Get Ready to Rumble....Play Ball

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I’m beginning to believe that this means, “I can’t be bothered to consider a point of view outside of my own.” My suspicion that your enterprise here is less religious/spiritual and more political and solipsistic is growing.

It’s difficult for me to take your invitation to hold our judgment seriously, Coptic, particularly since you have already jumped to your own conclusions and have passed judgment. You come across as highly disingenuous.

Moreover, if homosexuality as deviant behavior requires no discussion, and if this discussion here is not about SSA, what are you discussing given that Mr. Collins hasn’t (to my knowledge) talked about his deviant sexual behaviors which (after all) require no discussion? What is this thread about, then?

I’ll say it again: My suspicion that your enterprise here is less religious/spiritual and more political and solipsistic is growing.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

My judgement is based on the word “gay”, noting that in an interview with George Stephanopolus that Collins favors same sex marriage…2 points on the curve pointing to deviant behavior.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

My judgement is based on the word “gay”, noting that in an interview with George Stephanopolus that Collins favors same sex marriage…2 points on the curve pointing to deviant behavior.

Your judgment is based on your insistence that Mr. Collins’ understanding of the word “gay” is your own. It is based on your insistence that he cannot have a self-understanding that is not identical with your understanding of him. Your judgment is a function of your tendency towards solipsism.

How is your invitation to hold off on judgment anything other than disingenuous or merely rhetorical?

Moreover, it’s clear that your initial reaction to someone saying that they are same-sex attracted (which is clearly what Mr. Collins meant by the word “gay” and which you would know if you bothered to read what he wrote) is to ask, “to what degree are they engaged in deviant behavior?” That sort of thinking seems to reflect an inability to truly understand and apply the attraction/behavior distinction made by the catechism and looks rather uncharitable to boot.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[stewstew03]

…
That word “homosexual” clearly means different things to him and to you. For most people (including for Mr. Collins if his own words are any indication), “gay” and “homosexual” refer to anyone who is attracted to folks of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they have sexually acted on that attraction. To you, “gay” and “homosexual” refer to people who identify with their sexual behaviors. Insisting that Mr. Collins is describing himself and his sexuality in your terms rather than his own is delusional at best and indicative of a potentially rather sinister belief: that it is ultimately impossible for Mr. Collins to have a self-understanding separate from your understanding of him.

…

This is ludicrous. Clearly, Jason Collins came out for his support of the behavior, not merely the attraction. He wants to marry a man, for goodness sake. Are you saying he’ll only profess attraction to his future husband and not try to “consummate” the marriage?

.

 

[stewstew03]

…
and looks rather uncharitable to boot.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Your badgering of Coptic and lack of “grace and mercy” is rather uncharitable.

.

 

[stewstew03]

…
Your judgment is based on your insistence that Mr. Collins’ understanding of the word “gay” is your own.
…

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous string of arguments I’ve witnessed on CAF. Of course Coptic’s judgment is based on his understanding of the word “gay.” Must we begin every post and every thread with a qualification that says “Based on my understanding of the following terms…”?

Jason Collins came out because he no longer wants to live in the closet. He no longer wants to live in the closet because he wants to live an openly gay lifestyle. He supports gay marriage. He is proud of his “gayness.” It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that since he supports gay marriage and gay pride, that he engages in homosexual behavior. It would be completely unreasonable and utterly irrational to suggest otherwise.

.

 

[DexUK]

I am truly dismayed…I wrote about a normal heterosexual man/wife experience, on a Catholic Forum where we believe that marriage is a sacrament, suggesting that in the context of a balance, we need a normal man/woman relationship that was bonded, united, continually positive in marriage…anyone reading through this will see…

and out of this your mind conjours up latest partners…

How is it you construed this in a way it was not presented?

Do you see expressing normality as a problem?

What does this mean that you did not see the obvious?

What does this say about you?

It says nothing about me other than that I responded to your point…

we need a male or female athlete talking about how robust their normal sex lives are in a public forum.

… with an illustration of how sports stars frequently and repeatedly do just that!

