As Church Shifts, a Cardinal Welcomes Gays; They Embrace a ‘Miracle’

[at9009]

Glad to see you back on this topic. at9009.

IMHO I think many people use the “identifying as gay means you must be an unrepentant active homosexual or that you sympathize with the Gay Agenda” to just dismiss all gay people out of hand as hardened unrepentant sinners.

This may be more of a thing in quasi-Calvinist circles that already accept that “God has pre-destined some people to Hell and there is nothing they can do about it”. It’s easy then to write off gay people as the equivalent of vampires, “reprobates” who are damned just for existing.

The brouhaha over “gay” reminds of similar issues with “feminist”. Many MRA types dismiss any woman who doesn’t think women should be completely subservient to men as they supposedly were in the “good old days” as a “feminist” who is automatically an evil enemy of men.

That’s a good point and thanks. Having my big exams done and a little break does wonders for my stress levels.

I always appreciate hearing your perspective

 

[Peter_J]

AT, ToeInWater, and EIF, I think you all made good points. That being said I want to ask, is anyone offended by the word homosexual? (I realize it can seem a bit overly formal sometimes, particularly in circumstances when “gay” is adequate.)

 

[at9009]

AT, ToeInWater, and EIF, I think you all made good points. That being said I want to ask, is anyone offended by the word homosexual? (I realize it can seem a bit overly formal sometimes, particularly in circumstances when “gay” is adequate.)

I think it depends. It feels a little too clinical for me I guess and it feels weird. I’m not directly opposed to it but one of the reasons I like gay or ssa because that way I’m just a person who is gay or same sex attracted. With homosexual it’s a noun rather than the other scenario which is just an adjective.

However if someone used I don’t think I would be offended. It just feels weird for some reason.

 

[Rau]

I think it depends. It feels a little too clinical for me I guess and it feels weird. I’m not directly opposed to it but one of the reasons I like gay or ssa because that way I’m just a person who is gay or same sex attracted. With homosexual it’s a noun rather than the other scenario which is just an adjective.

However if someone used I don’t think I would be offended. It just feels weird for some reason.

To say “he is a homosexual” to my mind places the person into what sounds like a kind of fundamental biological category, akin to he is “a man”. That’s simply a personal reaction though.

 

[EIF5A]

AT, ToeInWater, and EIF, I think you all made good points. That being said I want to ask, is anyone offended by the word homosexual? (I realize it can seem a bit overly formal sometimes, particularly in circumstances when “gay” is adequate.)

Not offended…but I don’t see the benefit of using it in mixed company.

 

[at9009]

To say “he is a homosexual” to my mind places the person into what sounds like a kind of fundamental biological category, akin to he is “a man”. That’s simply a personal reaction though.

Yeah I agree. I think though for different people there might not be that reaction. Like I said my own reaction is put off by the term but maybe for some they prefer it? I guess the reality of the situation is there is no perfect term and different people are going to prefer different ones. So the solution is to I guess be precise in one’s wording with explanations defining any possible ambiguous terms.

 

[StudentMI]

AT, ToeInWater, and EIF, I think you all made good points. That being said I want to ask, is anyone offended by the word homosexual? (I realize it can seem a bit overly formal sometimes, particularly in circumstances when “gay” is adequate.)

I may be in the minority, but I’ve actually always preferred homosexual to gay. I sometimes use both interchangeably but I prefer the former. When I was younger I saw it as a way of distancing myself from the gay subculture which I and my friends, and my ex, didn’t like. My ex and I were on the same page when it came to pride parades and outing people. We found them shameless and in the latter case cruel.

As I stated somewhere on this forum, I’ve only met one homosexual person who participated in gay pride parades and the like. He tried his best to make me vote for Obama by saying how attractive Obama was. True story.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Yeah I agree. I think though for different people there might not be that reaction. Like I said my own reaction is put off by the term but maybe for some they prefer it? I guess the reality of the situation is there is no perfect term and different people are going to prefer different ones. So the solution is to I guess be precise in one’s wording with explanations defining any possible ambiguous terms.

I personally have no preference and I don’t have any close friends who are gay but I do know some who are and they all prefer the term “gay” for day to day discourse.

