Are we too critical of homosexuals?

[VanitasVanitatum]

It does sound suspicious.

 

[Rau]

So you think anyone who doesn’t keep it a secret is in sin?

Who said anything about secret? I referred to a public statement. I contrasted that with the private revelation of a child to a parent.

That sounds more of a you problem rather than the actual definitions of the words discussed.

That sounds a bit like a personal criticism of me?

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.

And that sounds a bit condescending. I’m happy to disagree with you about what is most commonly meant and understood by that word. I say the term is ambiguous, you are welcome to disagree.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I would just like to say that it is obvious to me several of the posters here really don’t know any gay people. Actually, they probably do know a lot of gay people but just don’t know they are gay. I tried to come to a different conclusion, but based on some of the posts here, it is the only conclusion to come to.

My suggestion would be to understand and recognize that you are talking about something you have little to no real knowledge about. Sometimes it is better to listen instead of talk, especially when you are talking about something you don’t know anything about. It is a good way to learn.

I see a lot of assumptions being made about the most intimate details of the lives of people not really known to the person assuming. It isn’t a good look. It is what provides fuel to those who believe Catholics are stereotypically homophobic. It is a real shame.

 

[annem]

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

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

Thanks, but the stats are real. Go ahead and look them up.

And it’s not a misunderstanding,

“Why would that mean it’s wrong, though?”

Are you seriously going to argue that Jesus Christ would have not the smallest difficulty with promiscuity? Or that Christianity should embrace anonymous one night stands?

 

[QwertyGirl]

So sad. But so LOL, too.

 

[annem]

My suggestion would be to understand and recognize that you are talking about something you have little to no real knowledge about. Sometimes it is better to listen instead of talk, especially when you are talking about something you don’t know anything about. It is a good way to learn.

Alas, just the very words spoken by all those dear, kind seminarian officials who let in all those homosexual to become priests. Right before two separate inquiries discovered that 80% of all subsequent abuse cases were caused by homosexuals.

Let me repeat the number; 80%.

Two separate inquiries, and the finding: 80%.

 

[chercheur]

“Why would that mean it’s wrong, though?”

Are you seriously going to argue that Jesus Christ would have not the smallest difficulty with promiscuity? Or that Christianity should embrace anonymous one night stands?

As I understand it, you’re suggesting homosexual behaviour is wrong because it often leads to promiscuity, which is taken as wrong.

I would guess that the majority of sexually active heterosexual people regularly engage in sexual behaviour that’s considered sinful as well.

Neither necessarily means that heterosexual or homosexual behaviour is wrong itself though. A lot of the time humans use good gifts for bad.

 

[annem]

As I understand it, you’re suggesting homosexual behaviour is wrong because it often leads to promiscuity, which is taken as wrong.

I would guess that the majority of heterosexual people regularly engage in sexual behaviour that’s considered sinful as well.

Neither means that heterosexual or homosexual behaviour is wrong itself though. A lot of the time humans use good gifts for bad.

Then you stand opposed to four thousand years of biblical teaching. Why? Do you perhaps not believe in God? . . .

Please explain, if homosexual behavior is morally negligible, wny were 80% of all abuse cases caused by homosexual behavior?

 

[Lea101]

Who said anything about secret? I referred to a public statement. I contrasted that with the private revelation of a child to a parent.

If one is making sure that the public doesn’t know something, it’s safe to say that the person is keeping a secret from the public isn’t it?

That sounds a bit like a personal criticism of me?

Not a personal criticism on your character, but a criticism of your thought process. Your assumption of a group of people doesn’t change the definition of a word, and how it’s used by that group of people.

And that sounds a bit condescending.

Okay. It wasn’t meant to be though.

I’m happy to disagree with you about what is most commonly meant and understood by that word.

Frankly speaking, anybody outside the group of religious people who assume the sex lives of others know that gay refers to the attraction. Now most “gay/same sex attracted” people are having sex, but it’s because most of them aren’t practicing Catholics. It doesn’t mean that the term is specifically used to those engaging in sexual acts.

People living in a very secular culture would assume a gay man is having sex, but they would also assume a straight man is having sex as well. They tend to assume everyone is having sex unless they assume you’re some sort of an ‘incel’ or a religious person. And they don’t assume men who like men are religious because unfortunately that’s our culture. That doesn’t change a definition of the word and how it’s currently used

If you sincerely believe that if you were to go up to a bunch of secular people and say ‘I’m attracted to other men’ and they would think about your sex life any differently than if you were to say ‘gay’, I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s not condescending to me if I think such people are out of touch, because their views doesn’t reflect reality at large tbh.

I say the term is ambiguous, you are welcome to disagree

I wouldn’t disagree that the word is ambiguous for you and many Catholics. I just think that they feel it is ambiguous because of their own assumptions rather than the actual meaning. I.e. They kind of made that problem themselves.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Then you stand opposed to four thousand years of biblical teaching. Why? Do you perhaps not believe in God? Clearly, you cannot be a Catholic, or even a Christian.

Pointing out a bad argument doesn’t mean they’re not Catholic.

 

[chercheur]

I actually am not a Christian, but yeah, I was not questioning the teaching, just the reasoning used.

 

[annem]

Pointing out a bad argument doesn’t mean they’re not Catholic.

So a four thousand year old dogma is a “bad argument”.

 

[annem]

I actually am not a Christian, but yeah, I was not questioning the teaching, just the reasoning used.

Jesus Christ is God of the universe. I await breathlessly all your points in reasoning against the God of the universe.

 

[Victoria33]

I met this guy, he was more like “asexual”, he had a partner but it was more like a “friendship”. That beckons the question if folks can have a friendship and take advantage of the marriage laws? Straight couples actually could. I did not pry much but he told me they had no sexual relations. So, maybe he wasn’t a true homosexual. As said, it’s not like I was going to cross-examine him on this. Platonic relationships? Hard to tell.

 

[chercheur]

The teaching that homosexual behaviour is against nature is one thing, and it’s not incoherent to even suggest that it can lead to bad consequences in part because it is against nature, but the issue is with arguing that simply because it leads to bad consequences it must be against nature, or otherwise wrong.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So a four thousand year old dogma is a “bad argument”.

No, but why would you assume that? They were only adressing your point on how many partners they supposedly had.

Jesus Christ is God of the universe. I await breathlessly all your points in reasoning against the God of the universe.

You should wait for confirmation in order to find out if they actually have an issue with that part.

 

[Lea101]

There are gay people who feel romantic attractions but no sexual attraction. But the concept of asexuality is pretty confusing to me as I’ve seen all kinds of definitions.

That beckons the question if folks can have a friendship and take advantage of the marriage laws?

I know some who did that to get an apartment. I assume that would be sinful because you’re lying and faking a relationship. But the church does allow chaste marriages and it doesn’t require attraction to be married. It just wouldn’t be prudent though.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Alas, just the very words spoken by all those dear, kind seminarian officials who let in all those homosexual to become priests.

I don’t think so. For a variety of reasons I won’t go into here. You are deflecting.

 

[frumacat]

When someone says they’re gay, it just means they are attracted to members of the same sex. It doesn’t indicate sexually active status.

Homosexual is a technical term. It’s neutral. I don’t have a problem with it. Do some gays? I can’t speak for all, but I don’t know any gay people who are offended by it.

 

[Rau]

I wouldn’t disagree that the word is ambiguous for you and many Catholics.

But only Catholics?