Only you could somehow construe my comment as representing an opinion that that was a problem, and my suspicion is that you do so deliberately because you cannot possibly find anything I say to agree with or admit that perhaps you might be wrong. I could tell you that 1 plus 1 equals 2 and you’d still find a way to disagree with me!

What does it say about me? Nothing. But your response reveals an encyclopaedia about you…

 

[DexUK]

Your badgering of Coptic and lack of “grace and mercy” is rather uncharitable.

.

You should note that ‘CopticChristian’ started this thread, amongst many many others on the subject of homosexuality. It’s not surprising that people respond when they are deliberately invited to do so!

 

[stewstew03]

You should note that ‘CopticChristian’ started this thread, amongst many many others on the subject of homosexuality. It’s not surprising that people respond when they are deliberately invited to do so!

With three posts expressing essentially identical messages?

Ok.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This is ludicrous. Clearly, Jason Collins came out for his support of the behavior, not merely the attraction. He wants to marry a man, for goodness sake. Are you saying he’ll only profess attraction to his future husband and not try to “consummate” the marriage?

Stewstew, I didn’t see anywhere in Mr. Collins’ article that he came out in support of any particular sexual behavior. If you want to pillory him for supporting same-sex marriage, you have evidence for that support so…pillory away. If you want to pillory him for supporting particular sexual acts, I’m afraid you’ll need more evidence than your assertion.

Whether or not Mr. Collins intends to engage in some sort of sexual behavior with a man to whom he is “married” is an assumption on your part. You may call it a reasonable assumption. That’s fine. But lacking any actual evidence, it remains an assumption.

Your badgering of Coptic and lack of “grace and mercy” is rather uncharitable.

I’m sorry you feel that way. If I have learned anything from these forums, it is that an insistence on accuracy and truthfulness in relaying the teachings of the catechism is a charitable act. I am not badgering. I am charitably insisting.

Of course Coptic’s judgment is based on his understanding of the word “gay.”

It is not simply based on his understanding of the word but on a concomitant conviction that his understanding is necessarily Mr. Collins’ understanding. But that does not appear to be the case. Coptic’s judgment here, therefore, is unedifying and blurs the line between attraction and behavior upon which the catechism insists.

Jason Collins came out because he no longer wants to live in the closet.

Granted. The question is only: what does no longer living in the closet actually mean? Does it mean being honest about the drift of his affections (which is, according to the context of Mr. Collins’ article, what it appears to mean) or does it mean committing himself to a particular menu of sexual behaviors?

He no longer wants to live in the closet because he wants to live an openly gay lifestyle.

This is conjectural. I don’t recall him saying that he is admitting that he is same-sex attracted because he wishes to live a particular lifestyle. Regardless, though, the question here becomes: does the lifestyle which Mr. Collins wishes to live look identical to the lifestyle you think he must want to live based on your version of his story?

He supports gay marriage.

So it seems. So go on and judge him.

He is proud of his “gayness.”

Whatever that means.

It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that since he supports gay marriage and gay pride, that he engages in homosexual behavior.

A perfectly reasonable suggestion remains a suggestion.

It would be completely unreasonable and utterly irrational to suggest otherwise.

Not really. It is unreasonable to make a moral judgment on someone’s sexual behaviors lacking any actual proof (beyond suggestions, conjectures and assumptions) that that behavior is occurring, has occurred, or will occur. What I’ve done is charitably give Mr. Collins the benefit of the doubt. Is that really such a foreign concept to you?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Farsight001]

Jason Collins just announced that he is a gay basketball player and the stage is set…

smh.com.au/sport/basketball/collins-a-sinner-espn-reporter-speaks-out-over-gay-nba-star-20130501-2irtj.html

I imagine that there will be many sports figures publically making their way to the microphone to declare their deviant behavior.

What will be interesting is what will happen to those that report, like Chris Broussard, will these people be purged from the Sports scence and elsewhere so that the media only carries the APA message…???