I agree that “homosexual” does sound rather clinical much as “heterosexual”.

I may be in the minority, but I’ve actually always preferred homosexual to gay. I sometimes use both interchangeably but I prefer the former. When I was younger I saw it as a way of distancing myself from the gay subculture which I and my friends, and my ex, didn’t like. My ex and I were on the same page when it came to pride parades and outing people. We found them shameless and in the latter case cruel.

As I stated somewhere on this forum, I’ve only met one homosexual person who participated in gay pride parades and the like. He tried his best to make me vote for
Obama by saying how attractive Obama was. True story.

While many Culture Warrior types on CAF refuse to accept this, there certainly is a difference between “identifying as gay” and “being politically active in the Gay Rights movement”. Most of the gay people I personally know, even the ones who have partners, are not actually part of the “gay rights movement”. And being “gay” does not automatically mean that person is a “liberal” about other issues.

Also, while the “PC term” for lesbians is, well, lesbians, I’ve also met lesbians who identified as “gay”.

In any case I agree that the terms are very ambiguous. I do think that it is fairly obvious, at least after reading a dozen posts or so from each poster, as to who on CAF is “gay” and who is a “gay activist”.

Much as with the term “feminist” there is a difference between merely identifying as X and being politically active and “in your face” about it. There are certainly many women (and men) on CAF who identify as “feminist” but aren’t members of NOW or NARAL and have never been to any "“Feminist rally”.

 

[St_Francis]

I try to be clear about who I 'm talking about, but I am happy to hear that “gay” no longer (if it did) implies active or activist. It’s a lot easier to write than homosexual!

 

[Peter_J]

I try to be clear about who I 'm talking about, but I am happy to hear that “gay” no longer (if it did) implies active or activist. It’s a lot easier to write than homosexual!

Not to get off topic, but this reminds me of the early 2000s and how it would drive me crazy that news articles were always saying things like “conservatives are upset that the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay bishop” and I would be like “Are you bleeping kidding me? We’re not upset that he’s openly gay, we’re upset that he’s actively gay.”

(But now I don’t know if I should say “actively gay”. I mean, I can’t remember ever hearing the phrase “actively straight”.)

 

[Peter_J]

AT, you make a good point. I should distinguish between homosexual as a noun and homosexual as an adjective.

 

[StudentMI]

While many Culture Warrior types on CAF refuse to accept this, there certainly is a difference between “identifying as gay” and “being politically active in the Gay Rights movement”. Most of the gay people I personally know, even the ones who have partners, are not actually part of the “gay rights movement”. And being “gay” does not automatically mean that person is a “liberal” about other issues.

Oh absolutely. I was young and naive when I decided that about homosexual vs gay. Nowadays it’s not really an issue. I do sort of prefer homosexual though. Hard to explain why.

 

[Peter_J]

If I may ask … for those who, like myself, believe that homosexual sex is morally wrong, how do you respond when someone starts talking about a “gay lifestyle”? Do you say “You should live a straight lifestyle?”

(I’m not asking the question because of any one particular post; I just know that the phrase “gay lifestyle” has been used multiple times on this thread.)

 

[ComplineSanFran]

If I may ask … for those who, like myself, believe that homosexual sex is morally wrong, how do you respond when someone starts talking about a “gay lifestyle”? Do you say “You should live a straight lifestyle?”

(I’m not asking the question because of any one particular post; I just know that the phrase “gay lifestyle” has been used multiple times on this thread.)

Gay lifestyle. Most of my gay friends get up and go to work, they come home to fix dinner, do the laundry, feed the pets, go to a movie or perhaps see a play downtown.

Maybe younger people want to go out and party, but I think that happens regardless of sexual orientation.

What do you think people do in this ‘gay lifestyle?’

 

[Faithdancer]

This is why I’d never set foot in a TEC “church.” The cancer is spreading. …

 

[EIF5A]

If I may ask … for those who, like myself, believe that homosexual sex is morally wrong, how do you respond when someone starts talking about a “gay lifestyle”? Do you say “You should live a straight lifestyle?”

(I’m not asking the question because of any one particular post; I just know that the phrase “gay lifestyle” has been used multiple times on this thread.)

