Gay, Catholic, struggling with conversion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Student26
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
robbie20 said:
Who said I was behaving like a woman?! Based on the fact I wear clothes (made for men :mad:) and have a higher voice than average (something I couldn’t help)…

Wow your the one stereotyping me… I look and dress like a man…

Not all gay men are cross dressers dude who act like women 🤷

Just because I’m more effeminate doesn’t mean I act like a woman 🤷

And just because someone says their gay doesn’t mean their less of a man…
Click to expand...
Calling yourself gay contradicts what it means to be a man. The term gay means more than simply having an attraction to the same sex.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Au contraire. It’s secular gay advocacy groups who insist on gay as something not restricted to attraction, but rather including activity. In fact, if you read up on the history of the term homosexuality, through the '50’s, '60’s, and '70’s, you will find that anyone with SSA who did not act on that was considered a ‘repressed’ homosexual or a ‘latent’ homosexual.
Click to expand...
Okay it varies by different people…

All gay means to me is I’m attracted to men… I’m celibate so I don’t really do the whole gay sex thing…

The point is I don’t let myself get bogged down with political and sexual attachments…

Gay is universally recognized in this country as someone who has SSA…

same sex attractions, SSA, homosexual are just too bogged down and scientific…

They’re not meant for everyday speech…

Gay is… It’s easy to use and quite frankly most youth (Catholic included) prefer this terms over SSA… There is a generational gap here on CAF…

You’re lingo and my hip young lingo don’t match up… :eek:

I like to use gay because it’s one part of me that means I like men! Simply put… I don’t let it define the entire me… Got it?

I’m not going to stop calling myself gay because people find it offensive… I find SSA and homosexual offensive!

Gosh! 👍 Get it? :D:D
 
robbie20 said:
I find SSA and homosexual offensive!

Gosh! 👍 Get it? :D:D
Click to expand...
Why do you find SSA offensive, if thats what you have? The gay movement is a political movement that was designed to have the gay identity recognized as a legitimate sexual identity as opposed to being a disorder of our true sexuality.

But it seems here that you don’t think it is a disorder? Am i correct:shrug:
 
robbie20 said:
I’m not going to stop calling myself gay because people find it offensive… I find SSA and homosexual offensive!
Click to expand...
You have misinterpreted what your debaters are telling you. It’s not about a generation gap, or about “offense” to others. I’m not ofended. (Why should I be?) People who should love you as a brother should want to encourage your separation from everything that continually reminds you of how your attractions can tempt you (and can tempt me). I’m attracted to behaviors which are not holy, just like other people are. It’s one thing to recognize that each of us is a sinner, and to call ourselves sinners, generically, because that is accurate. But it does not help my separation from bad behaviors to call my “identity” those bad behaviors! It’s not my identity. And your attractions are not your identity. We’ve been over this on other threads. Your core is not even your personality, although it – as well as your gender – are much closer to a “core” than a sexual attraction is.

If you had renounced stealing instead of sexual activity, would you continue to call yourself a thief?
 
robbie20 said:
And that’s your opinion… I’m still calling myself gay :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Don’t worry about what other people (especially strangers on the internet) think about you or what you want to “call” yourself, and more importantly, don’t let them get to you.

If you are striving to live the chaste life style that we are all called to live, then God doesn’t care whether you call yourself gay, homosexual, or guy-with-a-same-sex-attraction. 👍
 
If I want to call myself gay that’s my choice… The Church has no rule, doctrine, dogma etc against it…

Gay is a commonly accepted term and** I will still use it because all it means TO ME** is that I like men…

I refuse to do what you two have done and identify as an ex-gay and open myself up to a torrent nightmarish critiscm…

Mind Over Matter and Michelle… People like you are losing (really you are)

The gay rights movement grows by the day while you target me 🤷 over calling myself gay…

I will say no more on this… I can call myself gay if I want to…

Mind if you want to be an ex-gay that is your choice…

But my choice is to affirm a gay identity (I’d also like to point out I’m not Roman Catholic and therefore not bound by the same rules as you are :p)
 
