Gay rights

[Rau]

Speaking as a mother, if my daughter came to me and told me she was a lesbian, I would assure her of my love and then pray that she finds a loving and awesome woman to love.

And if she advised she were bisexual, what would be your advice and prayer?

 

[Thorolfr]

While I understand, I disagree. We all suffer disordered desires and commit disordered acts. None of them should define us. We are capable of knowing right from wrong, and of repenting. Perhaps it is those who choose not to repent who are the ones who seek to define themselves by their inclinations and acts?

The church teaching is neither “kind” nor “unkind”, though it may be difficult and inconvenient.

So a person’s sexuality and their maleness or femaleness do not define them in any important way? It is conservative Catholics in this forum who make a big deal out of marriage and children, all of which are connected to inclinations that are a part of heterosexual sexuality. So why pretend that gay people should not feel that their sexuality and the inclinations that arise from it define them in any important way? And it most certainly does feel unkind to gay people to be told that the inclinations that are part of their sexuality are “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” or are “intrinsically disordered”.

 

[kozlosap]

And if she advised she were bisexual, what would be your advice and prayer?

You are right Rau, I do throw out the WORD disordered, for one reason - Catholics (everyday Catholics who are not familiar with the vocabulary used in the CCC) and non-Catholics alike hear that term when reading or speaking with other Catholics and they use the everyday definition. Thank you for reminding me that I have been “corrected” several times. I didn’t realize that I was your student and needed to follow every belief, even concerning linguistics. If my daughter were bi, then I would pray she just finds the right man or woman to love. I’m thanking the Lord right now for the few little raindrops I see outside. I’m in parched NorCal and we do need every little bit of moisture we can find.

 

[Rau]

So a person’s sexuality and their maleness or femaleness do not define them in any important way?

A person’s (disordered) sexual desires do not rise to the level to define the entirety of the person - hence, the person cannot be disordered. That is the point.

It is conservative Catholics in this forum who make a big deal out of marriage and children, all of which are connected to inclinations that are a part of heterosexual sexuality.

I find nothing particularly “conservative” in the ideas of sexual complementarity, marriage, family or children.

So why pretend that gay people should not feel that their sexuality and the inclinations that arise from it define them in any important way?

A person cannot be “disordered” - inclinations, temptations and actions can be disordered. **I am quite sure you agree with that - its is simply that you disagree that a desire for same sex sex acts is disordered.
**

And it most certainly does feel unkind to gay people to be told that the inclinations that are part of their sexuality are “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil”…

I can understand how hard it seems. But how can it be otherwise? And to correct the remainder of your sentence, the inclination is not “intrinsically evil” - sexual acts outside of marriage (between a man and a woman) are intrinsically evil.

 

[kozlosap]

The Church tells us the real meaning of marriage and family. We can love our LGBT children and neighbors but we cannot approve of their behaviors, including LGBT marriage.

Ed

Ed, I was referring to civil marriage. A person’s sexual orientation is how they were born, so, I should shun my child who I gave birth to because I don’t approve of how they participate in sex? I understand that there are posters here that do not hold my belief that humans are born gay, but when speaking or writing about LGBTQ issues, that is the basis of my thought process. As most of you know, I taught at-risk high school students for 35 years, and my experiences with kids who were berated or sent to cult-like religious camps to pray away the gay were very Eye opening. It’s no wonder that the suicide rate for gay teens is so high.

 

[Rau]

Ed, I was referring to civil marriage.

I fail to see what difference that makes. Does a civil marriage have the unique capability to grant a moral licence for same sex sexual relations!?

A person’s sexual orientation is how they were born, so, I should shun my child who I gave birth to because I don’t approve of how they participate in sex?

Why would you ever “shun” your child. But why would you feel compelled to approve of every act?

 

[Rau]

You are right Rau, I do throw out the WORD disordered, for one reason - Catholics (everyday Catholics who are not familiar with the vocabulary used in the CCC) and non-Catholics alike hear that term when reading or speaking with other Catholics and they use the everyday definition.

