Homosexuals And Our Attitude Towards Them

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1586607' date='Jun 29 2008, 05:38 PM']Right. I forgot. I am the only one feeling like this.

Nope. My approaches are fine. Don't you think I took that into consideration?

What a wonderful and peachy relationship you have with your gay friends. I commend you for that. By the way you talk it seems like the majority of the gays in the world are just so happily satisfied with Christians.[/quote]Just the majority that I encounter... maybe I self select for the "happily satisfied with Christians" subpopulation of "gays in the world." I apologize if in guessing why your experience is so different than mine I offended you. That was certainly not my intent.

[Socrates]

[quote name='socalscout' post='1585025' date='Jun 27 2008, 03:00 PM']Does the Church recognize that homosexuality is not a choice? If so why do I see so many Christians here on this forum and in many Catholic writings and websites really berate homosexuals. I mean I am seeing some very judgmental people really laying into homosexuals as a whole and accusing them of being sinful people.

I am just glazing over pretty much what many Christians say about homosexuals. I saw a guy call it a “defect” on this forum and that comment implies that God makes defects.

It seems to me the majority of Christians assume that the homosexual is performing homosexual acts. Would I assume that since we are heterosexual that every unmarried person on this forum is performing fornication or some sexual act? Am I to assume every teenage heterosexual boy is masturbating and is therefore a sinner? Should we have a debate on whether that boy should have “rights”?

Don’t get me wrong I believe that marriage is reserved for a man and woman and parades, TV shows etc. that glorifies the sins of homosexuality is as much immoral to me as watching roommates having premarital sex on “The Real World” or all of those stupid dating shows or soap operas.

It seems to me to be ok to hate the sin AND the sinner when it comes to speaking about homosexuals. I can see where people might think that someone who comes “out” is glorifying a sin but is that what really is happening? I’m sure there are some that do but it could be a very personal thing that helps them cope with the fact they are expected to be celibate for the rest of their lives. I thought about this and they are the only group of people who have no choice but to be celibate and not experience the love that heterosexuals can experience in the Sacrament of Marriage. The bachelor/ette vocation is a choice for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

I would think given all that they would get a lot more empathy from us than they do. A lot more encouragement to fight the good fight everyday. A few “atta boys” for trying. But no they mostly get ridicule and scorn. Why is that?[/quote]
Sigh . . . It seems this topic keeps coming up every couple months or so, and the same stuff has to be repeated.

First of all, I think Kirisutodo and Aloysius, among others have made some excellent points here.
However, I thought I'd add some points of my own.

Socalscout, you seem to be making quite a few vague and unsubstantiated accusations here.
Contrary to pc opinion, pointing out that the homosexual "lifestyle" is sinful is not hateful, but is simply preaching the truth as always taught by Christ's Church.

Homosexual tendencies can indeed be considered a "defect," or disorder, as the Catechism defines homosexual tendencies themselves as "objectively disordered." (2358)
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued an official letter to the bishops [url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm"][i]On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons[/i][/url] which states:[quote]In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.[b] Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.[/b][/quote]

God does not create objective disorders, or tendencies towards intrinsic moral evil. Such tendencies toward evil are part of concupiscence, a defect in our natures that is the result of sin.
Sexual disorders (commonly known as perversions), or inclinations toward sin, are [b]not[/b] gifts from God; they are not vocations.

God did not create homosexuality anymore than He created sexual promiscuity, pedophilia, or zoophilia.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the politically-incorrect truth.
People do not sin if they do not act on their homosexual inclinations, but the inclinations themselves cannot be considered a good thing created by God.
Unfortunately, I see quite a bit of this pc "overly benign interpretation" of homosexuality from the bleeding hearts on phatmass and elsewhere.

And I've nowhere seen anybody on Phatmass argue for denying homosexuals actual legitimate human rights.
The thread on "denying homosexuals rights" was started by an antagonist claiming that states not legally recognizing homosexual "marriage" was denying them their rights.
No one has a right to special legal benefits for being in a homosexual "union," and I think this was made quite clear. Either you're not actually reading the threads in question, or willfully misinterpreting them. As for your masturbating boy example, no one would deny him legitimate rights, yet I think most of us would oppose the state granting him special benefits for his sin (tax-payer funded porn, or what have you).