robbie20 said:
I refuse to do what you two have done and identify as an ex-gay
Click to expand...
I don’t identify as “ex-gay”. Objectively speaking, i never was gay, and other peoples false ideology on the subject is never going to change that fact. There is no such thing as the “gay identity”. It is a fantasy that you have obviously embraced.
robbie20 said:
and open myself up to a torrent nightmarish critiscm…
Click to expand...
Let the nightmare come forth from the darkness. I have the light of God my side.
robbie20 said:
Mind Over Matter and Michelle… People like you are losing (really you are)
Click to expand...
In your opinion i am losing. But unlike you I am not trying to win the love of the whole world and gain favor with it. I am trying to save my soul from the lies and deceptions that plagues our society.
robbie20 said:
The gay rights movement grows by the day while you target me 🤷 over calling myself gay…
Click to expand...
Nobody is “targeting” you. I simply disagree with the use of the word “gay” because it represents something that is not true.
robbie20 said:
I will say no more on this… I can call myself gay if I want to…
Click to expand...
You can call your self a hamster if you want. It doesn’t make you one.
robbie20 said:
Mind if you want to be an ex-gay that is your choice…
Click to expand...
I want to express and fulfill my “male nature”. An ex-gay is somebody who use to identify as a gay person and live that lifestyle. I never have and never will. And i respect those people that have left that life and identify as ex-gay. Sacrifice is a true virtue.
robbie20 said:
But my choice is to affirm a gay identity (I’d also like to point out I’m not Roman Catholic and therefore not bound by the same rules as you are :p)
Click to expand...
If you want to tell people that you have same sex attractions then fine, if that is all you mean by a gay identity. But if you mean that this is the nature that God gave you; then i am sorry this is a false idea and it is not supported by the Catholic faith.

And insofar as you not being a Roman Catholic, that is your business; but there is no rational basis for thinking that there is more than one sexuality on the basis of differing attractions. Otherwise we would have to say that being attracted to animals is a sexual identity; which is obviously ridiculous.

I deny any form of sexual attraction that does not conform to the intrinsic meaning of my being a man; and i see the label of “Gay” as an insult to the fact that i am a man.
 
robbie20 said:
I refuse to do what you two have done and identify as an ex-gay and open myself up to a torrent nightmarish critiscm…

Mind Over Matter and Michelle… People like you are losing (really you are)

The gay rights movement grows by the day while you target me 🤷 over calling myself gay…
Click to expand...
Imagine my surprise at being called out by name! and to find out that I’m losing. Altho I don’t know what I’m losing. and I’m assuming that Mind Over Matter and I are the “two” and now I’ve opened myself up to a “torrent nightmarish criticism” whatever that means?

Seriously. Robbie, no one was targeting you, in this thread or the other–which is where the debate about the word “gay” was actually occuring. Perhaps you were confused and put your post here that you meant to go over there?

Anyway, when you’re through throwing your tantrum, please feel free to join the actual debate over on the other thread.

Debora, have you been following the debate on the usage of the word “gay” over in the thread same sex romantic attractions?
 
You guys seem a bit too caught up in “gay” as an identity, instead of the topic at hand.

Identity is identity. We don’t always want the identity that we have. I identify as the fat girl that everyone used to beat and spit on and be called worthless. For half my life, I identified myself as a witch. Now I identify myself as a revert Catholic, with depression, in a very liberal city, just trying to make it through.

There’s too many pedantic folk on these forums sometimes and it’s a bit annoying. If I ask for help, I’m asked why I want help. If I ask a question about our faith, as a person I’m analyzed more than the topic.

Stay on topic! 😛
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I don’t identify as “ex-gay”. Objectively speaking, i never was gay, and other peoples false ideology on the subject is never going to change that fact. There is no such thing as the “gay identity”. It is a fantasy …
Click to expand...
👍
MindOverMatter2 said:
I am not trying to win the love of the whole world and gain favor with it. I am trying to save my soul from the lies and deceptions that plagues our society.

I simply disagree with the use of the word “gay” because it represents something that is not true.
Click to expand...
(The point that several of us have been trying to make.) Thank you, sir.
MindOverMatter2 said:
You can call your self a hamster if you want. It doesn’t make you one.
Click to expand...
👍
Just as I can “call myself” a “father,” and my (non-existent) lesbian partner a “mother,” but no matter how “masculine” I “feel,” I will never be a father. There is not a woman on earth who will ever be a father, nor “symbolize” that to a child.
MindOverMatter2 said:
I want to express and fulfill my “male nature”
Click to expand...
And there are as many expressions of that maleness as there are males on planet earth. An expression is not the same thing as “an identity,” which you obviously understand, but those who have Drunk the Kool-aid refuse to reconcile with this transparent fact.
MindOverMatter2 said:
there is no rational basis for thinking that there is more than one sexuality on the basis of differing attractions. Otherwise we would have to say that being attracted to animals is a sexual identity; which is obviously ridiculous.

