Gay agenda indoctrinating young children

[LCMS_No_More]

I agree here - but IMHO the agenda is one to turn children to homosexuality that otherwise wouldn’t have thought of it before/

This is based on the absolutely nonsensical notion that one can actively choose to have same-sex attrctions (homosexual orientation).

In other words, they deny it, so I don’t believe them because I choose to believe what I want and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that.

At least the Catholic faith is rational.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Aquinas74]

Many of my friends in the gay community wonder why I stay in the Church as well. It’s simple-I truly believe that the Church is the only way to salvation, and no matter how strict the demands I risk my eternal soul by leaving.

And yes, I have found an understanding parish-a traditional Chapel. It would seem incongruous that a gay person would find more compassion in a more conservative parish, but it really has been my experience.

May God cointinue to bless you on your Journey, and may our blessed mother console your sorrows. I will offer my mass intention for you tomorrow. God Bless.

 

[Jennifer123]

Jennifer123;3749183:

I agree here - but IMHO the agenda is one to turn children to homosexuality that otherwise wouldn’t have thought of it before/

This is based on the absolutely nonsensical notion that one can actively choose to have same-sex attrctions (homosexual orientation).

It is irrational IMHO to think that absolutely no one has chosen to participate in an actively homosexual lifestyle. Many people are now told that sexuality is “fluid”, it changes, and it’s safe to experiment.

It is also irrational IMHO to think that children, impressionable and illogical children, would not think that being homosexual is the answer to some of their struggles with intense feelings and challenges with strict gender stereotypes. Especially when it is presented as not just tolerated but celebrated,and their friends, who are now our youths’ most trusted allies rather than parents, say that they are probably gay.

 

[Kolbe300]

1. Why identify as a homosexual? Because it is the only way I can identify myself honestly. I’m not just “a Catholic woman living a chaste life” because if I were, I would have the desire and the hope of meeting a man, falling in love and getting married. As a homosexual, not only do I not have the hope, it’s not even remotely appealing. I’m not grossed out by it like many heterosexuals are about homosexual behavior, but it still leaves me cold. A heterosexual person living a chaste life would probably not be facing living that way forever-unless they took vows.

Fitswimmer, it has been a pleasure for me to see someone else on here who has a story so similar to mine. I appreciate your posts and I know many others do as well. So much of what you’ve said about your life and upbringing is so similar to my own. Thank you for trying to answer the question above, but, as you may have already seen, it’s going to be asked again and again and again.

Going what way? Perhaps you are missing my point…celibate is celibate. Differentiating between a “homosexual” or “heterosexual” celibate is pointless. If a woman is living in a non-married state and doesn’t date, she is celibate, and the struggles against concupiscence is the same.

rlg…uuuugggghhhh. I think you’re great but I just can’t figure you out! One minute you are thanking a celibate, homosexually oriented person for being a good example to others dealing with homosexuality. Then you say the above, that it’s “pointless”. The Church desperately NEEDS, I repeat: NEEDS faithful, celibate homosexuals who can be an example to others. Why hide something that is GOOD? Would anyone in their right mind ask a celibate heterosexual to not admit they are heterosexual? Saying I am a homosexual is honest and nothing more. Do you see what I’m saying? When I was a kid, dealing with my orientation, I would have given ANYTHING for someone to look up to, someone who understood what it was like to be me. I hope that makes sense.

Peace to all of ya!

 

[rlg94086]

rlg…uuuugggghhhh. I think you’re great but I just can’t figure you out! One minute you are thanking a celibate, homosexually oriented person for being a good example to others dealing with homosexuality. Then you say the above, that it’s “pointless”. The Church desperately NEEDS, I repeat: NEEDS faithful, celibate homosexuals who can be an example to others. Why hide something that is GOOD? Would anyone in their right mind ask a celibate heterosexual to not admit they are heterosexual? Saying I am a homosexual is honest and nothing more. Do you see what I’m saying? When I was a kid, dealing with my orientation, I would have given ANYTHING for someone to look up to, someone who understood what it was like to be me. I hope that makes sense.

I understand your point, but, again, it presents homosexuality as a static state of being. There is evidence, based on those with transitory experiences of homosexuality, that it is not. As the Church teaches that it is a “disordered desire” this makes sense.

I know I’m not being clear, and it is upsetting people. I don’t have a problem with someone describing their sexual desires as homosexual, but not their “being.” The “honest” thing to say is that you have homosexual desires, but not necessarily that you are a homosexual. Does that make sense? I guess not.

