Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia under fire by students for talk on homosexuality

[Memaw]

Poll after poll after poll show that “devout” Catholics, those who attend religious services about once a week, support same- sex marriage 53 - 40 percent. If these numbers are correct, and I have found no reason to discredit them, Pew, Quinnipiac University, Gallup all say basically the same thing, then how in the world can we be surprised when students, parents and school officials become outraged at this good Sister, when she dares to speak out against this extremely divisive issue, that homosexuality has now become? The bigger and more important question in my view, is how did we arrive at this divisiveness as Catholics on this issue in such a relatively short span in the first place? Especially since our Church has always held such crystal clear teachings on this subject? The CCC clearly states;*** tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved***…Read that last line again. Under ***no ***circumstances can they be approved! And yet, the majority of Catholics who attend Mass regularly, do approve. And they don’t even bat an eye about it! And this is why so many of the students and their parents didn’t bat an eye when they attacked this Sister’s good name.

As you head out for Church tomorrow morning, take a moment to think about that 53 - 40 percent statistic. Think about the fact that better than half of those who are seated with you at Mass…those who go up with you to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament, believe in and support, wholeheartedly, something that our Church teaches is “intrinsically disordered.” And that to me, is the biggest concern of all. We need to stand tall with and support those such as Sister Jane Dominic, who have such courage to speak out when so many…even fellow Catholics, are aligned against them! As for me? My prayers are with this good Sister. ***Bravo Sister Jane Dominic! May God Richly Bless You! ***

Peace, Mark

AMEN and thank you for stating it so clearly. I am NOT one of the 53%. We are not doing anyone a favor by accepting a sinful lifestyle for them. Any kind of sinful lifestyle. That is NOT love. To encourage someone in their sins is the same as an accomplice. Whatever that sin may be. Jesus Christ gave us a Church to teach us, guide us and sanctify us on our journey back to God. HE said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. “Come Follow ME.” True freedom is freedom from sin, all kinds of sin. True happines if following Christ. We only fool ourselves to think otherwise. To think we know more than Christ’s Church is downright foolish. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Delayed response…

The problem is, for every one person who can answer this adequately, you have another ten who will answer with false statistics on lack of monogamy, child abuse, etc. etc. In my opinion, we MUST keep our public speeches focused on natural law, and use private meetings to engage in discussions on the spiritual harm of sins.

If your evangelist is quoting bad information, it seems easy enough to correct that information. Of course, I am concerned that many Catholics (and maybe even the hierarchy, sometimes) doesn’t seem to care about how bad the information is. But the principle of simply correctly your information is a good principle.

And I once again repeat that saying a thing is wrong without saying how it tends to be harmful is completely incoherent to anyone who does not already subscribe to the fullness of the Christian revelation.

I appreciate your want to make it clearer why homosexuality is not healthy for us, but it is actually counterproductive to allow people to use pejorative phrases like “homosexual lifestyle” [in fact, that was one of the complaints in the petition!] or for people to use blatantly false statistics, because when kids associate completely false statistics with the religion, they start to see the religion as false too. Same for pejorative phrases. If people use terms like “homosexual lifestyle” or “f****t” or “homosexualists,” then the recipients of the message start seeing the CHURCH as pejorative too. Kids don’t separate the difference between an individual speaker and the Church’s teaching as a whole very well.

I agree with all of this. I don’t support pejorative terms to describe gay people, and I don’t support citing false statistics.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Veridical16,

I forgot to mention in my post above how much I appreciate your contributions here. I think what you say makes a lot of sense, even if I have minor disagreements with it.

Nice to meet you!
Prodigal

 

[savone]

Though no surprise, it’s sad, sad, sad. I know it’s not so pleasant when I hear a passage of Scripture, or a statement from a homily, or remark from a question that reminds me of my sin. The last think I would think of doing is to protest and act outraged. Even less would I think of doing this when a matter of controversy is involved. We don’t learn anything when we shout over people, or seek to shame or silence them, or feign how wounded we are because of what they have said, especially if they believe they’re speaking the truth in kindness. To have the head of the college apology is so dismaying.

We’re being more and more, I believe, a fragile, intolerant, and “legalistic” society. We don’t have to search that much to see the ultimate outcome of such a path. My prayers are continually for the Church that she may remain steadfast in that which has been revealed to her and for all in their daily struggles.

