Apple CEO Tim Cook comes out: 'I'm proud to be gay'

[BrassAnkles]

Thanks One Point for your very good commentary! God bless.

 

[pepipop]

Thank you for your posts BrassAnkles, they have been stimulating for thought and reflection and informative and kind of you to tell us this.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

To “use” something positively is quite different from affirming it as good in itself. We use everything positively without saying it’s good. In no way can temptations be good. Temptation is a pull/push away from God; luring someone away from God, it can never be said that it is good. We have no problem rejecting cancer as bad without also rejecting cancer patients as equally bad. We accept them easily as goods in themselves, with an unfortunate condition, but gay people think it is impossible for their condition to me seen as a negative without themselves being seen as a negative. That is because they think their very selves is the orientation which is a lie straight from the bowels of hell. Their selves can no more be homosexual than my own self can be my tendency to sloth and pride. To say so is not to know who we really are, what the self really is.

Yes, you basically saying that catholics claiming to be faithful can go out get themselves into a committed romantic affair with a fellow of the same sex they are sexually attracted to, and then manage be physically intimate, share beds, live together, kiss, (make out, if I remember correctly) all in this affair keeping to “nonsexual” intimacy, as if they are from another planet where sexually attracted people come together, develop a relationship, commit to each other, express their relationship with kisses and all, and magically never ever commit a single sexual sin whether in thought or deed. Indeed! Nothing wrong here at all.

Acceptance is one thing, positively nurturing and encouraging what you know to be a disordered orientation is quite something else. I don’t understand why your “acceptance” should differ in any way from my acceptance of my sloth or pride. Your temptations are part of your experience which you must accept, but they are not “self”. That is another lie being sold to gay people by a world that worships sexual gratification. Your “self” is a human female, designed for union with a human male; your attractions that point you towards the wrong object are part of your experiences but they are not you. That is our faith.

Indeed, as elucidated by Fr. Hugh Barbour of the Norbertine Fathers, discussed By Michael Hannon in his article in First Things Against Heterosexuality, The Idea of Sexual Orientation is Artificial and Inhibits Christian Witness.

If the sin is theft, then is the standard of evaluation kleptomania? If drunkenness, alcoholism? If sloth, clinical depression?” Even orthodox Christians, he writes, have given in to the custom of treating sexual inclinations as identities. Pastorally, we are meant to preach the freedom whereby Christ has made us free. … Are we not, in the guise of compassion and sensitivity, helping bind the sinner to his sinful inclination, and so laying on him a burden that is too great to bear without perhaps moving a finger to lift it?

Self-describing as a “homosexual” tends to multiply occasions of sin for those who adopt the label—provoking, in Fr. Hugh’s words, an unnecessary “dramatization of the temptation.” Whereas the infusion of the theological virtues sets the Christian free, identifying as homosexual only further enslaves the sinner. It intensifies lust, a sad distortion of love, by amplifying the apparent significance of concupiscent desires. It fosters a despairing self-pity, harming hope, which is meant to motivate moral virtues. And it encourages a strong sense of entitlement, which often undermines the obedience of faith by demanding the overthrow of doctrines that seem to repress “who I really am.”

,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Actually, we are at an all-time high for bullying of gay people too. With increased acceptance comes increased backlash from the right-wing. As someone who grew up gay and had to put up with the miserable bullying that accompanies public school for those who are gay or lesbian, let me tell you that this isn’t some rosy pro-gay era we’re in. People are fighting left and right to institute legalized harassment of gay individuals by fighting anti-bullying regulations, allowing for the firing and eviction of gay individuals at will, fighting for the right to bar gay people from even the most basic of services, etc.

This is an extremely hard time in our country to be gay. I have gotten many PMs on this board from people thanking me for actually representing the community in such a way that an orthodox gay person does not feel completely ostracized from the Church because of their sexual orientation. What conservatives are doing here is destroying people’s faith by instituting all kinds of fake rules (“one must become heterosexual,” “one must hate their homosexual orientation,” “one must avoid all emotional intimacy with those of the same sex out of scandal and temptation,” “one must feel shame for being gay,” etc.). It is not a position of the Church and has never in the entire history of the Church been a stipulation that a gay person must deny their very existence, being, self, and the characteristics within, such as their sexual orientation. Like all temptations, including heterosexual ones, the sin is in acting upon a temptation, not the temptation itself.

For the last time, there is no contradiction between being gay and being Catholic. And I will not stop fighting for my LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ against those who wish to shame us for personal ideological reasons.