So you, a declared Catholic, go about propagating and perpetuating as Catholic teaching, that which you know is not Catholic teaching. Wonderful.

 

[JimG]

Every human being is born male or female. And by the nature of the human body, the male is oriented to the female and vice-versa. A doctor can tell you at birth, even before birth, that a child is male or female. He cannot tell you, this child is gay, because sexual tendencies and affects do not develop until later, and are more malleable.

 

[Thorolfr]

A person cannot be “disordered” - inclinations, temptations and actions can be disordered. **I am quite sure you agree with that - its is simply that you disagree that a desire for same sex sex acts is disordered. **

Even you keep reminding everyone that if homosexuality is in any way genetic that this must mean that something went wrong somewhere in their body. So what is a “person”? Unless they are like a rock or a vegetable, surely it has something to do with the interplay between their body, their mind, their personality, their experiences and their inclinations. A person’s sexual inclinations might not be the totality of who they are as a person, but it is I would think still a relatively important part of who they are as a person. So if you say that something has gone awry in a person’s body or their mind but that this does not mean that they are in any way disordered as a person, that doesn’t make much sense to me. And of course, a look at the Wikipedia article on “Person” shows that there is hardly any agreement on what this word “person” means aside from being a “being” and especially a “human” being. Ultimately, you can define personhood to not have anything to do with sexuality or sexual inclinations, but not everyone will agree, and it is still just a matter of your personal definitions of what constitutes a person.

 

[edwest2]

In the end, opinions don’t matter.

1. Who decides when anyone has sex? The Church? The State? No, only you do.

Based on the latest information, the exact cause of homosexuality is unknown.

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

If anyone who is straight went to a store and saw 100 people, could any of them tell if even one was gay? I worked with LGBT persons in the 1970s and early 1980s. There was no outcry when one employee went through an operation to go from female to male. Privacy was the number one thing. We all got all got along. What changed? Gay/LGBT activists decided abandoning privacy was the thing to do, not anyone else. I did not think for one second about what these people did on their own time.

Ed

 

[Rau]

Even you keep reminding everyone that if homosexuality is in any way genetic that this must mean that something went wrong somewhere in their body. So what is a “person”? Unless they are like a rock or a vegetable, surely it has something to do with the interplay between their body, their mind, their personality, their experiences and their inclinations.

Did you forget to mention the unique relationship with God?

A person’s sexual inclinations might not be the totality of who they are as a person, but it is I would think still** a relatively important part **of who they are as a person. So if you say that something has gone awry in a person’s body or their mind but that this does not mean that they are in any way disordered as a person, that doesn’t make much sense to me. And of course, a look at the Wikipedia article on “Person” shows that there is hardly any agreement on what this word “person” means aside from being a “being” and especially a “human” being. Ultimately, you can define personhood to not have anything to do with sexuality or sexual inclinations, but not everyone will agree, and it is still just a matter of your personal definitions of what constitutes a person.

A “relatively important part”? It is an important influence on them - certainly. But need it change their relationship with God, or his with them? Does an inherited disease make a person disordered - of course not.

The facts I have expressed concerning what can and cannot be disordered - what the word means in Catholic teaching - remain - and you have made no objection to those facts, other than to reject the suggestion that certain sexual inclinations and acts are disordered.

 

[Thorolfr]

A “relatively important part”? It is an important influence on them - certainly. But need it change their relationship with God, or his with them? Does an inherited disease make a person disordered - of course not.

That is, of course, what I believe, that having SSA and acting on it does not change someone’s relationship with God or His with them.

 

[edwest2]

That is, of course, what I believe, that having SSA and acting on it does not change someone’s relationship with God or His with them.

You can believe that’s true but someone, anyone, who disagrees with God’s Church regarding the true nature of human sexuality is acting on a personal desire. I know it’s difficult for a lot of people to admit, but we’re all sinners. We need to acknowledge that fact.

A sinner,
Ed

 

[Rau]

That is, of course, what I believe, that having SSA and acting on it does not change someone’s relationship with God or His with them.

Well, at least you are half right. .

Remember, the “acting on it” is a choice.