 

[Memaw]

Though no surprise, it’s sad, sad, sad. I know it’s not so pleasant when I hear a passage of Scripture, or a statement from a homily, or remark from a question that reminds me of my sin. The last think I would think of doing is to protest and act outraged. Even less would I think of doing this when a matter of controversy is involved. We don’t learn anything when we shout over people, or seek to shame or silence them, or feign how wounded we are because of what they have said, especially if they believe they’re speaking the truth in kindness. To have the head of the college apology is so dismaying.

We’re being more and more, I believe, a fragile, intolerant, and “legalistic” society. We don’t have to search that much to see the ultimate outcome of such a path. My prayers are continually for the Church that she may remain steadfast in that which has been revealed to her and for all in their daily struggles.

Amen, God Bless, Memaw

 

[savone]

Amen, God Bless, Memaw

And, the Lord bless you as well, Memaw. The Sister’s situation reminds me of 1 Peter 3:17. “For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.” Given the state of the world, there may be many of us who will be called upon to follow Sister’s example. Lord, have mercy.

 

[Veridical16]

Surely some immoral actions might *appear *not to tend toward bad consequences. But in reality, they do tend toward bad consequences, and not just in the afterlife. Indeed, the law that God has written on our hearts is illuminated by our observations of the consequences of actions in the natural world – so far as I know, the Church has always taught this, and Aquinas certainly taught it.

If someone cannot recognize the ordinary consequences of, say, contraception, as bad, then there are a few alternatives: (1) human beings are intentionally skewing the consequences. For example, in Ireland, girls who get pregnant out of wedlock are pretty much set for life, financially, because of government policies. (2) the person’s conscience is clouded, perhaps by the influence of the spirit of the age, perhaps by the influence of their own disordered passions, (3) the person has not had the bad consequences pointed out to them in a loving way that will help them come to see the light.

You bring up good points that I didn’t mention. I was just focused on how sometimes secular responses will point to a particular state of "natural goods " as evidence that sin has no consequences. I do agree and believe that in the moral universe, consequences occur, temporally, whether or not we recognize them. Contraception as you mention is sad, because God sometimes is the only one who knows for sure. There are persons he intended to be here, brothers and sisters that may not, and on a wide scale and practice, we will never know about until the next life. It is not surprising to see ruptures in families and societies, where many fathers are losing their fortitude, and all sense of what to do when striving for moral sanity.

What we find, in cases like 2, is that a person needs to be converted to Christ. And then God can heal them – *we *certainly can’t.

, without converting them to Christ, can only lead to two sorts of attitudes in this cultural environment: (a) disbelief, and (b) Pharisaism. At least, this will be true of teenagers whose lives have not already been deeply converted to the living God.

You are right to point this out. I only brought up my blunt examples (Fornicators) because I am talking amongst Catholics who are already well Catechized but you are right, it’s about hearts as Pope Francis, has asked, to meet the person where they are in life.

We are reminded by priests to follow Christ’s example, and I think in St. Paul’s letter he has stronger words in admonishing those* in the Church* who knew better , but those who are pagans and those on the margins, Christ was less stern, and simpler in calling them to repentance.

For instance , the women at the well, Christ did not hide or couch his words, but he did not treat her like a pariah, he asked for a drink of water, and talked with her.
He did say, “you have 5 husbands and the man you are living with is not your husband” straightforward, and based on her awareness that Christ knew this, she did get the message of admonishment.

But I can assure you that simply telling a teenager that homosexual activity is wrong because God said so

You may be right for the secularized, but the basis of the tone of my previous posts is in context amongst other Catholics. Of course you wouldn’t leave things out in conversation with that teenager.

However sometimes, depending on the person, they are knowledgeable enough.
I think in my observations, that those who rebel and are non-religious, are not as ignorant as we Catholics sometimes presume, and that it’s very hard to be invincibly ignorant in this day and age…
Sometimes Catholics are becoming too slow to tell the Truth," let their yes mean yes" , and call a spade a spade "
some even are afraid to talk about God being part of the morality equation.
And we also fall for the trap that one must only follow secular terms of discourse – as the Bill O’Reily of the worlds, saying *"no, no, bible is useless now. What are your secular arguments . Don’t mention God. He doesn’t exist in this argument " *

this is a bigger issue due to what the Popes have taught, Pope Pius X Vehemente Nos, “most pernicious error” of separation of Church and State. And Catholics have to continually ready themselves to know the landscape, the past,where we don’t have to apologize for our faith. Knowing that natural law applies to all, it does not have to get* too complicated* when we attempt to meet people where they are if they’re disposed to listening.

