Are we too critical of homosexuals?

[annem]

The problem is not whether a man wants to call himself gay or homosexual, it it if he has sex with members of his same sex, which is against the teaching of the church.

More, it is if he has promiscuous sex. Our culture is leaning into polyamory, utter sexual debauchery, and the abolition of marriage.

No society will stand under those conditions.

 

[Lea101]

Romance?
Where exactly is this going then?

I’m not sure what you mean.

But clearly there is more to the definition of homosexual is no longer correct.

Which I’ve explained

 

[QwertyGirl]

But in fairness, there is ambiguity in the word “gay” I think.

Only for some Catholics. The rest of us don’t have difficulty understanding what it does, and doesn’t mean.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

I have committed adultery by remarrying but I am not remarrying daily and not committing adultery daily. I have repented of my first failed marriage and everything that went with remarrying. I have absolutely no intention of doing it again.

[Acrive practicing] Homosexuals however do not repent of their sin, they are not obedient to Christ, “… Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” (KJV+ John 5:14)

For me a[n active] homosexual can’t be a Christian anymore than a dog can be a sheep. Not only do they refuse to repent from sin, they boast of their sin and celebrate their sin. They have sin parties and sin gatherings. They protest righteousness for the government imposed public acceptance of sin.

There is no comparison between a remarried divorcee and a[n active] homosexual.

Your logic confuses me. You said an “active homosexual” cannot be Christian, but someone who is divorced and remarried can. In another post you say that you left the Church because she teaches “false doctrines” on this matter, and don’t care if the Church recognizes your remarriage.

How do you know the teaching on homosexuality isn’t a false doctrine? Jesus was explicit about remarriage, not homosexuality, after all. If one of teachings expired, surely the other one will too… or did it only expire because you wanted it to? This sounds like a case of cafeteria Christianity. Choosing to “celebrate” what suits the lifestyle you want to live. Isn’t that exactly what you claim “active homosexuals” are doing? And why you don’t think they’re Christians. How is it not hypocritical?

I think this plays right into the original question on this thread… about whether homosexual sins are sometimes over emphasized compared to others. Here is an example of that being true.

Apparently, now “active homosexuals” are not even Christians (?). Not Christians struggling with sin…but “can’t be a Christian any more than a dog can be a sheep”. What an excellent case and point of disproportionate emphasis in this one post. One sin apparently completely negates an individual’s Christian identity, but the other is OK because it’s a “false doctrine”.

 

[annem]

How do you know the teaching on homosexuality isn’t a false doctrine? Jesus was explicit about remarriage, not homosexuality, after all. If one of teachings expired, surely the other one will too… or did it only expire because you wanted it to? This sounds like a case of cafeteria Christianity. Choosing to “celebrate” what suits the lifestyle you want to live. Isn’t that exactly what you claim “active homosexuals” are doing? And why you don’t think they’re Christians. How is it not hypocritical?

For two thousand years, the church has condemned acted upon homosexuality. If Jesus Christ allowed this teaching to stand for two thousand years without correction, I can assure you, it is true and it cannot be changed.

Please explain why homosexual men have, on average, 300-500 sexual partners according to the statistics I’ve seen, if homosexuality is not wrong.

 

[annem]

And Jesus did mention Sodom obliquely.: Tuly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

 

[Rau]

When has it been used to indicate someone’s sex life?

In my observation, an adult publicly stating “I’m gay” is more likely to be stating or implying that this reflects the sexuality s/he’ll be expressing through actions. I don’t think they are simply talking about their inner inclinations.

When a young person first raises the subject with a parent, the situation might be quite different.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

For two thousand years, the church has condemned acted upon homosexuality. If Jesus Christ allowed this teaching to stand for two thousand years without correction, I can assure you, it is true and it cannot be changed.

I am not challenging the Church’s teaching on this. It’s a more or less rhetorical question for the poster I responded to.

 

[Lea101]

In my observation, an adult publicly stating “I’m gay” is more likely to be stating or implying that this reflects the sexuality s/he’ll be expressing through actions. I don’t think they are simply talking about their inner inclinations

Again, how does this show? It just seems like Catholics are the ones reading too much into it and are assuming that they’re telling you about their actions.

Just because they’re sexually active it doesn’t mean that gay refers to that. That’s just Catholics conflating the two concepts

 

[HomeschoolDad]

But I’ve never seen anything like that at Mass.

When someone is a public sinner, in a matter that is potentially mortally sinful (all three conditions met), it does indeed create scandal for them to receive communion. If two men, or two women, are known to be living together, seen in public making displays of affection appropriate to married people, possibly even wearing a sign of their commitment to one another (such as rings), yes, it’s reasonable to assume that they go home and have sex, just as it is for two married heterosexual people in the same circumstances. Gay sex is an abomination — sodomy — that can never be made into a good thing.

