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

[Rin]

Well, Prodigal Son and I were exchanging arguments on use of words deemed offensive to LGBT ears, in particular “homosexual lifestyle.” He argued for sensitivity in the context of evangelizing to our homosexual brothers and sisters; I argued that the larger picture be considered as the meaning of plain words are being seized and changed by activist gays and lesbians to further normalize homosexual behavior.

And then you went on to comparing using harsh words against gay people to how Jesus used harsh words against the Pharisees. I pointed out that such a comparison is invalid, and grossly so.

With regards to words being “seized and changed” - language changes, sometimes intentional, sometimes not. There is nothing you can do about it. Neologisms aren’t inherently evil; Catholicism contains quite a few of them, actually. Transubstantiation, hypostatic union, homoousios, how we have changed the word ecclesia to mean something completely different from what it originally did, etc etc. It is the nature of language - when we need new terms for something, we either invent them or change the meaning of old ones.

I understand the resistance to changes in language - I possess it myself. But Scripture tells us to communicate with non-Christian society in their own terms and culture; Greek for Greek, Roman for Roman, etc. Insisting on our own neologisms like SSA, derogatory terms like “homosexualist” or “gay lifestyle”, etc, does nothing but alienate a significant portion of society. Not only LGB people are put off by this, but also LGB supportive people (some of whom may actually agree with the teaching of the Church), who now make out a significant chunk (if not the majority) of most Western societies.

(…)Jesus had less harsh words for sexual sinners and none, as pro-gay argument goes, for homosexuals. The rebuttal to the latter is argumentum e silentio. In addition (…)

I neither said nor implied that homosexual acts are not sinful, hence this is off the mark.

True, Jesus had harsh words for the hypocrisy and pride of Pharisees. They deserved a jolt because they were teachers (…) They committed sins others were guilty of, e.g., the Pharisee did not lie, but stretched the truth, did not steal, but just “borrowed,” etc.

They also sinned in the sense of imposing commandments not given by God on other people, if I remember correctly.

But what you write is correct. And it is why you can’t use Jesus’ wrath against the Pharisees to justify offensive language towards gays - no matter how positive the media may be towards the LGB movement, gay individual are still disowned, scorned, lynched and shunned. Much like tax collectors and prostitutes were at the time of Jesus.

The good news of the gospels was and remains to be that each at the end of life, Jew and Gentile, will be judged by God. God will dispense mercy to those who repented and avoided doing wrongs, and favor to those who did the right things while on earth.
,

Indeed. And one of the more important of those actions to be judged, is how we acted towards “one of these my least brethren” (Matt 25:40).

Gay people are reminded ad nauseam what the Church teaches, though sadly often a caricatured version of it. I will much rather risk being condemned for being “lenient” than for shoving them away by further reinforcing the caricature.

In the end, I don’t know what to say. I certainly think that Jesus often comes into an unbeliever’s life with a sword, not with peace. But many believers are all too ready to wield that sword out of anger at the sinner’s stupidity, not out of love for the sinner’s Lord. Peter cuts the ear, and we speak the harsh word.

Very true. Yes, parts of the Gospel may be painful. Being told to live celibate is not easy for most people. But the constant sword-swinging I am sad to see from some Catholics, makes what could be “just” painful completely intolerable.

What people should note is that despite the clarity of Christ’s moral teaching, sinners flocked around him. They were not the one who were put off by His teaching. The self-righteous people, however, hated Him.

(…)27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you (…)

For me, the purpose (and an effective one at that) of this kind of biblical hyperbole is to drive home the need for repentance and to get you to stop sinning. I think it’s supposed to scare the hell out of us – literally . Of course it also serves to develop your conscience in the ways of Christ and enhance your awareness of the good and evil nature of your choices.

Two points here - first, as has been mentioned, He said those words to those who wanted to listen to them. It would be comparable to preaching from a non-televised pulpit.