We already as Catholics are half - limping from that Americanist mindset, there will be no zeal, when a secular person sees a Catholic just hide his acknowledgement of God, for the sake of Argument!? the Early Church won converts through grace, but also because they showed to the other person, they had a whole embrace of something more, than an attempt at discussing morality.

 

[Veridical16]

Veridical16,

I forgot to mention in my post above how much I appreciate your contributions here. I think what you say makes a lot of sense,

Nice to meet you!
Prodigal

Thanks. Nice to meet you too.

even if I have minor** disagreements with it**.

It’s a good thing. I 've had to reevaluate what I’ve said at times, so it’s good to come upon disagreements or objections from others.

May not be able to reply later on so see you around in the future.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Something like this as displayed by members of a church I used to be a part of would usually disconcert me, but I take pleasure in knowing the world is not stagnant. In a hundred years, the church and it’s inhabitants will adapt to a new world that isn’t bound by the tradition of the old. The world keeps spinning, and objection to the inevitable is bourgeois. Infact, the majority of the world finds all of you who find this fine sick. So, there you have it.

Is the fish smart by jumping out of the sea to its freedom?

Some things change and some things are eternal.

May you know the difference in this journey you are taking, and reach peace and contentment at the end.
,

 

[Colorad007]

I think we should stop using it, out of politeness. What is the argument FOR using it?

The phrase “the homosexual lifestyle” implies that there is ONE homosexual lifestyle. But some homosexuals are chaste, and some are monogamous, and some are married to people of the opposite sex. There is no one homosexual lifestyle, and it’s bizarre to claim that there is.

If we want to attack promiscuity among gays, then let’s call it promiscuity – what it is. Don’t needlessly offend people.

The homosexual lifestyle is engaging in homosexual conduct Monogamous gay sex is still gay sex, and as such is still gravely wrong and disordered. No, we ought not needlessly offend people. I don’t want to go out and rub salt in anyone’s wound, but neither do I want to treat homosexual behavior as any less destructive and sinful than it is.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The homosexual lifestyle is engaging in homosexual conduct Monogamous gay sex is still gay sex, and as such is still gravely wrong and disordered. No, we ought not needlessly offend people. I don’t want to go out and rub salt in anyone’s wound, but neither do I want to treat homosexual behavior as any less destructive and sinful than it is.

Some people call themselves gay, despite the fact that they never have sex, and are committed to chastity. Would you say that they live “the” gay lifestyle?

If not, then don’t you see why they might find the term offensive?

 

[SMGS127]

Really, the analogy that you make would be me coming up to a mentally challenged person and tell him he’s a retard?

We are having a discussion in a forum where you seem to think you can enforce use of LGBT assigned nomenclature. Perhaps you should pick wider and authentic Catholic readings, e.g., this and this. The first is written by a moral theologian respected in EWTN circles, the second by a noted physician who has treated homosexuals – both are sincere and caring of homosexuals and their welfare – both use the term “homosexual lifestyle” with which you associate on behalf of LGBTs insult where there should be none. Don’t you think gays and lesbians overdo the finding-offense-in-neutral-and-objective-terms business? Please stop justifying and perpetuating this excessive editorializing by LGBTs.

The good Sr Jane Dominic I am sure was not singling anyone, or insulting anyone person or persons during the talk in question, especially chaste homosexuals with the term “homosexual lifestyle.”

You claim to be an orthodox Catholic wanting only to be effective with evangelization. It seems you are too close to the trees that you miss looking at the forest as a whole.

Why do I say this? You believe that to win gays over, the rest of the world will have to use politically correct words, watered down concepts, that lead actually to insistence by LGBTs of the opposite of truth.

Gay, not same sex attracted

Actively gay, not living the homosexual lifestyle

Natural instead of unnatural

Okay with God, not sinful

It does not end, does it?

In fact, there is no let up, as shown with this tactic by LGBTs to force their definition of terms, to promote an agenda you are in effect helping but deny supporting. And you know, as a Catholic, even if this malevolent movement succeeds in every state in this great country of ours in legalizing gay “marriage,” the truth is that marriage between two men or two women will never be okay with God.