Where are these places you speak of, SMG?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Acceptance is one thing, positively nurturing and encouraging what you know to be a disordered orientation is quite something else. I don’t understand why your “acceptance” should differ in any way from my acceptance of my sloth or pride. Your temptations are part of your experience which you must accept, but they are not “self”. That is another lie being sold to gay people by a world that worships sexual gratification. Your “self” is a human female, designed for union with a human male; your attractions that point you towards the wrong object are part of your experiences but they are not you. That is our faith.

“Self” is not just the sum of your physical parts. “Self” is a product of the mind and sexual orientation is both part of your psychology and biology. So, yes, your sexual orientation is a fundamental part of “self”, i.e. who you are as a person. Sloth and pride, unlike sexual orientation, are not immutable characteristics; they are choices.

 

[pepipop]

Indeed, as elucidated by Fr. Hugh Barbour of the Norbertine Fathers, discussed By Michael Hannon in his article in First Things Against Heterosexuality, The Idea of Sexual Orientation is Artificial and Inhibits Christian Witness.

,

An excellent article.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Indeed, as elucidated by Fr. Hugh Barbour of the Norbertine Fathers, discussed By Michael Hannon in his article in First Things Against Heterosexuality, The Idea of Sexual Orientation is Artificial and Inhibits Christian Witness.

"If the sin is theft, then is the standard of evaluation kleptomania? If drunkenness, alcoholism? If sloth, clinical depression?” Even orthodox Christians, he writes, have given in to the custom of treating sexual inclinations as identities. Pastorally, we are meant to preach the freedom whereby Christ has made us free. … Are we not, in the guise of compassion and sensitivity, helping bind the sinner to his sinful inclination, and so laying on him a burden that is too great to bear without perhaps moving a finger to lift it?

Self-describing as a “homosexual” tends to multiply occasions of sin for those who adopt the label—provoking, in Fr. Hugh’s words, an unnecessary “dramatization of the temptation.” Whereas the infusion of the theological virtues sets the Christian free, identifying as homosexual only further enslaves the sinner. It intensifies lust, a sad distortion of love, by amplifying the apparent significance of concupiscent desires. It fosters a despairing self-pity, harming hope, which is meant to motivate moral virtues. And it encourages a strong sense of entitlement, which often undermines the obedience of faith by demanding the overthrow of doctrines that seem to repress “who I really am.” "

,

Well said!

 

[BrassAnkles]

The “object” of a homosexual orientation is a false imitation of a heterosexual union, which is why it is disordered. This “deep caretaking” is made up stuff. It is a sexual orientation precisely because its ordered towards sexual union that is not complementary.

Yes, a gay person is not a sinner just because they like members of the same sex. No one says they are.

 

[BrassAnkles]

“Self” is not just the sum of your physical parts. “Self” is a product of the mind and sexual orientation is both part of your psychology and biology. So, yes, your sexual orientation is a fundamental part of “self”, i.e. who you are as a person. Sloth and pride, unlike sexual orientation, are not immutable characteristics; they are choices.

With all due respect we Christans will just have to take your opinions with a grain of salt. Peace and may you know Christ who died for you!

 

[NeedsMercy]

What I"think" is sinful is Irrelevant. I have found that it is best to adhere to the teachings of the One Holy Catholic Curch and not allow oneself to be sucked into whatever the mores of the current culture are. Mr. Cook decided to make his sexual preferences public. Furthermore he proclaimed that his sexual behavior something to be proud of. Public proclamations affirming simple behavior need to be responded to… If Mr. Cook didn’t want to have this discussion he should’ve kept his sexual desires to himself.

Mr. Cook, as far as I know, is not Catholic, and would not be held by the tenets of the CC. He said “being gay” — not his sexual behavior—was something he is proud of. And he kept his personal life private for a very long time. The fact that he divulged his sexual orientation does not give everyone license to throw stones at him.

 

[estesbob]

Mr. Cook, as far as I know, is not Catholic, and would not be held by the tenets of the CC. He said “being gay” — not his sexual behavior—was something he is proud of. And he kept his personal life private for a very long time. The fact that he divulged his sexual orientation does not give everyone license to throw stones at him.