I deny any form of sexual attraction that does not conform to the intrinsic meaning of my being a man; and i see the label of “Gay” as an insult to the fact that i am a man.
Click to expand...
And as I said on a different thread, it’s as if that’s a third gender, or even an entirely different category of being. It’s a new version of Genesis: “God made man, woman, and gays.” :rolleyes:

You have a very refreshing perspective. I think it’s really hard to resist all the propaganda, and unfortunately too many do not, including way too many Catholics.
🙂
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I don’t identify as “ex-gay”. Objectively speaking, i never was gay, and other peoples false ideology on the subject is never going to change that fact. There is no such thing as the “gay identity”. It is a fantasy that you have obviously embraced.

Let the nightmare come forth from the darkness. I have the light of God my side.

In your opinion i am losing. But unlike you I am not trying to win the love of the whole world and gain favor with it. I am trying to save my soul from the lies and deceptions that plagues our society.

Nobody is “targeting” you. I simply disagree with the use of the word “gay” because it represents something that is not true.

You can call your self a hamster if you want. It doesn’t make you one.

I want to express and fulfill my “male nature”. An ex-gay is somebody who use to identify as a gay person and live that lifestyle. I never have and never will. And i respect those people that have left that life and identify as ex-gay. Sacrifice is a true virtue.

If you want to tell people that you have same sex attractions then fine, if that is all you mean by a gay identity. But if you mean that this is the nature that God gave you; then i am sorry this is a false idea and it is not supported by the Catholic faith.

And insofar as you not being a Roman Catholic, that is your business; but there is no rational basis for thinking that there is more than one sexuality on the basis of differing attractions. Otherwise we would have to say that being attracted to animals is a sexual identity; which is obviously ridiculous.

I deny any form of sexual attraction that does not conform to the intrinsic meaning of my being a man; and i see the label of “Gay” as an insult to the fact that i am a man.
Click to expand...
Sexuality is not important to one’s maleness or femaleness, was Jesus any less of a man for not marrying or even trying to find a wife?* Was Joseph less of a man for not consummating his marriage to Mary? Was Mary less of a woman for not engaging in sex? Look to the saints, how many were married? Not many, how many of those who were married weren’t martyred? Seems to be only a few. Also if you all didn’t know celibacy is superior to marriage

1 Corinthians 7:6-9 said:
6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.
Click to expand...

A person’s sex is intrinsic to one’s soul, a person’s sexuality is the result of one’s flesh and as such is subject to the corruption of concupiscence. A man not loving a man chastely is not morally wrong, indeed when it is snow white as a dove it is more dazzling than a briar blossom and brings with it the fruits of the Spirit.

Humorously enough the person whom the Bible mentions Jesus loving is a man, not sexually mind you as love was agape and not eros (eros is the sexual love). St. Aelred refers to them as “wedded” which is a perfect explanation for “Woman, behold thy son”

*wedded is used here to refer an exchange of vows which is different from what we know as a wedding, well, sort of. Suffice to say it is different enough that St Aelred is not talking about “gay marriage”. And now I just got lost in my train of thought because I wrote footnotes to the footnotes of my footnotes
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Sexuality is not important to one’s maleness or femaleness,
Click to expand...
Engaging in sexual relationships is not what defines your heterosexuality. But that is not what i intended by the word “sexuality”.
Dakota_Roberts said:
was Jesus any less of a man for not marrying or even trying to find a wife?*
Click to expand...
No. But, apart from the fact that he served a purpose which transcended the need for a wife, It would have still contradicted his nature had he chose to be with a man. The same goes for your other examples. My only argument here is that my being a man implies heterosexuality and is only meaningful in that respect. Thus if i choose to express my manhood “sexually”, such can only be fulfilled in a heterosexual relationship. Of course if i have what some describe as “sexual brokenness”, perhaps i will not be able to function sexually as intended; but i can still respect my manhood by choosing not to act on attractions that are contrary to my nature. Far from saying that you are less of a man if you don’t have a wife, rather i concluded that homosexuality does not fulfill my nature as a man. My being a man is something that is true regardless of whether i am in a relationship or not because it is ontological, not conceptual.

By the word fulfill, i mean only to do that which is true of your nature, to be consistent with that which is already apart of you. I did not mean to imply that one would be lacking in their maleness or femaleness if circumstances are as such that they are unable to express them selves sexually. There are other ways in which you can express the fact that you are a man or a women; and in fact we are more than that alone.
 
Student26 said:
Hello, I’m a gay Catholic (a term which unlike many I do not see as problematic; I think it false that ‘gay’ must always and everywhere mean that one supports a sort of licentious and illicit sexuality; gay will be used differently for different people and for some it means an attraction to the same ‘gender’ and/ or a predisposition to falling in love with the same sex).