Stop and think, SMG.
,

I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with your insinuation that using polite language towards someone naturally progresses into acceptance of their sins. You may not have meant that, but that is certainly what you argued.

I am not helping any “agenda” outside the evangelization of the Church in using polite language and asking others to stop using inherently offensive language. You may think this is just about the LGBT community, but it isn’t. [Straight] Catholic youth observe your behavior just as much as gay youth do, and when they observe their parents and/or teachers and/or anyone else in a position of authority in the Church using highly offensive terms, they tie it to the Church. How many kids have you heard call the Church’s position on homosexuality “outdated?” You may not agree, but trust me when I say that many of these kids grew up in areas where adults frequently used offensive language to describe gay people, and since they knew gay kids, and those gay kids did not meet any of the criteria their parents suggested gay kids necessarily had (including having a ‘lifestyle’), they thought “well, my parents just must not know how gay people really are” and proceeded to completely ignore their Church’s teaching on the issue.

This issue is not about the 4% of the country who are LGBT, but about the entirety of our youth, the vast majority of whom [even of ‘practicing’ Catholic youth] have rejected Church teaching on the issue. Surely you can understand that no amount of hand waving about your good intentions is going to change their interpretation of what it means when a role model in their area uses offensive language to describe gay people?

 

[SMGS127]

I’m talking about all the statistics I’ve seen, SMGS. If you’ve got unbiased statistics that say gay people aren’t on average more promiscuous than straight people, I’d love to see them.

Moreover, my sense of things is that most gay men aren’t proud about being promiscuous; they’re quite ashamed. So how would their other gay friends even know that they are promiscuous? This is a case where statistics are more reliable than personal observations, in my opinion.

Woah woah woah, Prodigal. We were talking about non-monogamy, not promiscuity. They are entirely different issues. There is no wonder that promiscuity is higher in a community that is wholly taught against by most religions, between members who can’t get pregnant having sex, and especially involving two men with insanely high libidos. I do not dispute that actively gay people have more sex than actively straight people. Talking about gays being more promiscuous as a result of them committing deviant behavior in the first place is like me talking about how straights are “more deviant” because they have higher abortion rates . Causation does not equal correlation.

What I am disputing is the idea that gay people report any less monogamous behavior than straight people. If you want statistics, this is a wonderful article on the topic with citations:

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/27/_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_people_saying_this_have_no_idea_what_they.html

What’s interesting is that fidelity was actually found to be higher in lesbian women than straight women. And while that bears absolutely zero on Catholic teaching, if you make ‘monogamy’ an issue when discussing gay couples, you will most certainly be refuted by that point.

 

[acacia12]

I do not think there is a “gay lifestyle” Just as I don’t think there is an “heterosexual lifestyle” I think people choose their individual ways to live life in the style they want. I am heterosexual and my lifestyle is nothing like my next door neighbours. I am single,chaste and celibate. My neighbour is single, not chaste or celibate. My other neighbour is in cohabitation with her boyfriend.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Some people call themselves gay, despite the fact that they never have sex, and are committed to chastity. Would you say that they live “the” gay lifestyle?

If not, then don’t you see why they might find the term offensive?

Several posters have addressed the wrong meaning and motivation attached to the word or phrase ‘homosexual lifestyle’ by ultra-sensitive gays and lesbians. The term does not include chaste homosexuals, so chaste homosexuals need not take offense or stop taking offense. It is not and far from truly offensive words like the f----t. Lifestyle is a neutral, objective term, and homosexual lifestyle is a phrase in use by regular compassionate people without malice including the religious like Sr Jane Dominic and those in the physical / mental healing profession towards gays and lesbians.

It is yet another term from common usage the meaning of which LGBTs and their supporters are changing.

False compassion is serving as a golden wrapper so that people stop looking objectively at the contents of the box.

Certainly in discussion in this forum where you and SMG readily disclose your same sex attraction on which you commendably don’t act, and are therefore chaste, the homosexual lifestyle term does not apply to you and individuals like you.

You and SMG are agreeing in effect to manipulation of language in the name of evangelization.

Please read my post to SMG #236.
,

 

[Colorad007]

Some people call themselves gay, despite the fact that they never have sex, and are committed to chastity. Would you say that they live “the” gay lifestyle?

If not, then don’t you see why they might find the term offensive?