And, like Aloysius, I am against the idea of people identifying themselves by their disordered tendencies. While you may disagree, in normal language, "homosexual" usually refers to someone who practices, or at least seeks out, sexual acts with members of the same sex. That is what people are condemning when they condemn homosexuality on here.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1586608' date='Jun 29 2008, 07:39 PM']Please re-read my post in its entirety. I have this hazy suspicion that you have completely mis-taken my point... What you bolded is not scary. I simply said there is a biological basis for the CAPACITY to form sexuality in general. As in we are sexual beings...hence we have genitalia and sex hormones coursing through our blood. Plus I am not saying that there "always has to be a scientific explanation to everything." If you look up my other posts on phatmass you'll very clearly observe my views on the modern scientific perspective... I was just offering another point of view.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81762&st=100&start=100"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...0&start=100[/url][/quote]

This wasn't a direct attack on you or your post or your point of view. It was a response to the modern idea that everything must be explained scientifically. Why is it so hard to say, "You made a choice to be gay, or you made a choice to follow your gay impulses?" Why must we always leave "choice" out of the equation? Is not "choice" the essence of free will--the choice to say yes or no to God. If one is born gay, can they say," I did not have the choice of not being gay?" Sorry, God gives you complete free will of choice, especially when it deals with sexuality. Yes, you and others will say that there is a biological basis for the capacity and it's all good and true, but coming up with a scientific explanation well...doesn't really explain anything. Don't get me wrong, science is great and I love science. As a theologian, I've spent many days obsessed with the relationship between science and religion. You say "as in we are sexual beings..."--be careful here -- we are spiritual beings above anything. Reducing the male and female being to just that...male and female, reduces the "tendency" to be homosexual to "a biological basis for the capacity to form sexuality in general..." It is a reductionist thought and yes, it's very scary.

[kujo]

Here's my opinion on homosexuality.

It all starts with chastity. Chastity, in short, is saving your sexuality for your spouse, the man or woman who God has designed and created for you to marry. Thus, prior to marriage, you are not to indulge in any sort of sexual act because the person you are doing it with is not your spouse; rather, you are called to wait and live a chaste lifestyle, saving yourself for marriage. Furthermore, chastity does not end when you get married, but continues as you remain faithful to your husband or wife.

Thus, it can me said that ALL are called to chastity for their whole lives.

Now, homosexuality is one of the many inclinations towards sin that a person can struggle with. And, just like any other sinful inclination, we must take that struggle to the Lord, abstaining from any and all indulgences of it. Thus, there is a difference between a homosexual and person who indulges in homosexual acts, just like there is a difference between a recovering alcoholic and an active alcoholic. The person and the action are completely separate, each deserving a different response. To the person, we should show nothing but love, compassion and understanding, aiming to build them up and encourage them in their struggle to live a chaste life, for they are not going to have a spouse, but will, rather, be called to the single life. Their chastity, like ours, is perpetual.

Any thoughts?

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='kujo' post='1586643' date='Jun 29 2008, 09:14 PM']Here's my opinion on homosexuality.

It all starts with chastity. Chastity, in short, is saving your sexuality for your spouse, the man or woman who God has designed and created for you to marry. Thus, prior to marriage, you are not to indulge in any sort of sexual act because the person you are doing it with is not your spouse; rather, you are called to wait and live a chaste lifestyle, saving yourself for marriage. Furthermore, chastity does not end when you get married, but continues as you remain faithful to your husband or wife.

Thus, it can me said that ALL are called to chastity for their whole lives.

Now, homosexuality is one of the many inclinations towards sin that a person can struggle with. And, just like any other sinful inclination, we must take that struggle to the Lord, abstaining from any and all indulgences of it. Thus, there is a difference between a homosexual and person who indulges in homosexual acts, just like there is a difference between a recovering alcoholic and an active alcoholic. The person and the action are completely separate, each deserving a different response. To the person, we should show nothing but love, compassion and understanding, aiming to build them up and encourage them in their struggle to live a chaste life, for they are not going to have a spouse, but will, rather, be called to the single life. Their chastity, like ours, is perpetual.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

I like it. Beautifully put.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1586641' date='Jun 29 2008, 07:09 PM']Why is it so hard to say, "You made a choice to be gay, or you made a choice to follow your gay impulses?" Why must we always leave "choice" out of the equation? Is not "choice" the essence of free will--the choice to say yes or no to God. If one is born gay, can they say," I did not have the choice of not being gay?" Sorry, God gives you complete free will of choice, especially when it deals with sexuality. Yes, you and others will say that there is a biological basis for the capacity and it's all good and true, but coming up with a scientific explanation well...doesn't really explain anything. Don't get me wrong, science is great and I love science. As a theologian, I've spent many days obsessed with the relationship between science and religion. You say "as in we are sexual beings..."--be careful here -- we are spiritual beings above anything. Reducing the male and female being to just that...male and female, reduces the "tendency" to be homosexual to "a biological basis for the capacity to form sexuality in general..." It is a reductionist thought and yes, it's very scary.[/quote]

What sense does it make to say "this wasn't an attack on your point of view" and then to quote me again and again in a subsequent attack...