You are right. The Church needs faithful Catholics who live a celibate life despite their homosexual desires, and, yes, I do applaud people for living chaste lives as a good example for others.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

LCMS_No_More;3749732:

Jennifer123;3749183:

I agree here - but IMHO the agenda is one to turn children to homosexuality that otherwise wouldn’t have thought of it before/

It is irrational IMHO to think that absolutely no one has chosen to participate in an actively homosexual lifestyle. Many people are now told that sexuality is “fluid”, it changes, and it’s safe to experiment.

It is also irrational IMHO to think that children, impressionable and illogical children, would not think that being homosexual is the answer to some of their struggles with intense feelings and challenges with strict gender stereotypes. Especially when it is presented as not just tolerated but celebrated,and their friends, who are now our youths’ most trusted allies rather than parents, say that they are probably gay.

Mindreader, eh? You’re telling me that I actively chose to be attracted to members of the same sex? I’m talking about the attraction, not acting out on it, which is different, as the CHURCH teaches.

 

[Karmastrike]

I think I’m going to be sick…

 

[Daddums]

I understand your point, but, again, it presents homosexuality as a static state of being. There is evidence, based on those with transitory experiences of homosexuality, that it is not. As the Church teaches that it is a “disordered desire” this makes sense.

I know I’m not being clear, and it is upsetting people. I don’t have a problem with someone describing their sexual desires as homosexual, but not their “being.” The “honest” thing to say is that you have homosexual desires, but not necessarily that you are a homosexual. Does that make sense? I guess not.

You are right. The Church needs faithful Catholics who live a celibate life despite their homosexual desires, and, yes, I do applaud people for living chaste lives as a good example for others.

I think you are being perfectly clear. I also get the sense that it is your intention to communicate clearly. Part of the problem is vocabulary. Different people have different definitions in their heads for the same words rendering them useless for the purpose of communication. I think you put your finger on one of those differences. When I hear the word homosexuality, I think attraction disorder. When I use the word heterosexual, I’m not talking about an identity.

Another vocabulary confusion is many people are using the words celibate and chaste interchangeably when they are completely different things. Fitswimmer’s statement, “A heterosexual person living a chaste life would probably not be facing living that way forever-unless they took vows.” illustrates the problem. I know that you know the difference, but when you wrote," The Church needs faithful Catholics who live a celibate life" I think you really meant chaste not celibate, but correct me if I’m wrong.

Daddums

 

[Kolbe300]

I understand your point, but, again, it presents homosexuality as a static state of being. There is evidence, based on those with transitory experiences of homosexuality, that it is not. As the Church teaches that it is a “disordered desire” this makes sense.

I understand your point as well. There is also evidence, TONS of it, that for many people the experience isn’t transitory. That’s where we have to be careful. It is not all “A” or all “B”. It’s both.

The “honest” thing to say is that you have homosexual desires, but not necessarily that you are a homosexual. Does that make sense? I guess not.

Yes, it makes sense. But, as Daddums pointed out, our problems seems to lie in the definition of a word. Until coming to this board (why, oh why did I ever come here? ) I had no idea just how twisted the definition had become. I agree with your statement above. It would be honest for me to say I have homosexual desires. And, according to the dictionary, it would also be honest of me to say I’m a homosexual. If anyone defines my whole being by that one word (or assumes sexual activity), it’s their problem not mine. And, like I’ve said, the only time I would use the word is if we’re talking about sexuality. I certainly don’t wear it on my shirt. Anyways, I do see your point and I also appreciate your tact in delivering your points.

Happy Sunday!

 

[Daddums]

Yes, it makes sense. But, as Daddums pointed out, our problems seems to lie in the definition of a word. Until coming to this board (why, oh why did I ever come here? ) I had no idea just how twisted the definition had become. I agree with your statement above. It would be honest for me to say I have homosexual desires. And, according to the dictionary, it would also be honest of me to say I’m a homosexual. If anyone defines my whole being by that one word (or assumes sexual activity), it’s their problem not mine. And, like I’ve said, the only time I would use the word is if we’re talking about sexuality. I certainly don’t wear it on my shirt. Anyways, I do see your point and I also appreciate your tact in delivering your points.

Surely you see how it can be confusing when people label themselves based on desires that they have under control. If someone told you that they were a pedophile, would you not assume that they molested children? If you make that assumption, does that mean you have a problem?

Daddums

 

[Kolbe300]

Surely you see how it can be confusing when people label themselves based on desires that they have under control.

Personally, I don’t see any confusion unless one makes assumptions. Having your desires under control does not mean the desires are now non-existant. My avoiding sexual contact does not make my homosexual orientation go away. Would you see this same confusion if a single Catholic told you they were heterosexual? Would you assume they didn’t have their desires under control simply because they identified their sexuality?