The only counseling should be for acceptance…and the message is accept this as normal

Abrogate your spiritual views for deviant behavior that is who you are…and we hear nothing of dissent about any of these…

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that according to Church teaching, simply BEING gay is not deviant behavior, and in that way, Broussard crossed the line in his statements.

 

[stewstew03]

Grace & Peace!

Stewstew, I didn’t see anywhere in Mr. Collins’ article that he came out in support of any particular sexual behavior. If you want to pillory him for supporting same-sex marriage, you have evidence for that support so…pillory away. If you want to pillory him for supporting particular sexual acts, I’m afraid you’ll need more evidence than your assertion.

Whether or not Mr. Collins intends to engage in some sort of sexual behavior with a man to whom he is “married” is an assumption on your part. You may call it a reasonable assumption. That’s fine. But lacking any actual evidence, it remains an assumption.

I’m sorry you feel that way. If I have learned anything from these forums, it is that an insistence on accuracy and truthfulness in relaying the teachings of the catechism is a charitable act. I am not badgering. I am charitably insisting.

It is not simply based on his understanding of the word but on a concomitant conviction that his understanding is necessarily Mr. Collins’ understanding. But that does not appear to be the case. Coptic’s judgment here, therefore, is unedifying and blurs the line between attraction and behavior upon which the catechism insists.

Granted. The question is only: what does no longer living in the closet actually mean? Does it mean being honest about the drift of his affections (which is, according to the context of Mr. Collins’ article, what it appears to mean) or does it mean committing himself to a particular menu of sexual behaviors?

This is conjectural. I don’t recall him saying that he is admitting that he is same-sex attracted because he wishes to live a particular lifestyle. Regardless, though, the question here becomes: does the lifestyle which Mr. Collins wishes to live look identical to the lifestyle you think he must want to live based on your version of his story?

So it seems. So go on and judge him.

Whatever that means.

A perfectly reasonable suggestion remains a suggestion.

Not really. It is unreasonable to make a moral judgment on someone’s sexual behaviors lacking any actual proof (beyond suggestions, conjectures and assumptions) that that behavior is occurring, has occurred, or will occur. What I’ve done is charitably give Mr. Collins the benefit of the doubt. Is that really such a foreign concept to you?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Benefit of the doubt? No, what you’re doing is adding unnecessary obfuscation. And your charity seems to go only in one direction – toward Mr. Collins. You made the suggestion (above) that charity is a “foreign concept” to me. Obviously your Modus Operandi is to quickly discredit anyone who disagrees with you by painting your opponents as malicious bigots, while you get to play the thoughtful saint!

Question for you:

True or False: It is more reasonable to assume a married man is chaste, than it is to assume he has a sexual relationship with his wife.

.

 

[stewstew03]

My thoughts are that according to Church teaching, simply BEING gay is not deviant behavior, and in that way, Broussard crossed the line in his statements.

Correct… Broussard was asked for his personal opinion (i.e., “What’s your take on this [Jason Collins coming out]?”), and he indicated that living an open lifestyle is a sin.

“Open lifestyle” does not refer to one’s mental desires, but to expressed behaviors.

.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

That word “homosexual” clearly means different things to him and to you. For most people (including for Mr. Collins if his own words are any indication), “gay” and “homosexual” refer to anyone who is attracted to folks of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they have sexually acted on that attraction. To you, “gay” and “homosexual” refer to people who identify with their sexual behaviors. Insisting that Mr. Collins is describing himself and his sexuality in *your *terms rather than his own is delusional at best and indicative of a potentially rather sinister belief: that it is ultimately impossible for Mr. Collins to have a self-understanding separate from your understanding of him.

Hello Deo:

I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between someone who self-identifies as “gay” and one who simply has homosexual tendencies. The latter implies nothing with respect to personal beliefs and/or sexual activity, while the former implies at the very least the acceptance of homosexual sex acts as normal and morally acceptable. To “come out” as “gay” is a political act that states to the world that you believe homosexual sexual acts are good, natural, and beneficial. Thus, at the very least one who “comes out” is creating scandal by declaring their personal opposition to the Church’s teaching on the morality of homosexual conduct. Your argument is ridiculous. Everybody understood exactly what Mr. Collins meant when he self-identified as “gay.” Whether he has actually engaged in same-sex behavior is not relevant with respect to the objective morality of his action in doing so. At the very least, he is a source of scandal.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between someone who self-identifies as “gay” and one who simply has homosexual tendencies. The latter implies nothing with respect to personal beliefs and/or sexual activity, while the former implies at the very least the acceptance of homosexual sex acts as normal and morally acceptable.