Why would you identify as gay if you have zero intent on having gay sex? That would be like me, a married man, identifying as as adulterer because I am attracted to women other than my wife. No one should identify themselves by the sinful or disordered things they are attracted to. I don’t want to beat myself up over those unwanted attractions and those who deal with homosexual attractions but live a chaste life shouldn’t beat themselves up, either. But that doesnt mean that it should be a foundational piece of one’s personal identity. If you are living a chaste life, no matter what you are attracted to, you are living like a real man in Christ, and that us how you should see yourself.

 

[SMGS127]

Several posters have addressed the wrong meaning and motivation attached to the word or phrase ‘homosexual lifestyle’ by ultra-sensitive gays and lesbians. The term does not include chaste homosexuals, so chaste homosexuals need not take offense or stop taking offense. It is not and far from truly offensive words like the f----t. Lifestyle is a neutral, objective term, and homosexual lifestyle is a phrase in use by regular compassionate people without malice including the religious like Sr Jane Dominic and those in the physical / mental healing profession towards gays and lesbians.

It is yet another term from common usage the meaning of which LGBTs and their supporters are changing.

False compassion is serving as a golden wrapper so that people stop looking objectively at the contents of the box.

Certainly in discussion in this forum where you and SMG readily disclose your same sex attraction on which you commendably don’t act, and are therefore chaste, the homosexual lifestyle term does not apply to you and individuals like you.

You and SMG are agreeing in effect to manipulation of language in the name of evangelization.

Please read my post to SMG #236.
,

You’re still not understanding. First off, let me say I appreciate your compliments of me and PS, and I’m not trying to be cantankerous. I’m being sincere. “Homosexual lifestyle” has been used as code for “alcoholic drug abuser and sex addict” for so long that the vernacular usage of it always carries that undertone, regardless of the intent of the user. This has nothing to do with the “ultra-sensitivities” of any gay people, because straight people take offense to it as well.

This is why I brought up the word “retard” earlier. Clinically, it used to be an objective word that meant “one with a mental defect or mentally challenged.” Over time, it grew a vernacular usage as a very insulting way of saying “stupid,” and now it will elicit that reaction no matter how one intends to use the word retard. If a clinician were to write in his notes that his patient was a “retard,” there would be massive public outcry and anger towards him, because he would be automatically assumed to mean the vernacular usage, even as a clinician!

“Homosexual lifestyle” is the exact same way. It has now become a code word for all sorts of evil, evil behaviors that have nothing to do with the underlying same-sex behavior (although obviously same-sex physicality is an evil behavior in and of itself). No one who uses it can escape the vernacular meaning behind it. It is better to use “actively gay” due to the insulting meaning now inherent in the phrase “homosexual lifestyle,” not just because some gay people would take offense.

 

[SMGS127]

Why would you identify as gay if you have zero intent on having gay sex? That would be like me, a married man, identifying as as adulterer because I am attracted to women other than my wife. No one should identify themselves by the sinful or disordered things they are attracted to. I don’t want to beat myself up over those unwanted attractions and those who deal with homosexual attractions but live a chaste life shouldn’t beat themselves up, either. But that doesnt mean that it should be a foundational piece of one’s personal identity. If you are living a chaste life, no matter what you are attracted to, you are living like a real man in Christ, and that us how you should see yourself.

Evangelization purposes, mostly. It’s still as much a part of us as the color of our hair or skin, and it helps us show kids we identify with their struggles. I’m not defined by the color of my hair either, but I don’t hear anyone complaining that I call myself a brunette!

Also, PS isn’t gay; he has * a quite lovely wife. *

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I forcefully disagree with your conclusion that many Catholic schools should be closed in response to “being infested with heresy”.

In this case, it is the students and probably many of their parents (as primarily responsible for the education of their children) who are “heretical”. Nowhere does the article suggest that the school or diocese were objecting to the doctrine she was teaching.

To me, this story is an example of why Catholic schools are essential in fighting the “heresy” that you claim “infests them”. Pius X Catholic High School held an assembly to inform the students about the true teachings of the Church. They are attempting to cast light on the error in modern thinking about homosexual conduct and marriage. They took time out of a school day, which schools today do not do lightly due to the tremendous academic pressures placed upon them.

While students are in a Catholic school environment there is an opportunity to instruct them and reverse current thinking. They certainly would not receive this opposing viewpoint in public schools! Where would they go? To a Christian school that doesn’t teach our beliefs?