Only in forums such as this do people differentiate between same-sex attraction and engageing in homosexual behavior . Of course Mr. Cook is admitting that he engages in homosexual behavior- that is what saying one is homosexual means in the secular world. Again admitting to grevious sin is nothing to be proud of

 

[SMGS127]

Only in forums such as this do people differentiate between same-sex attraction and engageing in homosexual behavior . Of course Mr. Cook is admitting that he engages in homosexual behavior- that is what saying one is homosexual means in the secular world. Again admitting to grevious sin is nothing to be proud of

What are you talking about?

The entire LGBT community defines sexual orientation as same-sex attraction and no opposite-sex attraction. There is no behavior associated with such. Only the most right-wing of Christians define sexual orientation as behavior. Mr. Cook is just providing kids with an example so they know there are others like them and that their attractions are nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[NeedsMercy]

To the contrary, people do indeed choose their “sexual orientation.”

“Orientation” with regard to sexuality is defined as “a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual”. Sexual orientation is not chosen. If you are heterosexual, did you “choose” to be so? Or were you just born that way?

“I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.” - Job 31:1
Job is revealed to have made at least three choices involving his sexual orientation. One, he chose to not abstain from sex. Two, he chose to remain heterosexual. Three, he chose to abstain from lusting after any woman other than his wife.

Job made three good choices. For those choices and others, Job was judged favorably.

I cannot recall the Bible mentioning that Job was gay. Did I miss something?

As for those who either choose to turn to the sexual orientation of the sin defined as an abomination in Leviticus 20:13 or who have turned that direction and choose not to resist it and fight against it, as Job righteously chose to resist and fight against wrongful lust - the same chapter of Job refers to them:
“2 For what is our lot from God above,
our heritage from the Almighty on high?
3 Is it not ruin for the wicked,
disaster for those who do wrong?
4 Does he not see my ways
and count my every step?”

“Fighting against wrongful lust” and denying your sexual orientation are two entirely different things.

God sees our ways, knows the number of hairs on the head of each one of us, the number of molecules in each of those hairs, the number of atoms in each of those molecules, the number of electrons, protons and neutrons in each of those atoms… ad infinitum.

No argument there.

We should choose what’s right, no matter how difficult the struggle and no matter whether we win the battle or not … because God sees what is in our hearts and knows whether or not we speak the truth when we say we are thankful to him for providing salvation from our sinful nature. Our choices, in the most secret and hidden places of our hearts, are what God cares about.

That is indeed what the Lord cares about. I, for one, do not know what is in Mr. Cook’s heart; therefore, I have no right to accuse him of “sin”. And anyway, what you think is sin may be different for him.

We are instructed to submit ourselves to God and resist the devil and all temptations (James 4:7) and that applies not merely to the “common” sins but also to the sins categorized as the worst, the abominations.

I can think of more abominable things than being gay; but, then, I don’t like calling homosexuality an abomination in the first place.

If any man who has engaged in sodomy or any person who has committed any of the other sins spelled out in the same context of Leviticus chapter 20 is ashamed of himself or herself for having done so, then there remains hope for that person.

If you’re following Leviticus so strictly, should we also start executing homosexuals, as was mentioned in verse 13? Or maybe we should just go back to the ways of Victorian England and clap them in irons, to be put to hard labor?

 

[buffalo]

Kind of presumptuous saying it was a “gift from God”.

 

[NeedsMercy]

All of things are good in themselves and perfectly according to God’s design. I’ve never heard of people being “proud” of blindness or other disorders, but rather of their ability to be their best despite them. In other words these are more like unchosen challenges to normal human living, they are not in anyway like looks or talent. In any case, Christians should not really be “proud” even of the good things they have. They should be grateful to God for them and accepting of whatever is in their lives that they cannot change, because we know we and everything we have belongs to God is a gift, so pride should not be a normal part of our vocabulary. We should rather say, I am thankful for what God has done for me than I am proud to be x, y, z, no matter how positive it is.

The DSM has not defined homosexuality as a medical disorder since 1986. Being homosexual is not a choice.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Actually leading a child to believe they are born homosexual increases their likelihood that they will commit suicide. this should be especially telling given that we are at an all time high of homosexual acceptance in our public life. I would also thank God that I didn’t meet a person like you in my life when I was struggling because I might still be trapped. If I were you I wouldn’t want to take the chance of misleading children based on a lie propagated by an organization that hates God.

Ummm, what “organization” are we talking about, please?

 

[One_point]

The DSM has not defined homosexuality as a medical disorder since 1986. Being homosexual is not a choice.

It is a natural disorder. What politics psychologists engage in makes no difference. Human nature is heterosexual. All you need to know this is functional eyes. Male and female.

