Fidei Defensor Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 SSL = same sex lust. There. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 DERAILED! I wish it hadn't been. I've looked over old threads on this and I had been looking forward to it coming around again. I was so pleased to see the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 SSL = same sex lust. There. That doesn't work because lust is a sin. We need a term to contrast the attraction (which people can have while not sinning) with the sinful acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) SSL = same sex lust. There. Internet security protocols would never be the same again. (It sounds alright though) Edited May 27, 2014 by chrysostom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrysostom Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 That doesn't work because lust is a sin. We need a term to contrast the attraction (which people can have while not sinning) with the sinful acts. But...but...the quote in the OP was about the fact that "attraction" as a concept need not always be sexualized, hence our difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I know I have a major issue with spaghetti sauce allergies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) SSA sounds like some shameful disease or disability, and while I get the desire to differentiate one's self from a culture that makes your sexual identity your only identity, I don't think SSA is the right term. Why do we need to invent a word for it? What's wrong with people saying "I'm Catholic and gay" instead of "I'm a Catholic with SSA?" Heck, even calling it by an acronym further removes you away from the issue. It seems to me that more heterosexuals are concerned with coming up for a replacement word for gay than non-heterosexuals. Why is that? Are we separating someone's sexuality from their total identity as a person to help them, or to let us ignore that they're gay? idk, I just don't see the big need for "SSA." If people who are gay want to say they have SSA I won't argue, but I don't think it's right for me, as a heterosexual person, to be telling people what the right labels for themselves are. Edited May 27, 2014 by Basilisa Marie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I prefer to just say that I'm gay because people know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 But...but...the quote in the OP was about the fact that "attraction" as a concept need not always be sexualized, hence our difficulty. Attraction can refer to sexual attraction, but does not necessarily. I do not see what is the problem with using it in an expression in which everyone knows it refers to a sexual attraction. I suppose we could call it "same sex sexual attraction" "SSSA" but I am not convinced that this is really adding anything useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 SSA sounds like some shameful disease or disability pardon? what diseases or disabilities would you consider shameful, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 pardon? what diseases or disabilities would you consider shameful, exactly? Poor wording on my part. Not that diseases or disabilities are inherently shameful, but that SSA sounds like a disease or disability that also happens to be shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 SSA sounds like some shameful disease or disability, and while I get the desire to differentiate one's self from a culture that makes your sexual identity your only identity, I don't think SSA is the right term. Why do we need to invent a word for it? What's wrong with people saying "I'm Catholic and gay" instead of "I'm a Catholic with SSA?" Heck, even calling it by an acronym further removes you away from the issue. It seems to me that more heterosexuals are concerned with coming up for a replacement word for gay than non-heterosexuals. Why is that? Are we separating someone's sexuality from their total identity as a person to help them, or to let us ignore that they're gay? idk, I just don't see the big need for "SSA." If people who are gay want to say they have SSA I won't argue, but I don't think it's right for me, as a heterosexual person, to be telling people what the right labels for themselves are. The word "gay" has other problems. For one thing, it is can be used to describe both a person engaged in sinful activity or a person with an attraction that is not a sin. This can lead to a lot of confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 pardon? what diseases or disabilities would you consider shameful, exactly? gonorrhea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 gonorrhea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not The Philosopher Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I generally find this topic to be a weird sort of non-debate. If you are writing an academic paper, or helping to draft an official church document of some kind, it generally behooves you to be as precise as possible, at the expense of some clunkiness. In terms of how language - particularly English - is actually spoken by real people, attempts to make it as rational and precise as possible, or otherwise just bend it to your will, have generally proven futile. In the case of gay vs. ssa, I feel no particular commitment to either term. There are things I dislike about both of them. So I tend to just use whatever is most artful, or whatever will bring the least amount of confusion in the situation I'm in. In any event, neither term is found in Scripture or Apostolic Tradition. This isn't exactly consubstantial. Anyway, eventually the LGBTQ label will grow too dense and collapse into a singularity and we will no longer debate these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now