This is a distinction which you and some other religiously-minded people of a particular political persuasion make. That’s fine. But it’s not a distinction that most people out in the world make. It is unfair of you to judge Mr. Collins for not making a distinction that most people would never think of making.

To “come out” as “gay” is a political act that states to the world that you believe homosexual sexual acts are good, natural, and beneficial.

That’s not what “coming out” means to most people–it’s not even what it means to those who “come out.” For most who “come out” and for most of those to whom someone “comes out,” it means being honest about the drift of one’s affections, not publicly endorsing a particular repertoire of sexual acts. This understanding of “coming out” which you have articulated is itself a function of a political point of view which I would characterize as cynical.

Thus, at the very least one who “comes out” is creating scandal by declaring their personal opposition to the Church’s teaching on the morality of homosexual conduct.

This is what you would like it to mean given your own political predispositions.

Everybody understood exactly what Mr. Collins meant when he self-identified as “gay.”

I thought so too. Until I started reading this thread.

At the very least, he is a source of scandal.

If he is a source of scandal to you, I would suggest that it is because it suits you to see him as such.

As our friend Oscar Wilde writes,“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.” I would not characterize what Mr. Collins said as particularly beautiful, but the sentiment of the quotation applies here, I think.

True or False: It is more reasonable to assume a married man is chaste, than it is to assume he has a sexual relationship with his wife.

It is reasonable not to make assumptions about anyone’s sex life.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

It says nothing about me other than that I responded to your point…

… with an illustration of how sports stars frequently and repeatedly do just that!

Only you could somehow construe my comment as representing an opinion that that was a problem, and my suspicion is that you do so deliberately because you cannot possibly find anything I say to agree with or admit that perhaps you might be wrong.
What does it say about me? Nothing. But your response reveals an encyclopaedia about you…

**

I could tell you that 1 plus 1 equals 2 and you’d still find a way to disagree with me!

**

It is with great distress that I dissapoint you. I must here agree with you. I admire your ability to point out the obvious here.:newidea:

 

[CopticChristian]

You should note that ‘CopticChristian’ started this thread, amongst many many others on the subject of homosexuality. It’s not surprising that people respond when they are deliberately invited to do so!

You should note that you seem to find these threads as well.

You may want to consider that anyone that supports homosexuality, same sex marriage and the LGBT community will see these posts.

Abortion and Same Sex marriage are intrinsically evil. Both are sins that cry to heaven for justice. Both destroy souls. Both are examples of unjust laws. Both laws teach others to sin.

Children are central to the issue. To deny the obvious is to be oblivious to reality.

Anyone who obtains happiness from objective mortal sin is deceived. To claim any Catholic should support evil is beyond words.

There is no love in affirming sin. This position is not Catholic.

What is true is that Catholics are bound to reject unjust laws. It does not have to be a matter of dogma to bind under pain of mortal sin. There is ample evidence in the CCC, encyclicals, Vatican directives, bishop’s statements, and basic moral theology that contradicts your words. In fact it is frank to state that this position insults intelligence.

We must all disagree with support of unjust laws. First, support for these unjust laws is morally wrong. To support the effort or the law is to support SSM. There is no logical way around that. It is like supporting pro abortion laws.

Secondly, religious arguments are fine. The Christian faith has and must influence the law.

One cannot be a Catholic in good standing and be ambivalent about others who commit mortal sins. We need to represent the Catholic faith and teachings in all venues

The RCC has taught the faithful on the moral evils of SSM. The Church has taught the Truth and asks you to defend it. Anyone choosing to ignore over 2000 years of inspired wisdom which is based in natural law. In all Christian charity, we should not be putting our knowledge above the Church’s. Simple stated, it is not humble and we do not (gently-stated) worship at the altar of self opinion.