Second, I actually think the primary point was not to scare, but to demonstrate that we are all wretched sinners, no matter our external appearance. The thing about lust kind of drives this home - show me someone (at least with a body filled with testosterone) who claims to never have looked upon someone with lust, and I will tell you he/she is a wretched liar (or asexual).

We are all adulterers, through our thoughts and eyes. We are all murderers, through our words and actions. We are all idolaters, through our elevation of worldly goods and people. Yes, it is good to pursue virtue. But except those few who die as saints, we will all remain adulterers, murderers and idolaters to our death. And even saints, except the Blessed Virgin, were also all of those at some earlier point in their lives.

This knowledge also makes it incredibly hard for me to speak harshly against others. Jesus could, because He was guilty of no sin. As for the rest of us? Not sure.

 

[Hopey]

All of them.

That’s the medieval wedding vow in modern English, notice anything lacking?

The absence of love does not mean hate, if you didn’t consent to marriage you couldn’t be married so that took care of actual hatred.

Recall that Paul was writing to professed Christians not non-Christians.

No, I don’t see anything lacking. What is lacking? I have no idea what medieval vows were like.
If you are referring to all of them, could you give me a definition of love, you are referring to?
Sure, if you didn’t consent it wouldn’t be a valid marriage. We were speaking of love and breeders not just invalidation. You said love wasn’t necessary. I will say the minister might not sign the license if they profess an unloving attitude to the other.

 

[Hopey]

Okay, you are right, and I apologise. I’ll argue with you, but I’m not going to argue with John Paul II.

Is Celibacy A Higher Calling than Marriage?

“The Catholic Church teaches, as dogma, that celibacy (namely, consecrated life) is “superior” to the married state, and should be preferred, if it is within the capacity and disposition of the soul to do so.”

Anytime you forsake something (marriage in this case) for the kingdom of God/God’s work, it will be superior.

 

[Hopey]

I realize you said you were forced into the shoes of LGBTs and became sympathetic to their plight as a result. Perhaps that is the etiology of the disdainful theme of your posts. Your antipathy towards marriage and the acerbity by which you put heterosexuals on the defensive for “defiling” marriage are remarkable.

You asked if I have considered that the reason that GLAAD listed the “Offensive Terms To Avoid” reference guide is because the words are offensive. You got my honest answer and it is needless to repeat it.

And then you post the above comment, like it was coming out of the mouth of a rabid gay activist. Are you effectively referring to heterosexuals who aspire to be married and have kids as “breeders,” on the level of cattle and other farm animals? That would be very unkind and smacks of homosexualism.
,

Yes, I took it as the person was purposefully comparing married people with animals/breeders. I took it as a purposeful insult. Sort of like f*g to a homosexual.

I still don’t see anything so offensive about the term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ that could/should give rise to that usage-calling married people breeders. I just don’t see how the term, unless you want it to be, is offensive.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And then you went on to comparing using harsh words against gay people to how Jesus used harsh words against the Pharisees. I pointed out that such a comparison is invalid, and grossly so.

With regards to words being “seized and changed” - language changes, sometimes intentional, sometimes not. There is nothing you can do about it. Neologisms aren’t inherently evil; Catholicism contains quite a few of them, actually. Transubstantiation, hypostatic union, homoousios, how we have changed the word ecclesia to mean something completely different from what it originally did, etc etc. It is the nature of language - when we need new terms for something, we either invent them or change the meaning of old ones.

I understand the resistance to changes in language - I possess it myself. But Scripture tells us to communicate with non-Christian society in their own terms and culture; Greek for Greek, Roman for Roman, etc. Insisting on our own neologisms like SSA, derogatory terms like “homosexualist” or “gay lifestyle”, etc, does nothing but alienate a significant portion of society. Not only LGB people are put off by this, but also LGB supportive people (some of whom may actually agree with the teaching of the Church), who now make out a significant chunk (if not the majority) of most Western societies.

This is a really important point, and I must say it gets really personal to me. I don’t like saying that I have “SSA”, but I also don’t like calling myself “bisexual”. (For one, I don’t really like saddling my wife with being married to a quote-unquote “bisexual”.) But in evangelistic contexts around gay people – not that I’ve often been in such contexts – I call myself bisexual, or just say that I’m attracted to other men.

