Well, I wasn’t the one making the connection, but there it is.
What am I supposed to think?
- Status
I wish that was the case all around.
It would save a lot of confusion.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
You only re-quoted the first part of what I had posted. Further down it says, " General Social Survey data indicates that the distribution of partner numbers among men who have sex exclusively with men and men who have sex exclusively with women is similar, but that differences appear in the proportion of those with very high number of partners, which is larger among gay men, but that in any case makes up a small minority for both groups." As the article says, only a small minority (about 25%) have had sex with very high numbers of partners, although admittedly gay men in that minority have had a lot more partners than straight men in that minority.
J
JimG
Guest
The more I read, the less I understand what the word “gay” means. It seems pretty vague. Maybe it can mean anything. If it means sexual attraction to particular people even that’s pretty vague. As a child I had no sexual attraction to anyone. It was only when I began contemplating marriage that sexual attraction was a meaningful concept. I think the most appropriate words to appy to men and women are “man” and “woman.”
T
Thorolfr
Guest
VanitasVanitatum pointed out that the study I referred to was from 1994 or 25 years ago. But that’s still quite a bit more recent than your source which is from 1978 or 41 years ago. I have no idea how many people the 1978 study surveyed or whether it was anything close to a random survey of gay men. And anything from the 1970s in the pre-AIDS period is not going to be a very accurate reflection of what younger gay men are doing now. Most people who were sexually active in 1978 would be over 60 and in many cases, over 70 or even over 80 by now if they’re still alive.
R
Rau
Guest
It means anecdote is anecdote.
R
Rau
Guest
Since I never made THAT statement, who is being disingenuous now? YOU are the one who introduced “Catholics”. My statement was that the term “gay” is ambiguous. And that’s quite a separate matter of what your preferred dictionary defines it to mean. Some dictionaries limit it to desire, others have the term encompass behaviour. And usage is another matter.
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
Is it not true that many Catholics feel the term is ambiguous? Am I wrong for saying that? Especially after I clarified that other groups are included as well? You’re focusing on this rather than the actual topic, which is a waste of energy.
It would be a more productive use of time to show these definitions then, instead of talking about what you think people who use it are implying, don’t you agree?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
No grounds are established to contain the observation to Catholics. That was your contribution - as if you suggest it was a thing peculiar to Catholics.
See for instance Dictionary.com
L
Lea101
Guest
Thank you.
I notice they define it as homosexual as well (of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex; homosexual
, which looks like they’ve blended the two adjectives of the word gay.E.g. Gay can be used to describe someone’s attraction (I’m gay), or actions (gay sex). Same with the word homosexual. (She is a homosexual, VS they’re engaging in homosexual activity). The latter doesn’t include desire.
I can see the ambiguity if someone who doesn’t know this were to read it. But it doesn’t seem like good evidence to say that someone who says ‘I’m gay’ publicly is referring to their actions, which was what you’re saying. Unless i mixed up with another poster. But rather, an assumption because most such people aren’t religious and are in favour or sexual activity.
A
apples19
Guest
im not adding much to the discussion with my reply but wanted to share a similar situation.
me and my friend were talking about this in a hypothetical once:
say in the following generations, everyone part of those generations were homosexual. everyone was practicing same-sex marriage as well and the rate of people making children dropped, meaning the population would drop as well. we concluded that ,as weird as it sounds, the world would end if it got too gay (not enough people making children, less and less people in the following generations, until there’s no people any more)
but what if instead of homosexual, everyone became a priest or a nun, or any clergy that practices celibacy. we concluded that the same thing would happen: the rate of people making babies would drop, overall population drop, no more people; this would also mean that everyone in this hypothetical world was Catholic
so, both would have similar outcomes only one would end in the most holiest of ways and the other because of our pleasures as humans
me and my friend were talking about this in a hypothetical once:
say in the following generations, everyone part of those generations were homosexual. everyone was practicing same-sex marriage as well and the rate of people making children dropped, meaning the population would drop as well. we concluded that ,as weird as it sounds, the world would end if it got too gay (not enough people making children, less and less people in the following generations, until there’s no people any more)
but what if instead of homosexual, everyone became a priest or a nun, or any clergy that practices celibacy. we concluded that the same thing would happen: the rate of people making babies would drop, overall population drop, no more people; this would also mean that everyone in this hypothetical world was Catholic
so, both would have similar outcomes only one would end in the most holiest of ways and the other because of our pleasures as humans
Your approach to the question of adultery, divorce, and remarriage is novel, to say the least. I had never thought about it in quite that way. It somewhat resembles the Eastern Orthodox teaching on how to handle a second marriage (the “completed sin” concept, or whatever they would call it). I want to make sure I’ve got this straight (and for the benefit of our readers as well):
- Adultery is committed. That is a sin. Nobody disputes that.
- For these purposes, the “fornication” referred to in the Bible is the act of a married person committing this act of adultery.
- I will assume that it is a repeated act, or a single act that is so profound that it breaks the marriage in two (i.e., not just a “one-night stand” or a brief fling with someone from the office or the country club).
- What has been done breaks the marriage.
- And it creates a bond with the person with whom the adultery/fornication has been committed.
- The sinner can repent of having done this, and be free to marry the person.