So, supporting Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality is like supporting pro-abortion laws, evil is evil.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Stewstew, I didn’t see anywhere in Mr. Collins’ article that he came out in support of any particular sexual behavior. If you want to pillory him for supporting same-sex marriage, you have evidence for that support so…pillory away. If you want to pillory him for supporting particular sexual acts, I’m afraid you’ll need more evidence than your assertion.

Whether or not Mr. Collins intends to engage in some sort of sexual behavior with a man to whom he is “married” is an assumption on your part. You may call it a reasonable assumption. That’s fine. But lacking any actual evidence, it remains an assumption.

I’m sorry you feel that way. If I have learned anything from these forums, it is that an insistence on accuracy and truthfulness in relaying the teachings of the catechism is a charitable act. I am not badgering. I am charitably insisting.

It is not simply based on his understanding of the word but on a concomitant conviction that his understanding is necessarily Mr. Collins’ understanding. But that does not appear to be the case. Coptic’s judgment here, therefore, is unedifying and blurs the line between attraction and behavior upon which the catechism insists.

Granted. The question is only: what does no longer living in the closet actually mean? Does it mean being honest about the drift of his affections (which is, according to the context of Mr. Collins’ article, what it appears to mean) or does it mean committing himself to a particular menu of sexual behaviors?

This is conjectural. I don’t recall him saying that he is admitting that he is same-sex attracted because he wishes to live a particular lifestyle. Regardless, though, the question here becomes: does the lifestyle which Mr. Collins wishes to live look identical to the lifestyle you think he must want to live based on your version of his story?

So it seems. So go on and judge him.

Whatever that means.

A perfectly reasonable suggestion remains a suggestion.

Not really. It is unreasonable to make a moral judgment on someone’s sexual behaviors lacking any actual proof (beyond suggestions, conjectures and assumptions) that that behavior is occurring, has occurred, or will occur. What I’ve done is charitably give Mr. Collins the benefit of the doubt. Is that really such a foreign concept to you?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

The only way to answer what Mr. Collins believes “gay” means is to ask him and I may find a way to do that.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

This is a distinction which you and some other religiously-minded people of a particular political persuasion make. That’s fine. But it’s not a distinction that most people out in the world make. It is unfair of you to judge Mr. Collins for not making a distinction that most people would never think of making.

It is a distinction that is clear from the usage. But I agree that most people would fail to see the distinction that does exist. All “gay” people are homosexuals. But not all homosexuals self-identify as “gay.” I’m not sure why you cannot grasp this simple point.
Deo Volente:

That’s not what “coming out” means to most people–it’s not even what it means to those who “come out.” For most who “come out” and for most of those to whom someone “comes out,” it means being honest about the drift of one’s affections, not publicly endorsing a particular repertoire of sexual acts. This understanding of “coming out” which you have articulated is itself a function of a political point of view which I would characterize as cynical.

Your understanding is incorrect. Self-identifying as “gay” is an implicit endorsement of a certain lifestyle that accepts homosexual acts. Again, you are making a point of contention out of an issue that most would readily concede as beyond dispute.
Deo Volente:

This is what you would like it to mean given your own political predispositions.

Coming out as “gay” is taking a position contrary to the Church’s teaching on: (1) sex outside of marriage; and (2) the immoral nature of homosexual acts. It’s not what “I would like it to mean.” It’s what most people understand it to mean. Again, I simply don’t understand what point you are trying to make here. One cannot live a gay lifestyle and at the same time live a life that is consistent with Church teaching.
Deo Volente:

If he is a source of scandal to you, I would suggest that it is because it suits you to see him as such.

He’s not a source of scandal to me. I don’t know the man. He’s a source of scandal in the sense that by his “coming out” he is endorsing a lifestyle that is contrary to Church teaching. Are you saying that somehow a person can declare himself or herself to be part of a segment of the population that accepts a lifestyle that involves premarital sexual relations with members of the same sex, and at the same time be in full agreement with the teaching of the Church on these matters? The two positions are mutually exclusive.