I do use the term SSA for clarity sometimes, but I wonder if I should just drop it. I personally don’t see “gay” or “bisexual” as defining a person by their temptations, but I understand that point of view. For me, though, calling myself “bisexual” is grating to the ear, since I’m certainly not “both sexes”, nor do I “not care” whether an attractive person is male or female.

So I feel sort of at a loss for terms.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Okay, you are right, and I apologise. I’ll argue with you, but I’m not going to argue with John Paul II.

Is Celibacy A Higher Calling than Marriage?

Thank you for having the grace to admit fault. I admit I was a bit caustic.

No, I don’t see anything lacking. What is lacking? I have no idea what medieval vows were like.
If you are referring to all of them, could you give me a definition of love, you are referring to?
Sure, if you didn’t consent it wouldn’t be a valid marriage. We were speaking of love and breeders not just invalidation. You said love wasn’t necessary. I will say the minister might not sign the license if they profess an unloving attitude to the other.

Not only was love not necessary back then it was considered daft to marry for love with arranged marriages being by far the norm unless the man’s parents were dead and he was the sole heir in which case love might be a factor.

Marriage back then was about production of offspring and property which actually makes them far more logical than modern man in that regard.

“The Catholic Church teaches, as dogma, that celibacy (namely, consecrated life) is “superior” to the married state, and should be preferred, if it is within the capacity and disposition of the soul to do so.”

Anytime you forsake something (marriage in this case) for the kingdom of God/God’s work, it will be superior.

Yes, when it says consecrated life it means the people who actually intended to be celibate, not those who wanted to get married, but by some accident didn’t.

Yes, I took it as the person was purposefully comparing married people with animals/breeders. I took it as a purposeful insult. Sort of like f*g to a homosexual.

I still don’t see anything so offensive about the term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ that could/should give rise to that usage-calling married people breeders. I just don’t see how the term, unless you want it to be, is offensive.

More like “homosexual lifestyle” to a gay person

I wouldn’t call modern married people breeders because that would incorrect imply that in modern marriage children are the central part as opposed to merely an add on usually sought.

 

[Hopey]

Not only was love not necessary back then it was considered daft to marry for love with arranged marriages being by far the norm unless the man’s parents were dead and he was the sole heir in which case love might be a factor.

Marriage back then was about production of offspring and property which actually makes them far more logical than modern man in that regard.

IF love is seen and ordered to the good of the other, then yes, there was love in the mix, even back then. But I am still waiting to see your understanding of love. You can not, or should not, look back on people who married, especially arranged marriages, and view it as their had to be no love or not required. Again, it would help if you could provide a definition of how you are undertanding love and how the Church views love and marriage. It isn’t just a feeling - warm and fuzzy - attraction although that does help.

Yes, when it says consecrated life it means the people who actually intended to be celibate, not those who wanted to get married, but by some accident didn’t.

For the kingdom of God - those that forsake marriage, for the kingdom of God. That is what you are missing. You are doing it for God, not just because someone said, thinks, it is superior. You are sacrificing a part of you for God, denying yourself.

More like “homosexual lifestyle” to a gay person

No, “breeder” would be similar to calling a homosexual a “f*g”.
Homosexual lifestyle would be in comparison to heterosexual lifestyle, married life.
Even the Bishops, who have produced documents regarding this, are very aware of the sensitivity of the nature and take pains of how to use terminology to not give rise to offense - not using sodomite would be an example.
You come to a point where if the offense if valid. I don’t see it in this case.

I wouldn’t call modern married people breeders because that would incorrect imply that in modern marriage children are the central part as opposed to merely an add on usually sought.

Then, you are taking back marriage license being for breeders?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I wouldn’t call modern married people breeders because that would incorrect imply that in modern marriage children are the central part as opposed to merely an add on usually sought.

Well, children are a central part of my marriage, but I’m not a breeder.