I just don't think one rationally chooses to have SSA. No more than someone chooses to be tempted by alcoholism. Or gluttony. Temptation exists as it is outside of our choosing to respond to it. What people DO choose is their actions. No one is trying to belittle the responisbility of individual choice in action. I am not sure what underlies your assertion that "God gives you complete free will of choice, [b]especially [/b]when it deals with sexuality." I mean Dante placed those who lust/fornicate in the shallowest pit of hell (yes they still went to hell I know) but this hierarchical approach demonstrates its historically relatively lesser nature compared to the 'lower sins' of Dante's hell. I just don't understand how you can say that God gives us "more free will" when it comes to sexuality than any other temptations. I do not see any supported logic behind this.

We are not [i]'more [/i]spiritual' than physical. Human nature subsists in the fact that our spiritual and corporeal natures are intrinsically-linked. We are destined to be given glorified resurrected bodies at the Second Coming...we aren't just gonna live in some ethereal spiritual ecstasy...it will be a real, substantial physical & spiritual existence. We [i]are [/i]sexual beings. I wasn't trying to reduce our spirituality with this statement. Our sexuality itself points to God...don't assume that my statements are pushing some reductionist agenda when you have no idea what my underlying beliefs are. Do not take my statements out of context and try to insinuate an outside perspective into my thoughts.

I am free to exercise my rational faculty to speculate on the biological basis of whatever I choose. It is speculation...I am not writing any textbooks, merely expressing my views which you seem incapable of understanding outside of your own compulsion to fit my beliefs into some stereotype that you can place on me based on two posts you have read of mine.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Veridicus

[Alycin]

[quote name='kujo' post='1586643' date='Jun 29 2008, 08:14 PM']Here's my opinion on homosexuality.

It all starts with chastity. Chastity, in short, is saving your sexuality for your spouse, the man or woman who God has designed and created for you to marry. Thus, prior to marriage, you are not to indulge in any sort of sexual act because the person you are doing it with is not your spouse; rather, you are called to wait and live a chaste lifestyle, saving yourself for marriage. Furthermore, chastity does not end when you get married, but continues as you remain faithful to your husband or wife.

Thus, it can me said that ALL are called to chastity for their whole lives.

Now, homosexuality is one of the many inclinations towards sin that a person can struggle with. And, just like any other sinful inclination, we must take that struggle to the Lord, abstaining from any and all indulgences of it. Thus, there is a difference between a homosexual and person who indulges in homosexual acts, just like there is a difference between a recovering alcoholic and an active alcoholic. The person and the action are completely separate, each deserving a different response. To the person, we should show nothing but love, compassion and understanding, aiming to build them up and encourage them in their struggle to live a chaste life, for they are not going to have a spouse, but will, rather, be called to the single life. Their chastity, like ours, is perpetual.

Any thoughts?[/quote]




I LOVE IT.

Very catholic response. the whole shebang. Orthodox, charitable... yay

See people? It really isn't that hard to avoid bein' a jerk about the matter.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1586628' date='Jun 29 2008, 08:53 PM']Just the majority that I encounter... maybe I self select for the "happily satisfied with Christians" subpopulation of "gays in the world." I apologize if in guessing why your experience is so different than mine I offended you. That was certainly not my intent.[/quote]

I was not offended and I'm sorry it came out that way, but you know what, I truly have not encountered a gay person that was perfectly okay with the "practicing" Christian (meaning actually tries to live an orthodox Christian life.) Though I have seen a lot of my "bent" Christian co-workers (meaning they are perfectly happy with the notion of gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, etc...well because to them God is love and everyone should be tolerant, of course right?) have meaningful friendships with their gay friends or co-workers, but I'm not going to sacrifice my orthodoxy so I can be a Christian who doesn't live in the "dark ages." I am glad to hear though that you have gay friends that respect you. That's really the way it should be.

[Veridicus]

Despite the stereotype, you should be assured that there are individuals with SSA who live chaste lives in quiet dignity and submission to the Church's teaching. My guess is that they aren't wearing tight neon green V-neck shirts and walking around with a limp wrist and a lisp so they probably went by unnoticed.

[XIX]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1585666' date='Jun 28 2008, 03:33 PM']the term "homosexual" is a very problematic way of identifying someone. so is the term "heterosexual" for that matter. I realize my post was ridiculously long, but there's a big reason as to why using that term as an identification is terrible. on the sexuality side of things, you are either male or you are female.[/quote]
If you walk into any SA meeting, or AA, or EDA, or NA, or anything else that's a clone of Alcoholics Anonymous, you'll have people "identifying" themselves as addicts. Is that a problematic way of defining someone? If not,

[quote]if you can't see the clear difference between this terminology used to identify people and the other ones you listed, I don't know what to say... but it's really clear to me. one identifies a person based upon sexual fetishes, while others merely describe certain aspects of them. and you better believe it's an identity problem and no one should base their identity off of it.[/quote]
Just because you have a disordered tendency, that means you shouldn't describe yourself that way? Should you just pretend you are not a homosexual? Should then some other guy then pretend he's not an alcoholic, since that's also a disordered tendency that you shouldn't base your identity off of?

