the same thing. 

Edited May 23, 2013 by IcePrincessKRS

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Here's the deal. Homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is not an offensive word.

I feel the same way about a certain C word most people dislike. I read all about it in a book on midwifery (of all things). It's become an offensive word to some, but it doesn't have to be.

That's an extreme case, but it is what it is. I can say "dog" in a tone that makes it negative, but that doesn't mean that suddenly "dog" and "canine" don't mean the same thing.

 

I totally agree. I find it odd for people to get offended that easily. I'm the opposite. For example, I'm a big fan of racial slurs. The hatred behind any of these words fades when they become part of our lexicon. The "N" word isn't as powerful as it used to be. That's partly because of its frequent use by non-black rappers like DJ Khaled, a Palestinian, who continuously yells it at the beginning of his songs.

Still, that doesn't mean I'd use the "N" word around some of my black friends. It's hard for me to tell people that they shouldn't be offended by terms used to describe them. So though there is a small subset of gays that dislike the word "homosexual" for reasons I partly disagree with, I limit my use of the term. I'm not saying I'm right and I'm definitely not suggesting that people should follow my example. 

Edited May 23, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Ice_nine]

I'm offended by every single post in this thread. Even my own.

[PhuturePriest]

I assume we still call homosexual people homosexual because "homosexual" does not refer to an action (like adultery and blasphemy) but to an inclination or attraction. The words you've listed don't all follow the same paths. People are homosexual because they have the attraction to members of the same sex, not because they act upon it. They don't have to identify with the word, they can call themselves SSA, but ultimately (as Franny has said repeatedly) to terms gay, homosexual, and SSA boil down to the same thing. An attraction, NOT an action. Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Sodomy is a sin. Homosexuality and sodomy are NOT the same thing. 

 

I think people are getting screwed up by things being related and then mistaking them for being the same thing. Homosexuality is related to sodomy (at least in most cases). However, this does not mean they are the same thing. I'm related to my sister. That doesn't make us the same person.You can be a homosexual and never have anything to do with sodomy your entire life. But it seems people keep thinking they are the same thing since they are somewhat related to each other.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm offended by every single post in this thread. Even my own.

 

I'm offended that you're offended.

[PhuturePriest]

I'm offended by every single post in this thread. Even my own.

 

That's a heck of a problem to have.