Another Thread On Ssa

[The Bus Station]

Uranian

 

wut

[Anastasia13]

But...but...the quote in the OP was about the fact that "attraction" as a concept need not always be sexualized, hence our difficulty.

Sass

Same sex sexual activity?

[The Bus Station]

ASSS  Attractive sexual same sex meow

[Lilllabettt]

 

 

Anyway, eventually the LGBTQ label will grow too dense and collapse into a singularity and we will no longer debate these things.

 

to prove your point

the new designation is LGBTQIA (intersexual and asexual)

get with the program bro

[Lilllabettt]

gonorrhea

 

 

you're a doctor. deal with it.

[PhuturePriest]

to prove your point

the new designation is LGBTQIA (intersexual and asexual)

get with the program bro

 

Recently, a man asked me if I was LGBTQ.

 

I told him I pity the person who is so confused about their sexuality that they think they're lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, and questioning. Though if I were that confused, I would definitely be very questioning about myself as a person.

Edited May 27, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Credo in Deum]

Sass
Same sex sexual activity?

[cappie]

I would just like to add that “same sex attraction” is ambiguous in a way that is destructive. The type of attraction is not specified, only the object of the attraction. All people should have some level of same sex attraction because we need relationships with people of the same sex.The question is the end and effect of that attraction, not the object.

[Perigrina]

I would just like to add that “same sex attraction” is ambiguous in a way that is destructive. The type of attraction is not specified, only the object of the attraction. All people should have some level of same sex attraction because we need relationships with people of the same sex.The question is the end and effect of that attraction, not the object.

 

There may be a theoretical ambiguity, but I have never seen anyone understanding SSA to mean a non-sexual attraction.  There seems to be an accepted convention that it refers to sexual attraction. 

 

In contrast, I have witnessed numerous misunderstandings and confusion with the other words associated with this topic: homosexual, gay, sodomy.
 

[Perigrina]

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.

 

I have written a lot of academic papers and read a lot of Church documents, so that explains why that is the style I gravitate towards.

[Credo in Deum]

WFSHCHASA

Weak Fallen Sinful Human Capable of Having All Sorts of Attractions.

[Fidei Defensor]

There may be a theoretical ambiguity, but I have never seen anyone understanding SSA to mean a non-sexual attraction.  There seems to be an accepted convention that it refers to sexual attraction. 

 

In contrast, I have witnessed numerous misunderstandings and confusion with the other words associated with this topic: homosexual, gay, sodomy.
 

I think the destructive part of phrase "same sex attraction" is the assumption that it's a) a bad kind of attraction and b) it necessarily leads to sin.

[AugustineA]

Gee wiz, these threads are just buzzin. I don't know if it's the culture on PM or the demographics, but anyhow. I think.. 

 

If in most cases its expression leads to disordered moral sin, there is a valid argument to be had over whether it is intrinsically bad or not (I), or whether impulses can be morally judged based on their degree of potentiality (2). Though some people may argue that sodomy is a moral sin, but the impulse of SSA is varied and doesn't in most cases lead to sodomy (3), an argument which I would also like to see made convincingly and in full compliance with Church teaching, if made (4). 

 

Any arguments should also be made (at least as it is clear in my mind) with clear conviction that an the moral character of an impulse, if it has a moral character, does not project the same moral judgement onto the person, unlike the act or expression of the impulse which clearly does. Finally, any real discussion on the topic ought to differentiate between an impulse and thought (5), where an impulse is a thought and where the thought is the expression of an impulse, in relation to SSA. Although this is a much less sophisticated argument to make than say argument 1, 4 or particularly 2. 

 

And then if, when all that is done, we can burn it and simply read the scriptures.. But if you can make even 2 out of the 5 arguments there using the Catechism, Scripture, St. Aquinas, or Augustine, I will prop you, make coffee and thoroughly enjoy your post. :D

 

 

 

[Perigrina]

I think the destructive part of phrase "same sex attraction" is the assumption that it's a) a bad kind of attraction and b) it necessarily leads to sin.

 

According to the Catechism, the tendency to have this attraction is "objectively disordered", so there is some justification for considering it a bad kind of attraction.  But is not bad in the sense of sinful and it is important to be clear about that.  It is also important to be clear that the attraction does not necessarily lead to sin.  We should never assume that people with this attraction are sinning or are about to sin because of it.  I do not see anything in the phrase itself that encourages such a wrong idea, although I have encountered people who think it.  I suspect that people who think that the attraction always leads to sin would think that no matter terminology was used.