At the very least, I think it's fair to say that you can describe yourself as a homosexual without making that your identity. It's...just an adjective. It's semantics. Really, it's not worth yapping at others over.

[XIX]

double post.

Edited June 30, 2008 by XIX

[kujo]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1586677' date='Jun 29 2008, 09:56 PM']

I LOVE IT.

Very catholic response. the whole shebang. Orthodox, charitable... yay

See people? It really isn't that hard to avoid bein' a jerk about the matter.[/quote]

I'm glad I passed the infamous Aly-Jerk Test.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1586667' date='Jun 29 2008, 09:46 PM']What sense does it make to say "this wasn't an attack on your point of view" and then to quote me again and again in a subsequent attack...

I just don't think one rationally chooses to have SSA. No more than someone chooses to be tempted by alcoholism. Or gluttony. Temptation exists as it is outside of our choosing to respond to it. What people DO choose is their actions. No one is trying to belittle the responisbility of individual choice in action. I am not sure what underlies your assertion that "God gives you complete free will of choice, [b]especially [/b]when it deals with sexuality." I mean Dante placed those who lust/fornicate in the shallowest pit of hell (yes they still went to hell I know) but this hierarchical approach demonstrates its historically relatively lesser nature compared to the 'lower sins' of Dante's hell. I just don't understand how you can say that God gives us "more free will" when it comes to sexuality than any other temptations. I do not see any supported logic behind this.

We are not [i]'more [/i]spiritual' than physical. Human nature subsists in the fact that our spiritual and corporeal natures are intrinsically-linked. We are destined to be given glorified resurrected bodies at the Second Coming...we aren't just gonna live in some ethereal spiritual ecstasy...it will be a real, substantial physical & spiritual existence. We [i]are [/i]sexual beings. I wasn't trying to reduce our spirituality with this statement. Our sexuality itself points to God...don't assume that my statements are pushing some reductionist agenda when you have no idea what my underlying beliefs are. Do not take my statements out of context and try to insinuate an outside perspective into my thoughts.

I am free to exercise my rational faculty to speculate on the biological basis of whatever I choose. It is speculation...I am not writing any textbooks, merely expressing my views which you seem incapable of understanding outside of your own compulsion to fit my beliefs into some stereotype that you can place on me based on two posts you have read of mine.[/quote]

[quote]What sense does it make to say "this wasn't an attack on your point of view" and then to quote me again and again in a subsequent attack...[/quote]

Makes perfect sense to me. You were making a statement that can be shared by other scientists that study biology, which can then be called a scientific view, which then can naturally transform your view into a more general scientific view, which then neutralizes your point of view. Simple.

[quote]I just don't understand how you can say that God gives us "more free will" when it comes to sexuality than any other temptations. I do not see any supported logic behind this.[/quote]

Not what I really said. I just emphasized "sexuality" (due to the nature of the argument) in our complete free-will to choose.

[quote]We are not [i]'more [/i]spiritual' than physical.[/quote]

Umm...didn't really say this. First I didn't mention "physical" and I said "we are more spiritual beings than anything" meaning our biggest quality as human beings is that we are spiritual and our spirit should be our greatest and major attribute as a Christian directing himself towards God.

[quote]I am free to exercise my rational faculty to speculate on the biological basis of whatever I choose. It is speculation...I am not writing any textbooks, merely expressing my views which you seem incapable of understanding outside of your own compulsion to fit my beliefs into some stereotype that you can place on me based on two posts you have read of mine.[/quote]

Right, because you are a much more complicated person than I assume to know you to be since I placed you in such a nasty mold. I mean that was my overall intention--identify and attack the reductionist.

[quote]given glorified resurrected bodies[/quote]

Are we going to be sexual with these bodies since we are sexual beings?

[quote]don't assume that my statements are pushing some reductionist agenda when you have no idea what my underlying beliefs are[/quote]

Oh, no, I hit a tender knot here, or as my fiance's chiropractor likes to call them...a trigger point.

Peace

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1586711' date='Jun 29 2008, 08:29 PM']......
......
......

Peace[/quote]

Interesting way to close your post following all that sarcasm.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Veridicus

[kujo]

Anybody else want to address my comments?