Anyway! I’m a gay Catholic, devout and committed to Holy Mother Church. On the one hand my heart fully believes but on the other I struggle with incredible doubts and times/ periods of disbelief. I often feel a sense of God ‘not-being-there’. I pray that God would make Himself known to me, console me or otherwise give me a sense of His presence and…nothing.

In the face of the temptations that I struggle with daily (homosexual lust) how can I continue going back to Confession if my faith feels so ‘vacant’?

Sometimes it feels like I do all the religious requirements (I serve Mass; go to regular communion and confession; spend time in Adoration; say my litanies…) but that ‘God’ is somehow absent.

I struggle with this so much and I don’t want to; I would happily sacrifice everything for my faith (I think) but I just need more of a sense of God’s presence…even though I know we mustn’t allow our emotions to guide our faith.

I suppose I’m perpetually Thomas saying that I need more; that I need to feel and handle and ‘sense’ Our Lord.

Please help/ pray for me.
Click to expand...
I too will pray for you.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Engaging in sexual relationships is not what defines your heterosexuality. But that is not what i intended by the word “sexuality”.

No. But, apart from the fact that he served a purpose which transcended the need for a wife, It would have still contradicted his nature had he chose to be with a man. The same goes for your other examples. My only argument here is that my being a man implies heterosexuality and is only meaningful in that respect. Thus if i choose to express my manhood “sexually”, such can only be fulfilled in a heterosexual relationship. Of course if i have what some describe as “sexual brokenness”, perhaps i will not be able to function sexually as intended; but i can still respect my manhood by choosing not to act on attractions that are contrary to my nature. Far from saying that you are less of a man if you don’t have a wife, rather i concluded that homosexuality does not fulfill my nature as a man. My being a man is something that is true regardless of whether i am in a relationship or not because it is ontological, not conceptual.

By the word fulfill, i mean only to do that which is true of your nature, to be consistent with that which is already apart of you. I did not mean to imply that one would be lacking in their maleness or femaleness if circumstances are as such that they are unable to express them selves sexually. There are other ways in which you can express the fact that you are a man or a women; and in fact we are more than that alone.
Click to expand...
It would contradict his nature if he chose to be with a man sexually.

homosexuality does not fulfill your nature as a man insofar as homosexual acts are morally wrong.

A person has no sexuality in Heaven, this is because while sexuality is intrinsic to that person it is not intrinsic to his soul.
 
Some of these statements here make little or no sense to me. God wants all men to be “masculine?” If so in what way? Also what does this have to do with being gay? If a person is attracted to the same sex, they are gay, at least to some extent. I am not sure WHY they are like that, nor do I really care that much. They are people who need love and friendship just like the rest of us do.

As far as how tough you are, that has NOTHING to do with being gay or straight. If you first met me, you would think I am a very tough guy, because I am big and somewhat scary looking man. Once you get to know me, you will begin to see that despite your first impression of me, I am a very soft spoken man who likes to bake, read poetry and play around on computers. However I have never had any attraction to the same sex in my entire life. Compare this to my Priest, who on first meeting him, you will think is a VERY feminine guy, and he does have a big heart and is very emotional. However he also likes to race dirt bikes, skateboard and go hunting. He also can get VERY tough with people when he needs to. Now which one of us is more masculine and which one is acting like a “REAL MAN?”

People are who they are, and trying to fit us into molds is silly. I once worked with a gay guy who liked to lift weights and was one of the most masculine guys I have ever met. In fact I was shocked when I found out he was gay, because he is the last person I ever would have thought of being so. God desires all single people to be celibate, however I don’t think God cares at all how “tough” and “manly” we are. After all, the question always becomes, tough and manly in what way?

Pax :signofcross:
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Jesus’s answer to the Sadducees:

No being of pure spirit of has a sexuality
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean that they will not be men and women in heaven:confused:. This goes against what you said about sexual activity not being that which defines our gender identity. This also goes against the idea of a bodily resurrection. To me the above simply means that the object of our sexuality will no-longer be relevant in terms of “sexual activity” because our focus will be on God alone. But we will retain our sexually identity as a glorification of Gods creative act. Sexuality will always and forever be apart of who we are.

It is also a possible interpretation that we will still make love in heaven, but not for creating babies or self gratification, but as a symbolic expression of Gods love and its unitive features. Marriage will no-longer be relevant simply because its purpose (bringing new life into the world within a loving family) will no-longer exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top