Bishop calls homosexuality ‘gift from God,’ seeks to end ‘prejudices that kill’

[Catholic13]

I’m glad that we’ve established, yet again, that homosexuality is not a gift from God. In fact homosexuality doesn’t benefit society in any way like heterosexuality does[heterosexuality produces children]

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Men choosing homosexuality is not rare…

If you mean “men choosing to live in homosexual relationships” or “men choosing to call themselves gay”, I agree with you. But if you mean to say that men call themselves gay without first finding other men attractive, that makes no sense to me. It is at least vanishingly rare.

And if you admit that they already found men sexually attractive, then I would say that they were already same-sex attracted, and hence (according to scientific usage) either homosexual or bisexual.

 

[pnewton]

I think as far as what someone said about where do you draw the line, bestiality and such, well I think mutual consent is important as well as being an adult. So no pedophiles, no bestiality.

In discounting pedophiles, you have to also throw in a presumed age of consent. Also, you have to deny the right of the parent to provide consent. Those to, plus the original assumption that it is consent that makes it moral, still leaves the problem of sex with and immediately family member, or in numbers greater than two.

As to bestiality, there is no consent requirement to own an animal as a pet, or to work and animal, as a horse, or an ox.

I guess what I am saying is that while it seems an easy fix to make consent the one thing that makes an act moral or not, that is an assumption without biblical support or legal support. It also allows for some inconsistencies. It is as good a measure as any, I guess, if you discount any teaching authority or moral standard, but it is not without problems.

 

[Peter_J]

If you mean “men choosing to live in homosexual relationships” or “men choosing to call themselves gay”, I agree with you. But if you mean to say that men call themselves gay without first finding other men attractive, that makes no sense to me. It is at least vanishingly rare.

And if you admit that they already found men sexually attractive, then I would say that they were already same-sex attracted, and hence (according to scientific usage) either homosexual or bisexual.

Now I’m confused. Isn’t it true that gay people in the Middle Ages chose to be gay because they secretly wanted to be burned at the stake?

 

[Peter_J]

(sarcasm)

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think there is a bit of difference between two adults being together sexually and a predator abusing a child.

Well, the needle on that is moving fast.

Did you really think it would all end happily and the buck would stop at so-called gay “marriage”?

 

[pnewton]

To be homosexual you have to be brave.

Holiness will always require more bravery than sin. We live in a culture that values money, sex, and power. There is nothing brave in pursuing any of those things.

 

[pnewton]

Now I’m confused. Isn’t it true that gay people in the Middle Ages chose to be gay because they secretly wanted to be burned at the stake?

You need to update your calendar.

But even then, thieves were also executed. This does not make thievery an act of bravery.

 

[Jeannie52]

Pure heresy. Those who engage in homosexual activity make a choice that will ultimately lead their souls to hell upon death should they not repent, as is also the case for adulterers and fornicators. That some would liken one’s sexual preference to being born with a certain color skin is absolute false equivalence and should be about the most offensive thing possible to any group that has had to fight for their inalienable rights.

I completely agree. I will pray for the soul of this Bishop, and for the Holy Spirit to help the parishioners who heard this homily to discern the lies.

 

[BroIgnatius]

If you mean “men choosing to live in homosexual relationships” or “men choosing to call themselves gay”, I agree with you. But if you mean to say that men call themselves gay without first finding other men attractive, that makes no sense to me. It is at least vanishingly rare.

And if you admit that they already found men sexually attractive, then I would say that they were already same-sex attracted, and hence (according to scientific usage) either homosexual or bisexual.

During puberty, and sometimes before it is common to have fleeting homosexual thoughts. Those thoughts are fleeting and disappear rather quickly unless there is something to cultivate them.

In the last 30-40 years, homosexuals have recruited people to be homosexual using this knowledge. Kids are vulnerable at this age. Then, with our culture approving homosexuality, and even saying “don’t knock it unless you try it”, which teachers in elementary and middle schools are actually doing, these kids more easily choose homosexuality.

Having occasional same-sex attraction even among adults does not mean the person is a homosexual. Some will choose that life-style, and some set aside and work through those rather mild attractions and choose to remain heterosexual.