DeoVolente:

As our friend Oscar Wilde writes,“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.” I would not characterize what Mr. Collins said as particularly beautiful, but the sentiment of the quotation applies here, I think.

I don’t think Mr. Collins’ actions were beautiful. I’m not reading any added meaning into his statements. I’m taking them at face value for what they are; an unapologetic endorsement of conduct that is defined by the Church to be immoral, whether he engages in it regularly or not.

DeoVolente:

It is reasonable not to make assumptions about anyone’s sex life.

As set forth above, I’m not making assumptions. I’m taking Mr. Collins at his word.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It is a distinction that is clear from the usage. But I agree that most people would fail to see the distinction that does exist. All “gay” people are homosexuals. But not all homosexuals self-identify as “gay.” I’m not sure why you cannot grasp this simple point.

The question of belonging to a group is sometimes a tricky one. Generally, people belong to a group (whether they like it or not) when at least two of the following three criteria are met:

1–They exhibit the basic/objective characteristic(s) common to all group members (such as same-sex attraction in the case of “gay”).
2–They claim to belong to the group.
3–The group claims them as one of their own.

(Much to the chagrin of the “homosexual but not gay” crowd, they’re generally considered as belonging to the gay group because criteria 1 and 3 are met.)

Regardless, I understand the distinctions you make (gay-and-homosexual / homosexual-but-not-gay) very well and I’m happy to make them when appropriate: i.e., when A) it is important given the context of the discussion; B) it is important to the self-understanding of someone with whom I’m interacting; and C) it does not represent too much of a distortion of truth or reality. However, I also understand that those distinctions are not universally made and that they apply, for the most part, to a very particular religio-political subculture which is heavily represented on these forums.

But what we’re discussing is not so much whether Mr. Collins is gay-and-homosexual or homosexual-but-not-gay–what we’re really discussing is whether or not it is appropriate to apply these distinctions in a way which suggests that they are central to his story despite his own words which suggest that they are foreign to his own’ self-understanding.

In other words, the discussion is about who gets to determine the terms by which Mr. Collins can tell his own story.

You maintain that the terms by which his story should be understood are your own terms with their (relatively) peculiar and parochial meanings and usages. I maintain that the terms by which his story should be understood are his own terms and that those terms are identifiable by his own words.

So, for instance, you would say that because he identifies as “gay,” he must be endorsing a menu of sexual behaviors. I would say that because he identifies as “gay,” he is just indicating the drift of his affections because I find no evidence in his own words that “gay” to him means, “I endorse a menu of sexual behaviors.”

Your understanding is incorrect. Self-identifying as “gay” is an implicit endorsement of a certain lifestyle that accepts homosexual acts. Again, you are making a point of contention out of an issue that most would readily concede as beyond dispute.

Robert, that’s your politics talking and nothing more.

Coming out as “gay” is taking a position contrary to the Church’s teaching on: (1) sex outside of marriage; and (2) the immoral nature of homosexual acts. It’s not what “I would like it to mean.” It’s what most people understand it to mean.

Again, this is your politics talking. Coming out as “gay” does not universally mean taking a position contrary to the Church unless the person coming out makes it explicit that he/she is taking positions contrary to the Church. I think it’s only Courage, it’s apostles, and members of similar and sympathetic religio-politcal subcultures which would make the claims regarding “coming out” that you make–because those are the groups that teach that sort of understanding. It’s not taught in the catechism.

Again, I simply don’t understand what point you are trying to make here.

The point is this: who tells the most authentic and accurate version of Mr. Collins’ story–you or Mr. Collins? If I wanted to know how Mr. Collins understand his sexuality or the word “gay,” would I go to you, or would I go to Mr. Collins?

Are you saying that somehow a person can declare himself or herself to be part of a segment of the population that accepts a lifestyle that involves premarital sexual relations with members of the same sex, and at the same time be in full agreement with the teaching of the Church on these matters? The two positions are mutually exclusive.