If someone told you that they were a pedophile, would you not assume that they molested children?

That is a perfect example. I wouldn’t make that assumption! In fact, I would remain hopeful that they had molested no one until I knew different. You asking that question is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t start redefining words to fit our own assumptions. A “pedophile” is someone who is attracted to children. Period.

If you make that assumption, does that mean you have a problem?

Yes it does. That’s exactly what it means.

Peace.

 

[Aquinas74]

Personally, I don’t see any confusion unless one makes assumptions. Having your desires under control does not mean the desires are now non-existant. My avoiding sexual contact does not make my homosexual orientation go away. Would you see this same confusion if a single Catholic told you they were heterosexual? Would you assume they didn’t have their desires under control simply because they identified their sexuality?

That is a perfect example. I wouldn’t make that assumption! In fact, I would remain hopeful that they had molested no one until I knew different. You asking that question is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t start redefining words to fit our own assumptions. A “pedophile” is someone who is attracted to children. Period.

Yes it does. That’s exactly what it means.

Peace.

Kolbe,Saint Max is my patron saint, I hope he through his marvelous example of devotion to our Blessed Mother bring you through his intercession much peace and grace.

 

[9Choirs]

Jennifer123;3750750:

LCMS_No_More;3749732:

Mindreader, eh? You’re telling me that I actively chose to be attracted to members of the same sex? I’m talking about the attraction, not acting out on it, which is different, as the CHURCH teaches.

LCS No more,

You are distorting Jennifers correct statement. I don’t know what age range you fall into, but I fall into the age rage Jennifer is describing and what she is saying definitely resonates as true. It is a fact that some young people (in particular teenage girls) do experiment with homosexuality, yet move onto to settle down in heterosexual relationships in future mainly due to the pro homosexuality messages society promotes (Heard of the term ‘Lesbian Until Graduation’? It’s based on what does occur) Experimenting with something that the Church declares a disorder, is very dangerous even if those who do so settle into heterosexual relationships later on in life.

Please don’t assume that Jennifer is saying YOU personally chose your attraction but that there are MANY young people, who in a state of raging and confusing hormones, are vulnerable to distorted messages emanating from society, which does in fact motivate them to experiment with same sex relationships and sometimes mistakenly take on the gay indentity. I’ve been witness to many testimonies by non religious people who confirm this. Such people who experiment with homosexuality haven’t actively ‘chosen’ their homosexuality either, but have unconciously fostered the growth of a sexual attraction with the aid of our peverse society.

The same goes with the messages secular society promotes with teenage heterosexual sex. Such pro premarital sex messages often encourage many young people who have no prior intent to fornicate, to experiment with premartial sex. Secular society lies however, and declares that such young people would ‘have done it anyway and therefore need protection’. This is a lie. The messages society promotes are very powerful in manipulating the young to engage in practices they would never have engaged in to begin with. And this is coming from a young person.

 

[Kolbe300]

Kolbe,Saint Max is my patron saint, I hope he through his marvelous example of devotion to our Blessed Mother bring you through his intercession much peace and grace.

Thank you so much Aquinas. I have a deep love and respect for St. Kolbe. I appreciate your prayers very much. Prayers are the greatest gift. You will be in my prayers as well.

Peace!

 

[rlg94086]

I think you are being perfectly clear. I also get the sense that it is your intention to communicate clearly. Part of the problem is vocabulary. Different people have different definitions in their heads for the same words rendering them useless for the purpose of communication. I think you put your finger on one of those differences. When I hear the word homosexuality, I think attraction disorder. When I use the word heterosexual, I’m not talking about an identity.

Another vocabulary confusion is many people are using the words celibate and chaste interchangeably when they are completely different things. Fitswimmer’s statement, “A heterosexual person living a chaste life would probably not be facing living that way forever-unless they took vows.” illustrates the problem. I know that you know the difference, but when you wrote," The Church needs faithful Catholics who live a celibate life" I think you really meant chaste not celibate, but correct me if I’m wrong.

Daddums

Hi Daddums,

Thanks for the post.

Regarding the last quote, I did mean celibate life because I was speaking of someone living celibately “despite their homosexual desires.” IOW…it assumes someone who has strong homosexual desires and is living chastely. In their case, that means celibacy.

 

[rlg94086]

I understand your point as well. There is also evidence, TONS of it, that for many people the experience isn’t transitory. That’s where we have to be careful. It is not all “A” or all “B”. It’s both.