 

[Memaw]

1. Catholics complain about being distorted and having lies told about them or having untrue stereotypes cloud what the church truly teaches
2. Along comes a nun who does all of the above
3. Catholics then immediately defend her

?!?!?!?!?!

You gotta be kidding me!!! She was speaking the Catholic TRUTH, even if many Catholics do not want to believe her!, God Bless, Memaw

 

[brierpatch1974]

I guess I just have a simple view of things. But if you are not against Homosexuality then don’t claim to be catholic. And if you are against the teachings of the Church then don’t attend that school. I am far from perfect and really feel lost more days than not but I really hate when people try to change God’s teachings instead of changing their life to fit those teachings. There is no wonder the bible says most people will go to hell.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

IF love is seen and ordered to the good of the other, then yes, there was love in the mix, even back then. But I am still waiting to see your understanding of love. You can not, or should not, look back on people who married, especially arranged marriages, and view it as their had to be no love or not required. Again, it would help if you could provide a definition of how you are undertanding love and how the Church views love and marriage. It isn’t just a feeling - warm and fuzzy - attraction although that does help.

See Deus Caritas Est, pick which one you want me to elaborate my understanding on.

Do you want the Church’s view or the view of Catholics, if the latter pick the time and place.

For the kingdom of God - those that forsake marriage, for the kingdom of God. That is what you are missing. You are doing it for God, not just because someone said, thinks, it is superior. You are sacrificing a part of you for God, denying yourself.

It is superior because it is forsaking material things to focus more on God.

No, “breeder” would be similar to calling a homosexual a “f*g”.
Homosexual lifestyle would be in comparison to heterosexual lifestyle, married life.
Even the Bishops, who have produced documents regarding this, are very aware of the sensitivity of the nature and take pains of how to use terminology to not give rise to offense - not using sodomite would be an example.
You come to a point where if the offense if valid. I don’t see it in this case.

Then, you are taking back marriage license being for breeders?

Breeder describes thought (not temptation) and behavior, in that it is more accurate and descriptive than the phrase homosexual lifestyle is.

Married life is not the heterosexual lifestyle, historically lots of people didn’t marry or they joined the clergy including heterosexuals (unless of course you’re claiming that the LGBT population used to be north of 10%). There isn’t a heterosexual lifestyle just as there isn’t a homosexual lifestyle.

I wish people would stop buggering the English language.

Well, children are a central part of my marriage, but I’m not a breeder.

I never said all who have children are breeders.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

And then you went on to comparing using harsh words against gay people to how Jesus used harsh words against the Pharisees. I pointed out that such a comparison is invalid, and grossly so.

I don’t think so, but you are entitled to your opinion. I kinda like what Post 390 says.

With regards to words being “seized and changed” - language changes, sometimes intentional, sometimes not. There is nothing you can do about it. Neologisms aren’t inherently evil; Catholicism contains quite a few of them, actually. Transubstantiation, hypostatic union, homoousios, how we have changed the word ecclesia to mean something completely different from what it originally did, etc etc. It is the nature of language - when we need new terms for something, we either invent them or change the meaning of old ones.

First, understand that this is not a personal attack on you or anyone. We cross paths in this forum, going by no more but user names and a blurb on general area of residence and faith ID, maybe. Dialogue goes differently at the office or in social gatherings, amongst associates, family, friends and personal acquaintances.

This is a Catholic site; hence Catholics will be expressing views consistent with Catholic teaching and position, not unlike what Sr Jane Dominic did at CCHS, subject of this thread. Just because someone puts “Catholic” as his/her faith affiliation, it does not mean one believes in Catholic teachings and lives the faith. In fact, a “Catholic” will sometimes belong to a pressure LGBT group within the Church with the objective of wanting her to change doctrine in the name of inclusiveness and diversity.

To what you said, I know I can’t do anything when language changes, when gay activists hack the word marriage in dictionaries, for example, or when judges give a nod to redefining marriage.

What I know faithful Catholics CAN do is stand behind the teaching and position on issues like same sex “marriage” and even SRS. SS"M" is a social experiment with profound societal impact on the next generations and the family.