But, the bottomline is that most develop homosexuality, or what use to be called “Sexual orientation disturbance”, in childhood due to psychological issues and perhaps some genetic defects in some cases. However, new research as suggested a third possible cause in utero for males. This is not a genetic cause but an environmental cause of material immune response:

Maternal immune response might play a key role in the developmental of a homosexual orientation in males. This effect is said to be the result of the mother’s immune system having a maladaptive reaction to the male-specific proteins associated with the Y-chromosome during pregnancy. Effectively, then, the mother’s immune system would (sometimes) treat certain male proteins produced by the fetus as a foreign pathogen and attempt to attack it, resulting in a few quirks of development, such as a homosexual orientation or even fetal loss if the reaction was strong enough (i.e. miscarriages)

Source: More Evidence Regarding the Causes of Homosexuality

As the Catechism states, the genesis of this disorder is not well known.

P.S. By the way, I think it was you that chastised me for using the term Homosexuality instead of Homosexual sex. The distinction is important, though I am tired of having to use modifiers all the time. The word “homosexual” is a very new creation, dating back to 1891. Before that the word “sodomite” was used back to the 14th Century.

Thus, my proposal is to use homosexual for a chaste person with same-sex attraction, and sodomite for a “practicing” sexually active homosexual.

 

[BroIgnatius]

I think it is quite clear that the Bishop was saying that the state of being gay (homosexual) is a gift from God, but the headline does open the door to commentators claiming that he said that gay (homosexual) sex is a gift from God.

The Bishop is wrong to say that the “state of being homosexual” is a gift from God. The state of homosexuality is “disordered” according to the Church. God does not give “disordered” gifts. (CCC 2358 “This inclination, which is objectively disordered”).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

During puberty, and sometimes before it is common to have fleeting homosexual thoughts. Those thoughts are fleeting and disappear rather quickly unless there is something to cultivate them.

In the last 30-40 years, homosexuals have recruited people to be homosexual using this knowledge. Kids are vulnerable at this age. Then, with our culture approving homosexuality, and even saying “don’t knock it unless you try it”, which teachers in elementary and middle schools are actually doing, these kids more easily choose homosexuality.

I think this is all true, though I wouldn’t stand by the phrasing. I certainly do think it’s possible for actual sexual activity (whether abuse or sex with peers) to plant a seed of homosexuality. But lots of gay people don’t have any influences like that whatsoever. At any rate, your points are consistent with what I said above. In the cases you describe, attraction precedes identification as gay.

Having occasional same-sex attraction even among adults does not mean the person is a homosexual. Some will choose that life-style, and some set aside and work through those rather mild attractions and choose to remain heterosexual.

OK, I agree, but one can also have persistent same-sex attraction without choosing to live in gay relationships. If such a person calls themselves gay or bisexual, I think it would be consistent with their experiences.

However, new research as suggested a third possible cause in utero for males. This is not a genetic cause but an environmental cause of material immune response:

This is especially pronounced in younger sons (says a younger son with SSA).

…though I am tired of having to use modifiers all the time…

That’s a great way to find yourself being insensitive. You would never say, “I’m tired of using modifiers all the time”, and justify it to call African Americans “negros”, would you?

Thus, my proposal is to use homosexual for a chaste person with same-sex attraction, and sodomite for a “practicing” sexually active homosexual.

I’m just GUESSING that that won’t help you show Christ’s love to active homosexual individuals.

 

[Peter_J]

Thus, my proposal is to use homosexual for a chaste person with same-sex attraction, and sodomite for a “practicing” sexually active homosexual.

Well said, Prodigal_Son. We all know the definitions for “homosexual [person]” and “sodomite” respectively, but since “sodomite” is offensive why wouldn’t we just say “a homosexual who is sexually active”?

 

[BroIgnatius]

That’s a great way to find yourself being insensitive. You would never say, “I’m tired of using modifiers all the time”, and justify it to call African Americans “negros”, would you?

I’m just GUESSING that that won’t help you show Christ’s love to active homosexual individuals.

Black Americans are NOT African Americans. That is a Newspeak politically correct nonsense. Like nearly everything politically correct, it is offensive.

To begin with to hyphenate ethnic backgrounds after the first and maybe second generation has never been done as a primary identifier (until now) except perhaps in tight neighborhoods, or used as a pejorative by bigots. Most legal immigrants what to be identified, and are proud to be known as Americans.

Second, there are millions of people in Africa who are not Negroid. The Mediterranean peoples are mostly Caucasoid. It is sub-Sahara Africa were the Negroid peoples mostly live. But even there, in places like Kenya and South Africa there are Caucasoid families who have been there for centuries.