- And then it will (or can) be a holy marriage, and there is no question of “ongoing sin” because any sin that took place is over and done with, and everybody moves on with the “facts on the ground”, as it were.
Do I interpret this scenario correctly, or am I missing or misinterpreting something?
C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
If society falls, it falls. Bring on the reaping!
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
I think, we the people, are too critical about just about everybody else and everything in this world.
These are all God’s people and this is the world created for the people.
We should give praise and glory to God for everything and for everybody.
These are all God’s people and this is the world created for the people.
We should give praise and glory to God for everything and for everybody.
A
annem
Guest
Of course, because we are all sinful, we are too critical of other people. This is wrong, and we must try to put the love of God in all our reactions.
However…Christianity is not a simple religion, it is intellectual and rigorous. We have to respond to evil, and condemn it. Not, of course, the person. But the act.
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
I leave condemning evil to God. I trust in God.
Z
Zach
Guest
Perhaps if we were more critical (constructively critical not just to condemn) of homosexual acts and other sexual sins then maybe it would get through to more people. Wouldn’t it be great if the criticism led to more self control and all sexual sinning was reduced and as a result unwanted pregnancies and abortions and STD rates were reduced.
Last edited:
S
strita
Guest
there are certain sins which are very public and some of these are scorned very much by the Church. Societies areound the world have been very judgmental about open, active homosexuals.
I found Amoris Laetitia too long and boring to comprehend, but I was focused by the Catholic news services to those parts which seemed to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist. I can’t address all the theological and historical aspects of the question, but I think Pope Francis was basically trying to say that those are sins which can be confessed and absolved. In other words, those are not unforgiveable sins. The same undoubtedly applies to a repentent person with SSA.
The prejudice against people who divorce or have abortions, for example, has been diminishing. Under the banner of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the Church can carry on its teaching about these things, including homosexuality, but it should probably also address undue prejudice against homosexuals, etc. LMNOP, as Taylor Marshall says.
It’s a big subject, and way over in another corner of the discussion, I think people should be free from sexual harassment about the rights of homosexuals. Just like some people talk about “freedom FROM religion,” I think society should recognize the right to be free FROM harassment ABOUT “other” forms of sexual expression. Why do school children need to be educated about masturbation and sodomy, for example? The gender identity and “pronoun” issues have been blown way out of proportion and beyond common sense. It seems SO paradoxical for people to want to force acceptance of themselves as “normal” by being so explicit about how “different” they are.
They seem to want the power to force everybody else to learn how to act and behave towards them, at the expense of their not especially being worried about how to “fit in” with the rest of society as they surely must. “hate crimes” have been invented to favor certain groups. Sorry for rambling.
I found Amoris Laetitia too long and boring to comprehend, but I was focused by the Catholic news services to those parts which seemed to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist. I can’t address all the theological and historical aspects of the question, but I think Pope Francis was basically trying to say that those are sins which can be confessed and absolved. In other words, those are not unforgiveable sins. The same undoubtedly applies to a repentent person with SSA.
The prejudice against people who divorce or have abortions, for example, has been diminishing. Under the banner of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the Church can carry on its teaching about these things, including homosexuality, but it should probably also address undue prejudice against homosexuals, etc. LMNOP, as Taylor Marshall says.
It’s a big subject, and way over in another corner of the discussion, I think people should be free from sexual harassment about the rights of homosexuals. Just like some people talk about “freedom FROM religion,” I think society should recognize the right to be free FROM harassment ABOUT “other” forms of sexual expression. Why do school children need to be educated about masturbation and sodomy, for example? The gender identity and “pronoun” issues have been blown way out of proportion and beyond common sense. It seems SO paradoxical for people to want to force acceptance of themselves as “normal” by being so explicit about how “different” they are.
They seem to want the power to force everybody else to learn how to act and behave towards them, at the expense of their not especially being worried about how to “fit in” with the rest of society as they surely must. “hate crimes” have been invented to favor certain groups. Sorry for rambling.
T
Tommy999
Guest
Homosexuality is clearly a sin according to the Bible and the Church. However, I believe some people are more predisposed towards that particular sin than others so it makes it harder for them to abstain, just as it is harder sometimes for children of alcoholics to not become one themselves. Harder, yes, but not impossible.
However, what I don’t appreciate is when a homosexual feels like they have to tell others of their sexual orientation even if the other person doesn’t know, care, or ask them. For example, I knew a lady who is a lesbian who out of the blue tells me she has a “wife”. Why tell me that? That’s private. Ironically, she works at a retirement home and I heard her tell the residents there she has a “husband”, so I suspect she doesn’t tell them because their generation isn’t as accepting of it and she doesn’t want to alienate them since she works a lot with them in social situations.
However, what I don’t appreciate is when a homosexual feels like they have to tell others of their sexual orientation even if the other person doesn’t know, care, or ask them. For example, I knew a lady who is a lesbian who out of the blue tells me she has a “wife”. Why tell me that? That’s private. Ironically, she works at a retirement home and I heard her tell the residents there she has a “husband”, so I suspect she doesn’t tell them because their generation isn’t as accepting of it and she doesn’t want to alienate them since she works a lot with them in social situations.
Last edited:
- Status