Neologisms I understand. The words and phrases you mentioned (transubstantiation, hypostatic union, and homoousios) involved solid reasons, a history, and scholarly work behind the introduction of said Catholic concepts. The history of the original meaning of ecclesia is interesting and goes back to pre-Christian times, but I did not read any indication that the Church is concerned about it. Anyway, we disagree on use of certain current terms as connected to LGBs, and I expressed objection to the unholy agenda behind changing the meaning of words through intentional conditioning.

I understand the resistance to changes in language - I possess it myself. But Scripture tells us to communicate with non-Christian society in their own terms and culture; Greek for Greek, Roman for Roman, etc. Insisting on our own neologisms like SSA, derogatory terms like “homosexualist” or “gay lifestyle”, etc, does nothing but alienate a significant portion of society. Not only LGB people are put off by this, but also LGB supportive people (some of whom may actually agree with the teaching of the Church), who now make out a significant chunk (if not the majority) of most Western societies.

I think you missed the point or just disregarded the reason I object to GLAAD’s reference guide of “offensive” words to avoid. You may subscribe to it. I don’t.

Of course, LGBTs want more Catholic support and that is why we see organizations like Catholics for Equality, Catholics for Choice, etc., as if said groups and their supporters agree with the teaching of the Church. They don’t. They are Trojan horses.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I don’t think so, but you are entitled to your opinion. I kinda like what Post 390 says.

First, understand that this is not a personal attack on you or anyone. We cross paths in this forum, going by no more but user names and a blurb on general area of residence and faith ID, maybe. Dialogue goes differently at the office or in social gatherings, amongst associates, family, friends and personal acquaintances.

This is a Catholic site; hence Catholics will be expressing views consistent with Catholic teaching and position, not unlike what Sr Jane Dominic did at CCHS, subject of this thread. Just because someone puts “Catholic” as his/her faith affiliation, it does not mean one believes in Catholic teachings and lives the faith. In fact, a “Catholic” will sometimes belong to a pressure LGBT group within the Church with the objective of wanting her to change doctrine in the name of inclusiveness and diversity.

To what you said, I know I can’t do anything when language changes, when gay activists hack the word marriage in dictionaries, for example, or when judges give a nod to redefining marriage.

What I know faithful Catholics CAN do is stand behind the teaching and position on issues like same sex “marriage” and even SRS. SS"M" is a social experiment with profound societal impact on the next generations and the family.

Neologisms I understand. The words and phrases you mentioned (transubstantiation, hypostatic union, and homoousios) involved solid reasons, a history, and scholarly work behind the introduction of said Catholic concepts. The history of the original meaning of ecclesia is interesting and goes back to pre-Christian times, but I did not read any indication that the Church is concerned about it. Anyway, we disagree on use of certain current terms as connected to LGBs, and I expressed objection to the unholy agenda behind changing the meaning of words through intentional conditioning.

I think you missed the point or just disregarded the reason I object to GLAAD’s reference guide of “offensive” words to avoid. You may subscribe to it. I don’t.

Of course, LGBTs want more Catholic support and that is why we see organizations like Catholics for Equality, Catholics for Choice, etc., as if said groups and their supporters agree with the teaching of the Church. They don’t. They are Trojan horses.
,

It’s not actually clear that SRS is definitively banned.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, I took it as the person was purposefully comparing married people with animals/breeders. I took it as a purposeful insult. Sort of like f*g to a homosexual.

I still don’t see anything so offensive about the term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ that could/should give rise to that usage-calling married people breeders. I just don’t see how the term, unless you want it to be, is offensive.

In fact, below is the descriptive as this poster would say of a word, this time the term “breeder” that she offers is supposed to be as offensive as “homosexual lifestyle.”

Breeder (slang)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Breeder is a derogative term for people who have children, particularly for parents who purportedly overfocus on their children and (allegedly) abandon their previous friends and lifestyle; or to women who give birth to many children, often with the derisive implication that they have “too many” offspring.