I also disagree strongly with your statement that Catholic schools are infested with heresy. I have been a lifelong Catholic. I have been in many, many Catholic schools and in parish Sunday School programs as a student, a teacher, a parent, and a Director of Religious Education. The vast majority of Catholic schools do an excellent job. They see their mission as guiding the religious education of these young people as an integral and primary part of their academic education. Do they make mistakes? YES. Do they have instructors who sometimes do the wrong thing? YES Are they imperfect? YES Has God frequently worked through seriously flawed people and institutions? (Paul’s pre-conversion life comes to mind.)

The Catholic Church does not back down from a fight. It faces heresy head on and repeatedly, continuing the fight as long as it takes! How long did Arianism exist before the Church made inroads into its spread? How long will it take to teach the Church’s beliefs on this issue. Who knows? But don’t tear down the institutions who are currently on the front lines.

:clapping:

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Really, the analogy that you make would be me coming up to a mentally challenged person and tell him he’s a retard?

[removed due to maximum post size]

The word retard used to be used to be used to clinically refer to mentally handicapped people.

There’s nothing heretical about the N-word or F-word, that doesn’t mean they should be used in evangelization.

Delayed response…

If your evangelist is quoting bad information, it seems easy enough to correct that information. Of course, I am concerned that many Catholics (and maybe even the hierarchy, sometimes) doesn’t seem to care about how bad the information is. But the principle of simply correctly your information is a good principle.

And I once again repeat that saying a thing is wrong without saying how it tends to be harmful is completely incoherent to anyone who does not already subscribe to the fullness of the Christian revelation.

I agree with all of this. I don’t support pejorative terms to describe gay people, and I don’t support citing false statistics.

Unless of course that person think that the statistics proving him wrong are a product of “the gay agenda” and that accepting those numbers is “caving into the gay lobby”

Several posters have addressed the wrong meaning and motivation attached to the word or phrase ‘homosexual lifestyle’ by ultra-sensitive gays and lesbians. The term does not include chaste homosexuals, so chaste homosexuals need not take offense or stop taking offense. It is not and far from truly offensive words like the f----t. Lifestyle is a neutral, objective term, and homosexual lifestyle is a phrase in use by regular compassionate people without malice including the religious like Sr Jane Dominic and those in the physical / mental healing profession towards gays and lesbians.

It is yet another term from common usage the meaning of which LGBTs and their supporters are changing.

False compassion is serving as a golden wrapper so that people stop looking objectively at the contents of the box.

Certainly in discussion in this forum where you and SMG readily disclose your same sex attraction on which you commendably don’t act, and are therefore chaste, the homosexual lifestyle term does not apply to you and individuals like you.

You and SMG are agreeing in effect to manipulation of language in the name of evangelization.

Please read my post to SMG #236.
,

The phrase “homosexual lifestyle” is invalid because there is no overarching gay lifestyle. A lifestyle requires there to be a substantial connection to the act; someone who surfs occasionally is not part of the “surfer lifestyle” despite the fact that there most definitely is a surfer lifestyle.

By the logic “the term does not include chaste homosexuals, so chaste homosexuals need not take offense or stop taking offense” an ethnically Jewish Catholic shouldn’t take offense at someone proclaiming blood libel because they aren’t a practicing Jew.

Why would you identify as gay if you have zero intent on having gay sex? That would be like me, a married man, identifying as as adulterer because I am attracted to women other than my wife. No one should identify themselves by the sinful or disordered things they are attracted to. I don’t want to beat myself up over those unwanted attractions and those who deal with homosexual attractions but live a chaste life shouldn’t beat themselves up, either. But that doesnt mean that it should be a foundational piece of one’s personal identity. If you are living a chaste life, no matter what you are attracted to, you are living like a real man in Christ, and that us how you should see yourself.

The term is about much more than gay sex, that’s why some identify.

You’re still not understanding. First off, let me say I appreciate your compliments of me and PS, and I’m not trying to be cantankerous. I’m being sincere. ** “Homosexual lifestyle” has been used as code for “alcoholic drug abuser and sex addict”** for so long that the vernacular usage of it always carries that undertone, regardless of the intent of the user. This has nothing to do with the “ultra-sensitivities” of any gay people, because straight people take offense to it as well.

[removed due to maximum post size]

You forgot child molester, actually in many places “homosexual” and “gay” are connected strongly to child molester.