I love gay people, there are gay people I think the world of, I do not hesitate to defend their civil rights (housing, employment, freedom from bullying and harassment, and so on), I abhor violence against them — what did they ever do to you? — but I cannot say that sodomy is ever good. I can’t say that fornication, adultery, contraception, deliberate sterilization, or deviant sex between heterosexuals is ever good either. But we cannot automatically say that anyone is ever practicing contraception or sterilization (as has been discussed in these forums many, many times), whereas we can say that two gay people living as “husband and husband”, or “wife and wife”, at least if they are young, energetic, and visibly affectionate to each other, are almost certainly practicing peccatum illud horribile inter christianos non nominandum (unless it is a case of “lesbian bed death”, which possibly has an equivalent among elderly gay men as well).

I know we all bend over backwards anymore to think the best of everyone, not to judge, not to jump to conclusions, to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and so on — not least because the world does not like what we believe (just tell it like it is) — but the fact remains, if someone is organizing their life so that it can be reasonably inferred that they are committing sin X, a sin that is mortal given the three conditions, and that they are not breaking with sin X, it does give scandal, and it does give scandal for them to receive communion. I don’t see much of a way around that, unless we want to suspend disbelief under the rubric of “we cannot say for sure and we cannot judge”.

 

[Rau]

Only for some Catholics. The rest of us don’t have difficulty understanding what it does, and doesn’t mean.

I don’t know what “the rest of us” encompasses, but I’d point out that a large chunk of society expresses the view that sex is a “right” applying equally to the married and the unmarried, and in the case of the “gay”, then of course “sex” implies same sex sexual relationships.

 

[Rau]

Again, how does this show? It just seems like Catholics are the ones reading too much into it and are assuming that they’re telling you about their actions.

Just because they’re sexually active it doesn’t mean that gay refers to that. That’s just Catholics conflating the two concepts

So in your experience, a person comes out (Eg. In the media) publicly as gay just so we can be all aware of their internal inclinations?

When the prevailing societal attitude is that sex is everyone’s right, I don’t think those announcing they are gay are taking a different line.

 

[Lea101]

So in your experience, a person comes out (Eg. In the media) publicly as gay just so we can be all aware of their internal inclinations?

Why would it automatically be different from someone using other terms instead?

 

[Rau]

Why would it automatically be different from someone using other terms instead?

I think if a person makes a public declaration using any simile of “gay”, the meaning is probably the same.

 

[vz71]

Only for some Catholics. The rest of us don’t have difficulty understanding what it does, and doesn’t mean.

This seems a little broad and insulting to Catholics.

 

[vz71]

I’m not sure what you mean.

If you want “gay” to include romance, then you should specify what that means.
Most believe romance to be a buildup to eventual marriage and children. In that context, “gay” is clearly not simply SSA.

 

[annem]

So in your experience, a person comes out (Eg. In the media) publicly as gay just so we can be all aware of their internal inclinations?

When the prevailing societal attitude is that sex is everyone’s right, I don’t think those announcing they are gay are taking a different line.

A student recently announced he was gay in front of the high schoolo student body and everyone stood up and cheered. This recently happened. However, if a student announced he or she was and Evangelical or a devout Catholic would likely meet sniggers.

This is our culture.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Please explain why homosexual men have, on average, 300-500 sexual partners according to the statistics I’ve seen, if homosexuality is not wrong.

Are you kidding? I suggest maybe you meet and socialize with some average gay people. It may clear up your “misunderstanding” . . . .

 

[chercheur]

Please explain why homosexual men have, on average, 300-500 sexual partners according to the statistics I’ve seen, if homosexuality is not wrong.

I can’t say I know anything about this, but that sounds a bit dubious to me.

Why would that mean it’s wrong, though?

 

[Lea101]

think if a person makes a public declaration using any simile of “gay”, the meaning is probably the same

So you think anyone who doesn’t keep it a secret is in sin? That sounds more of a you problem rather than the actual definitions of the words discussed.

Again, just because most gay people aren’t celibate, it doesn’t mean that gay=someone who’s having sex with the same gender. It shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.

If you want “gay” to include romance, then you should specify what that means

It’s not about what I want it to mean, it’s about what that word means.

Most believe romance to be a buildup to eventual marriage and children. In that context, “gay” is clearly not simply SSA.

??? Same sex attraction/gay = romantic and/or sexual attraction to people of the same gender.

That’s my whole point. That gay is synonymous to attraction while Catholics keep trying to link that word to behaviour.