And below is descriptive

Breeder
From Urban Dictionary
1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people who do not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder a duh.
2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
“Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting…”

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, I took it as the person was purposefully comparing married people with animals/breeders. I took it as a purposeful insult. Sort of like f*g to a homosexual.

I still don’t see anything so offensive about the term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ that could/should give rise to that usage-calling married people breeders. I just don’t see how the term, unless you want it to be, is offensive.

In fact, below is descriptive of “breeder” as the poster would assign when wiki is cited as source. She offers that “breeder” is supposed to be as offensive as “homosexual lifestyle.”

Breeder (slang)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Breeder is a derogative term for people who have children, particularly for parents who purportedly overfocus on their children and (allegedly) abandon their previous friends and lifestyle; or to women who give birth to many children, often with the derisive implication that they have “too many” offspring.

And below from Urban Dictionary

Breeder

1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people who do not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder a duh.
2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
“Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting…”

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It’s not actually clear that SRS is definitively banned.

My mention of it was just an aside.

Neither is the Church approving of sex reassignment / change surgeries on the basis of a sub secretum document. In fact, there are official documents and more materials, not supposedly under secrecy, indicating her disapproval. That is the extent of what need be said on it so the discussion does not go off the rails.
,

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I still don’t see anything so offensive about the term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ that could/should give rise to that usage-calling married people breeders. I just don’t see how the term, unless you want it to be, is offensive.

Personally, I don’t find the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” offensive in itself as much as I find it incredibly problematic. But I imagine that those who do find it offensive do so for the same reasons I find it problematic.

To begin, it suggests more than it says. Because of the history of its use by rather unambiguously anti-gay folks and groups in the past, whatever it means in any particular context, it will always carry with it a note of censure and disapproval. So a gay guy trolling the bars, using X and crystal meth, having a ton of sex is just living the homosexual lifestyle, as is a lesbian gal who settles down with her partner and lives a happy monogamous life. Both are implicitly condemned by the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” given the phrase’s history. Which, to many homosexual folks, is read as a fundamental denial of a homosexual person’s ability to self-determine, a condemnation of their failures in seeking happiness as well as their successes: i.e., by referring in a condemnatory tone to anything that a homosexual person may do, the “homosexual lifestyle” suggests that a homosexual person’s failures have no value and that their happiness is impossible. I can see why that’s offensive.

Moreover, because “homosexual” is part of the homosexual-heterosexual binary way of thinking of sexuality, and because the heterosexual part of that binary is the normative one, the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” suggests that whatever life a homosexual person is living, however they live and whatever they desire is not “normal,” even when their life and/or desire is analogous to or identical with ways a heterosexual person might live or desire. The desire to share one’s life with someone one loves, the desire to build a home with someone one loves–all those things (and more) that homosexuals see and desire not as homosexuals but as human beings (and in common with heterosexuals), by being referred to their sexuality and not to their humanity, are rendered not-quite-human, or not human in the ways that heterosexual desires and ways of life are normatively expressive of the human. I can see why that’s offensive, too.

Moreover, because of the homosexual-heterosexual binary thinking, there is a subtle suggestion that the “homosexual lifestyle” is a choice that a homosexual person makes against a “heterosexual lifestyle” they ostensibly could be living. And I can see how that’s both wrongheaded and potentially offensive.

Most folks, though, in typical human fashion, have no idea how what they’re saying is being perceived by other people–they assume that their well-meaning intentions, their restrictive definitions of all-over-the-map terms and phrases that suggest more than they say are shared by everyone. That’s not the case, though. Which is why I tend not to be offended by the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” because I don’t reckon that people are being intentionally offensive. They have no idea what they’re actually saying and how it’s being heard, which is another reason why I find the phrase problematic. But I do find that it’s one of those phrases that serves as a good ideological diagnostic tool. It’s use allows me to determine a little quicker whether or not I should take someone’s views on homosexuality seriously…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Hopey]

Grace & Peace!