The point, if any of these native Caucasoid Africans immigrated to the U.S., they, too, would be African Americans. It is a lie, and an insult to the Caucasoid African immigrants to use the term “African Americans” as a synonym for Black American.

The dripping liberal Whoppi Goldberg said many years ago, “Rosa Parks did not refuse to sit in the back of the bus for me to be called an African American. I am an American.”

These hyphenated ethnic designations are counter to the whole philosophy of this country. We are to be melting pot, to be Americans, not separated by tribal mentality.

I never use the term African American, ever, because it is a lie and an Orwellian Newspeak. The proper term is Negroid (Negro for short) [mid 16th century: via Spanish and Portuguese from Latin niger, nigr- ‘black.’] and Caucasoid (Cauca for short?) [Blanca, if we are to keep the Spanish theme]. Or is we are to use colors, then White, Black, Brown, Yellow, and if one is Vulcan, Greenish.

The word “Negro” is a proper word and one that was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. Enough said.

As for the term Sodomite, it is the correct and accurate term for sexually active homosexuals. Nevertheless, I do not actually propose using that term, unless it becomes germane in a polemical argument. Female homosexuals are called Sapphist,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

BroIgnatius,

If you think it is morally acceptable to call a black person a “negro”, in this day and age, I am done discussing terminology with you. I recommend you investigate why this is offensive, and that you learn to care about the feelings of your fellow man.

I have no objections to your complaints about “African American”. But for Pete’s sake, man, just use the word “black”!

 

[BroIgnatius]

BroIgnatius,

If you think it is morally acceptable to call a black person a “negro”, in this day and age, I am done discussing terminology with you. I recommend you investigate why this is offensive, and that you learn to care about the feelings of your fellow man.

I have no objections to your complaints about “African American”. But for Pete’s sake, man, just use the word “black”!

I did not say I use the term Negro. I merely pointed out that the word is accurate and proper and the word Martin Luther King used. Was he insensitive or immoral? It is ridicules to suggest that the use of the term Negro is immoral. The word is morally neutral. I do not know anyone black man who is offended by it, though I am sure there there are many who are as we are under the Tyranny of the Perpetually Offended.

It is Orwellian Newspeak and political correct nonsense to be offended by legitimate terminology, not to say childish. Is it offensive to call me a fat man? Well, some P.C. thinkers would say it is. Nonsense. The term “fat” is accurate. What about retardation? That is the the word used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, and this is a manual influenced by political correctness at times. Give us all a break. This fear of legitimate words is a sign of a dead and immature culture; a culture of snowflakes, a culture of the Brave New World.

If you are going to argue that we should always use the terms that people want for themselves, then we need to do the same with the L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A.A. (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-attracted, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally) crowd and do the utter nonsense of using the personal pronoun of “they” instead of “him” or “her” or call a man “her” and a woman “him”. Let men who “feel” female go into bathrooms and locker rooms of women. Or type women as "womyn. This is the very essence of Newspeak.

The word “gay” is similar to African-American. The word means “joyous” not homosexual. Use of the word is just another obfuscation. I knew a man by the name George Gay. Does that mean that his name is really George Homosexual. Or the Christmas song that includes the words “gay apparel”.

I also refuse to use the term “Mizzzzzz” in instead of Miss or Mrs. The appellation is a result of the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern feminist movement. It was proposed by modern feminists as a title that did not indicate the woman belonged to a man (Miss = belong to father; Mrs = belong to husband). Actually, originally the terms Mister and Mistress had no marriage status attached to it.

Or to ignore the rule in the English language that if we do not know the sex of the subject the male pronoun is to be used. Heck, at least half of the definitions of man are sex-neutral in an unabridged dictionary.

As a professional writer I am offended by such forced and contrived bastardizations of the English language. Language does evolve, but this is not an evolution, it is a rape of the language for socio-political reasons.

But, in a world where college students submit term papers using texting-language, I guess my words fall on deaf ears.

1984 and Brave New World is here. There are more pressing and significant problems we need to solve in society than to spend time arguing over legitimate nomenclature.

Just a Europid here, with a little Negro, and a little Mongoloid (American Indian) in me, and perhaps a dash of Vulcan and Klingon, and with six grandchildren who are Mulatto (Black/White mix).

 

[BroIgnatius]

P.S. Are Negros insulting themselves with the organization to help them in college: United Negro College Fund. Or the use of "colored’ in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

They say, not me, that these terms are not offensive.