What a homosexual experiences is a pull to engage his desire for complementarity, the innate force that brings the sexes together, in a manner that does not fulfill this end but rather contradicts the most obvious truth of the person own body. Homosexuality pits a person against his very self, his own nature. It is self-contradiction literally. His body says “heterosexual” his feelings say “homosexual.” Like a person with a craving for inedible, undigestible substances like granite which merely by the fact of ingestion is considered “food” or “feeding” or its equivalent by a lie-based secular human philosophy of “I make my own reality, my reality is not objective or independent of my will.” This is a denial of creation. We do not decide who we are. God did, when he made us male and female from the beginning.

If God made homosexuality, he would be a deceptive God because there is no objectively homosexual nature in reality. if God intended people to be homosexual, he would have given them the corresponding nature for it. something objectively obvious, like the two sexes in heterosexuality. But being gay is all in feelings. Perhaps somewhere in another world, God has built creatures like us who are naturally and beautifully homosexual. This would be obvious from their nature, it would not be a contradiction of it. In our world, no body is truly homosexual. Everyone’s body is heterosexual. That means homosexuality, the subjective experience of same sex attraction that does not find correspondence in objective nature, is a disorder. a pull to self-contradict.

 

[NeedsMercy]

It is a natural disorder. What politics psychologists engage in makes no difference. Human nature is heterosexual. All you need to know this is functional eyes. Male and female.

It is not a “disorder” in the eyes of the medical world. Your perception of human nature has no bearing on this decision.

What a homosexual experiences is a pull to engage his desire for complementarity, the innate force that brings the sexes together, in a manner that does not fulfill this end but rather contradicts the most obvious truth of the person own body. Homosexuality pits a person against his very self, his own nature. It is self-contradiction literally. His body says “heterosexual” his feelings say “homosexual.” Like a person with a craving for inedible, undigestible substances like granite which merely by the fact of ingestion is considered “food” or “feeding” or its equivalent by a lie-based secular human philosophy of “I make my own reality, my reality is not objective or independent of my will.” This is a denial of creation.

I take it you are speaking from experience and are not just making this stuff up willy-nilly.

We do not decide who we are. God did, when he made us male and female from the beginning.

Whether you like it or not, God has made some people gay. If you don’t believe me, believe some of the gay people who post on CAF.

If God made homosexuality, he would be a deceptive God because there is no objectively homosexual nature in reality. if God intended people to be homosexual, he would have given them the corresponding nature for it. something objectively obvious, like the two sexes in heterosexuality. But being gay is all in feelings. Perhaps somewhere in another world, God has built creatures like us who are naturally and beautifully homosexual. This would be obvious from their nature, it would not be a contradiction of it. In our world, no body is truly homosexual. Everyone’s body is heterosexual. That means homosexuality, the subjective experience of same sex attraction that does not find correspondence in objective nature, is a disorder. a pull to self-contradict.

He did put naturally and beautifully homosexual people on a world. It’s called “Earth”.

 

[One_point]

It is not a “disorder” in the eyes of the medical world. Your perception of human nature has no bearing on this decision.

It’s a disorder in the eyes of truth. Your rejection of this has no bearing on it at all.

I take it you are speaking from experience and are not just making this stuff up willy-nilly.

You don’t have to take my word for it, you might have granite for breakfast tomorrow just to see for yourself. Alternatively, you can just open your eyes and take a look at the design of a female and male human bodies.

Whether you like it or not, God has made some people gay. If you don’t believe me, believe some of the gay people who post on CAF.

Whether you like it or not, not all that occurs in nature is God’s design. If you don’t believe me, believe all the pedophiles and psychopaths that have existed in this world.

He did put naturally and beautifully homosexual people on a world. It’s called “Earth”.

Sure. Just as he made the “naturally and beautifully” psychopathic people too? Except he didn’t create their homosexuality, pedophilia, and psychopathy, contrary to the false gospel of your liberal ideology.

 

[BrassAnkles]

The DSM has not defined homosexuality as a medical disorder since 1986. Being homosexual is not a choice.

While homosexuality is not a choice it should not be inferred to be innate either. I did not want to have homosexual thoughts, yet I did. Guess what, Jesus took them from me.

Many people have had this experience and many more have had their sexual orientation change without any external influence.

Therefore, while people certainly don’t choose to be homosexual this in no way means the condition has to be permanent. This is a very important distinction.