It’s obvious what the gay lifestyle is.

Having relations with someone of the same sex.

All this “but gay people are just like heterosexuals” smokescreen is ridiculous.

No one said gay people don’t go to work and eat breakfast.

It always meant same-sex relations. Everyone understands it as such.

 

[at9009]

It’s obvious what the gay lifestyle is.

Having relations with someone of the same sex.

All this “but gay people are just like heterosexuals” smokescreen is ridiculous.

No one said gay people don’t go to work and eat breakfast.

It always meant same-sex relations. Everyone understands it as such.

I’d counter that. Anytime I heard someone use that term it always implied a hedonistic drug fueled promiscuous lifestyle. People always seemed to assume not only ia gay gay person engagin in sexam relations, but they assume the worst.

To counter I have never heard someone use the language fornication lifestyle to a straight person who who is having relations while not married or someone say the adulterous lifestyle to a person who is divorced and invalidly remarried.

The connotation of gay lifestyle is sex and drugs… which is such a comelet and totally toxic term that if one uses it while trying to engage a secular person, it almost immediately shuts down any attempt at evangelization. So I tend to not use it.

 

[at9009]

If I may ask … for those who, like myself, believe that homosexual sex is morally wrong, how do you respond when someone starts talking about a “gay lifestyle”? Do you say “You should live a straight lifestyle?”

(I’m not asking the question because of any one particular post; I just know that the phrase “gay lifestyle” has been used multiple times on this thread.)

I would stear the conversation away from that loaded term and go into a discussion about what we believe is morally acceptable to God and what we believe is not. In this discussion, I would discuss church teaching on same sex acts, inclination and include things done by many heterosexual people that are sinful as well like contraception, divorce/remarriage, the high rates of premarital sex showing that there is issues addressed on all sides when it comes to sexual morality ethics.

Then probably go into a discussion about chastity and what it means from a Catholic perspective. I think talking about different forms of love (Eros vs agape vs phila…etc) would be beneficial.

Finally talking about how we all have a vocation on this earth as part of our sanctification process. For some that includes big V vocations like marriage or holy orders but not for everyone. However we all have a path that for us. The hard part I’d recognizing when we fall short and getting back in the right direction.

I think approaching this way is far more effective than someone lamenting a so called lifestyle.

 

[Peter_J]

Gay lifestyle. Most of my gay friends get up and go to work, they come home to fix dinner, do the laundry, feed the pets, go to a movie or perhaps see a play downtown.

Maybe younger people want to go out and party, but I think that happens regardless of sexual orientation.

What do you think people do in this ‘gay lifestyle?’

To me that phrase indicates liberals blurring the distinction between being gay (I mean in the sense of sexual orientation, not like when I was in elementary schools and the cool kids would call me “gay” because I was a nerd) and having gay sex.

Or else, the same distinction being blurred by the ex-gay movement. (Funny how often liberals and the ex-gay movement do the same things. But let’s not open that bottle of worms.)

If I might put a question to you, do you think that I, as someone who believes that homosexual sex is morally wrong, should tell gay people to “live a straight lifestyle”?

 

[Peter_J]

I would stear the conversation away from that loaded term and go into a discussion about what we believe is morally acceptable to God and what we believe is not. In this discussion, I would discuss church teaching on same sex acts, inclination and include things done by many heterosexual people that are sinful as well like contraception, divorce/remarriage, the high rates of premarital sex showing that there is issues addressed on all sides when it comes to sexual morality ethics.

Then probably go into a discussion about chastity and what it means from a Catholic perspective. I think talking about different forms of love (Eros vs agape vs phila…etc) would be beneficial.

Finally talking about how we all have a vocation on this earth as part of our sanctification process. For some that includes big V vocations like marriage or holy orders but not for everyone. However we all have a path that for us. The hard part I’d recognizing when we fall short and getting back in the right direction.

Great post. If I might piggyback on the highlighted paragraph, I think this topic tends to be a lot easier for us Catholics to understand because we’re very much aware that some people are celibate, e.g. Catholic priests and nuns. Protestants who think little of celibacy tend to see the question just in terms of who to have sex with, without considering the possibility that a person could choose not to have sex at all.