Personally, I don’t find the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” offensive in itself as much as I find it incredibly problematic. But I imagine that those who do find it offensive do so for the same reasons I find it problematic.

To begin, it suggests more than it says. Because of the history of its use by rather unambiguously anti-gay folks and groups in the past, whatever it means in any particular context, it will always carry with it a note of censure and disapproval. So a gay guy trolling the bars, using X and crystal meth, having a ton of sex is just living the homosexual lifestyle, as is a lesbian gal who settles down with her partner and lives a happy monogamous life. Both are implicitly condemned by the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” given the phrase’s history. Which, to many homosexual folks, is read as a fundamental denial of a homosexual person’s ability to self-determine, a condemnation of their failures in seeking happiness as well as their successes: i.e., by referring in a condemnatory tone to anything that a homosexual person may do, the “homosexual lifestyle” suggests that a homosexual person’s failures have no value and that their happiness is impossible. I can see why that’s offensive.

Moreover, because “homosexual” is part of the homosexual-heterosexual binary way of thinking of sexuality, and because the heterosexual part of that binary is the normative one, the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” suggests that whatever life a homosexual person is living, however they live and whatever they desire is not “normal,” even when their life and/or desire is analogous to or identical with ways a heterosexual person might live or desire. The desire to share one’s life with someone one loves, the desire to build a home with someone one loves–all those things (and more) that homosexuals see and desire not as homosexuals but as human beings (and in common with heterosexuals), by being referred to their sexuality and not to their humanity, are rendered not-quite-human, or not human in the ways that heterosexual desires and ways of life are normatively expressive of the human. I can see why that’s offensive, too.

Moreover, because of the homosexual-heterosexual binary thinking, there is a subtle suggestion that the “homosexual lifestyle” is a choice that a homosexual person makes against a “heterosexual lifestyle” they ostensibly could be living. And I can see how that’s both wrongheaded and potentially offensive.

Most folks, though, in typical human fashion, have no idea how what they’re saying is being perceived by other people–they assume that their well-meaning intentions, their restrictive definitions of all-over-the-map terms and phrases that suggest more than they say are shared by everyone. That’s not the case, though. Which is why I tend not to be offended by the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” because I don’t reckon that people are being intentionally offensive. They have no idea what they’re actually saying and how it’s being heard, which is another reason why I find the phrase problematic. But I do find that it’s one of those phrases that serves as a good ideological diagnostic tool. It’s use allows me to determine a little quicker whether or not I should take someone’s views on homosexuality seriously…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Thank you.
In speaking of anything to do with homosexuality, homosexuals, etc, can there ever be a word to describe a person/their lifestyle that doesn’t conjure up hard feelings?
I take my cues from the Bishops, in most cases, who are very careful because they do not intend to purposefully, or unduly offend.
There are terms that trigger me. Instead of allowing that first reaction to guide me, react or explode, I listen to what they are saying, - or try. These are terms that are not derogatory but do describe conditions I am in or have come from.
In the case of the Sr who is trying to present that and with researches she has chosen, it would seem hard for her to describe something that no matter what terminology you use, someone isn’t going to like it and weighing it with it needs to be discussed anyway.
I can assure you when I use it, it doesn’t mean they are less human in any way, but there remains actions in each particular deviant sexual behavior that does that because of whose likeness we are made in - not a looking down on someone.

 

[Hopey]

In fact, below is descriptive of “breeder” as the poster would assign when wiki is cited as source. She offers that “breeder” is supposed to be as offensive as “homosexual lifestyle.”

Breeder (slang)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Breeder is a derogative term for people who have children, particularly for parents who purportedly overfocus on their children and (allegedly) abandon their previous friends and lifestyle; or to women who give birth to many children, often with the derisive implication that they have “too many” offspring.

And below from Urban Dictionary

Breeder

1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people who do not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder a duh.
2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
“Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting…”

Yes.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

I have determined that “breeder” when used to described a group of people is a derogatory term. Please do not use it in the In the News forums. The discussion of that topic has ended.

Also please return this thread to the topic of the OP

Send me a PM if you have a question