You assume that Mr. Collins accepts a “lifestyle” contrary to Church teaching because he uses a particular word which means something to you but, arguably, does not mean the same thing to him. For me, I need more proof that he accepts or endorses a lifestyle contrary to Church teaching than just your word that your version of his story is the more accurate one.

I’m not reading any added meaning into his statements. I’m taking them at face value for what they are; an unapologetic endorsement of conduct that is defined by the Church to be immoral, whether he engages in it regularly or not.

Again, that’s your politics talking. You can’t seem to see beyond your own politics.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

The question of belonging to a group is sometimes a tricky one. Generally, people belong to a group (whether they like it or not) when at least two of the following three criteria are met:

1–They exhibit the basic/objective characteristic(s) common to all group members (such as same-sex attraction in the case of “gay”).
2–They claim to belong to the group.
3–The group claims them as one of their own.

(Much to the chagrin of the “homosexual but not gay” crowd, they’re generally considered as belonging to the gay group because criteria 1 and 3 are met.)

Regardless, I understand the distinctions you make (gay-and-homosexual / homosexual-but-not-gay) very well and I’m happy to make them when appropriate: i.e., when A) it is important given the context of the discussion; B) it is important to the self-understanding of someone with whom I’m interacting; and C) it does not represent too much of a distortion of truth or reality. However, I also understand that those distinctions are not universally made and that they apply, for the most part, to a very particular religio-political subculture which is heavily represented on these forums.

But what we’re discussing is not so much whether Mr. Collins is gay-and-homosexual or homosexual-but-not-gay–what we’re really discussing is whether or not it is appropriate to apply these distinctions in a way which suggests that they are central to his story despite his own words which suggest that they are foreign to his own’ self-understanding.

In other words, the discussion is about who gets to determine the terms by which Mr. Collins can tell his own story.

You maintain that the terms by which his story should be understood are your own terms with their (relatively) peculiar and parochial meanings and usages. I maintain that the terms by which his story should be understood are his own terms and that those terms are identifiable by his own words.

So, for instance, you would say that because he identifies as “gay,” he must be endorsing a menu of sexual behaviors. I would say that because he identifies as “gay,” he is just indicating the drift of his affections because I find no evidence in his own words that “gay” to him means, “I endorse a menu of sexual behaviors.”

Robert, that’s your politics talking and nothing more.

Again, this is your politics talking. Coming out as “gay” does not universally mean taking a position contrary to the Church unless the person coming out makes it explicit that he/she is taking positions contrary to the Church. I think it’s only Courage, it’s apostles, and members of similar and sympathetic religio-politcal subcultures which would make the claims regarding “coming out” that you make–because those are the groups that teach that sort of understanding. It’s not taught in the catechism.

The point is this: who tells the most authentic and accurate version of Mr. Collins’ story–you or Mr. Collins? If I wanted to know how Mr. Collins understand his sexuality or the word “gay,” would I go to you, or would I go to Mr. Collins?

You assume that Mr. Collins accepts a “lifestyle” contrary to Church teaching because he uses a particular word which means something to you but, arguably, does not mean the same thing to him. For me, I need more proof that he accepts or endorses a lifestyle contrary to Church teaching than just your word that your version of his story is the more accurate one.

Again, that’s your politics talking. You can’t seem to see beyond your own politics.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

The question of belonging to a group is sometimes a tricky one. Generally, people belong to a group (whether they like it or not) when at least two of the following three criteria are met:

1–They exhibit the basic/objective characteristic(s) common to all group members (such as same-sex attraction in the case of “gay”).
2–They claim to belong to the group.
3–The group claims them as one of their own.

Wow, that sucks.

Some poor kid, wakes up and finds himself with SSA and then the LGBT group says.,.you are one of us, you are gay…this denies free will and the ability to self determine life. Is the LGBT, deviant behavior group, the ones that have taken over the American Psychiatric Association and now the American Psychologoical Association that powerful, that with one finger they can go down the line and say…

gay, gay, gay, not gay, gay…pretty messed up if you ask me…