Yes, it makes sense. But, as Daddums pointed out, our problems seems to lie in the definition of a word. Until coming to this board (why, oh why did I ever come here? ) I had no idea just how twisted the definition had become. I agree with your statement above. It would be honest for me to say I have homosexual desires. And, according to the dictionary, it would also be honest of me to say I’m a homosexual.*** If anyone defines my whole being by that one word (or assumes sexual activity), it’s their problem not mine. ***And, like I’ve said, the only time I would use the word is if we’re talking about sexuality. I certainly don’t wear it on my shirt. Anyways, I do see your point and I also appreciate your tact in delivering your points.

Happy Sunday!

Kolbe300,

I’m not sure you mean that (the bolded section). The purpose of language is to express what we mean so that people understand us. If you can express your situation in such a way that it is clear you aren’t talking about your being, don’t you think it would be better to do that?

 

[Daddums]

Hi Daddums,

Thanks for the post.

Regarding the last quote, I did mean celibate life because I was speaking of someone living celibately “despite their homosexual desires.” IOW…it assumes someone who has strong homosexual desires and is living chastely. In their case, that means celibacy.

In the case of unmarried individuals, chastity must indeed include celibacy, but since it does not end there it is possible to be both celibate and unchaste. An unmarried man or woman who tells me they are celibate have left unsaid whether or not they are living chastely.

Daddums

 

[Daddums]

Personally, I don’t see any confusion unless one makes assumptions. Having your desires under control does not mean the desires are now non-existant. My avoiding sexual contact does not make my homosexual orientation go away. Would you see this same confusion if a single Catholic told you they were heterosexual? Would you assume they didn’t have their desires under control simply because they identified their sexuality?

People without ssa don’t consider themselves to have any special sexuality to identify. We are simply male or female. For us, there is no such thing as a separate heterosexual identity. As for having your desires under control, it means you are able to turn them off and you do that by not thinking about them.

That is a perfect example. I wouldn’t make that assumption! In fact, I would remain hopeful that they had molested no one until I knew different. You asking that question is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t start redefining words to fit our own assumptions. A “pedophile” is someone who is attracted to children. Period.

The popular usage of the term pedophile is different than it’s official definition. You’ve identified another way in which we think differently. I assume the popular usage whenever I hear the word, not the offical definition and I don’t believe that means I have a problem.

Daddums

 

[PePPaR]

I may be a bit late posting on this topic. But I have never seen such intellectual young children. And they’re what 8-10 years old?

I do agree however that there could be some better way of approaching the issue. And yes, it should be approached to younger kids so they don’t become homophobic later in their lives. Young kids need to be taught that they must accept and respect homosexuals and not hate or detest them.

I can see a lot of wisdom in those videos. But, I think it needs to be approached somewhat differently.

 

[Kolbe300]

The purpose of language is to express what we mean so that people understand us.

True. And words in our language have definitions. As listeners, we have an obligation to a person not to make assumptions, especially when a word has more than one definition. This can help us with understanding. It’s really a two way street.

If you can express your situation in such a way that it is clear you aren’t talking about your being, don’t you think it would be better to do that?

Sure. Yet, most people should know that a person’s “being” is not defined solely by their sexuality. That’s why I said that if someone thinks my sexuality is my entire being simply because I said I was homosexual, that is their problem to deal with, not mine. The only time I bring up my own sexuality is if we’re talking about sexuality. That’s the only time it’s necessary. I’ve tried to be clear, anyways.

People without ssa don’t consider themselves to have any special sexuality to identify.

That’s unfortunate, because your sexuality truly is special. And, regardless of whether or not you identify it, you still have one.

We are simply male or female.

So are “we”.

For us, there is no such thing as a separate heterosexual identity.

Exactly. Because your sexuality isn’t somehow separated from who you are. You can say, “I’m male” and most people will assume you are heterosexual. I can say, “I’m male” and most people will…uh oh…do you see where the problem is arising? How can I have an honest discussion on sexuality without identifying mine? Seriously, how can I?

As for having your desires under control, it means you are able to turn them off and you do that by not thinking about them.

Ture. However, not thinking about your sexuality doesn’t make your sexuality go away.

The popular usage of the term pedophile is different than it’s official definition. You’ve identified another way in which we think differently. I assume the popular usage whenever I hear the word, not the offical definition and I don’t believe that means I have a problem.

I agree that the popular usage of the term is different than the word’s definition. But can you see how assuming the popular usage can end up putting the “child molester” tag on some people who are not in fact child molesters? I don’t want to put that tag on anyone that hasn’t committed that crime, especially those who are actively seeking help.

Unfortunately, the whole discussion on sexual identity will probably continue to go 'round and 'round. It’s certainly a complex subject. For whatever it’s worth, I do understand where you guys are coming from. I may not agree, but I can understand why you feel the way you do.

Peace!