Get Ready to Rumble....Play Ball

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

I guess it all comes down to this, no? Someone says, “I’m gay,” and you hear, “I endorse a particular repertoire of sexual behaviors and/or political positions.” I didn’t see him talk about sex in his article, so I was generally unwilling to assume anything about his sex life. You seem more willing to make those assumptions based solely on your religio-political reading of the word “gay.”

He may indeed like to marry another man some day. As a Roman Catholic, you know that that is “marriage” in name only–i.e., he wishes to avail himself of the rights and responsibilities the state understands by the term “marriage” should he find someone with whom he wishes to share his life and who wishes to share their life with him. I don’t see where sexual sin is necessitated in such an arrangement–certainly heterosexual marriage does not provide an imprimatur on sexual sins which occur in such a relationship, so why should it be any different in a same-sex “marriage?”

By the way, there are plenty of gay folks who don’t believe in same-sex marriage, but they still persist in calling themselves “gay.” Why? Because, as I’ve stated over and over in this thread, “gay” is the popular and colloquial term for one who is same-sex attracted. Identifying as “gay” doesn’t mean identifying with a particular political platform, whatever it may be.

Now. Mr. Collins’ does indeed appear to support same-sex marriage. But it’s not because he identifies as “gay.” Plenty of heterosexuals are all for same-sex marriage. Plenty of gay folks don’t want it or couldn’t care less (I understand, though, that your religio-political position would lead you to understand otherwise). What would account for Mr. Collins’ support of same-sex marriage? Given that his identifying as gay is no guarantee that he’ll believe in any particular political position, perhaps he’s just someone who was brought up to aspire to married, so now that it’s available to him in his situation, that’s what he aspires to. I don’t know. He hasn’t explicitly explained himself in that regard.

Whatever Mr. Collins’ political positions on any number of topics, none of them are necessitated by the fact that he refers to himself as “gay.” But you would see them as necessarily arising from his choice of nomenclature. Reality does not support you on this, Robert, because there are plenty of self-identified gay folks who do not agree with Mr. Collins’ politics insofar as he has expressed them in his article.

It may surprise you to learn this, Robert, but: There is no gay hive mind.

Robert, I’m quite aware of my own politics (I never said I was anti- or a-political). I’m also quite aware that I cannot assume that most people share my politics. But making that assumption does not appear to give you pause. So be it.

Moreover, I’m not judging you–I’m pointing out that your religio-political views are leading you to draw a particular series of conclusions based on a partisan and non-normative understanding of the word “gay.” The conclusions you draw regarding Mr. Collins’ politics may indeed be accurate. But they are not accurate simply because of Mr. Collins’ choice of vocabulary–anyone outside these forums who wished to say they were same-sex attracted would say they were gay because that’s what the word means in the world beyond these forums. But not all of those gay folks would agree with Mr. Collins’ politics, whatever they are and however he might articulate them.

Again, there is no gay hive mind, regardless of what your particular brand of politics may encourage you to believe to the contrary.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

You see if I were to contemplate saying I was gay…I wouldn’t unless I was contemplating a relationship, accepted that there was no hope for my SSA if I were going to have a relationship otherwise I would keep it to myself and go to Church…so let us take you

Well, Ok…

let us just say you were to say, hey I am gay…

does that mean you have SSA?

does it mean that you have a same sex relationship?

does it mean that you engage or have engaged in same sex behavior?

 

[CopticChristian]

IOW, it us all about me. Hey look at me and my personal issues. Me, Me, Me, Me…please look at me and my sexuality. I am so proud of me.

Earlier Monday, the Democratic National Committee announced Collins would headline its annual lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender gala, on May 29. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, has phoned the 34-year-old athlete to praise him for his courage.

I don’t think Jason is coming out with just SSA…

I am gay

I support same sex marriage

I plan to headline the annual gay, bisexual and transgender gala…

lookin like da guy, he be more than SSA…dunno but it looks that way…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You see if I were to contemplate saying I was gay…I wouldn’t unless I was contemplating a relationship, accepted that there was no hope for my SSA if I were going to have a relationship otherwise I would keep it to myself …]

That is because, Coptic, you are an acolyte of a particular religio-political subculture which holds to a non-normative definition of the word “gay.” There are plenty of folks (and you have even interacted with some of them on these forums) who identify as gay, and are faithful, celibate Roman Catholic people. They are not less gay for being faithful Roman Catholics and they are not less faithful for identifying as gay.

let us just say you were to say, hey I am gay…

does that mean you have SSA?

It would mean I am same-sex attracted. I try not to use the phrase “have SSA” because it suggests that my sexuality is like a cold or a sweater or a piece of collectible pottery–i.e., something outside of me that I possess or which (in the case of the cold) besets me. Since that is not how I experience my sexuality, it is not how I would choose to describe it.

does it mean that you have a same sex relationship?

Saying, “Hey, I am gay,” is no indication of my relationship status. If I want to tell you about my relationship status, I’ll start a separate conversation with you about it or indicate it during the course of a conversation. But my relationship status is not indicated by the use of the word “gay.”

does it mean that you engage or have engaged in same sex behavior?

Saying, “Hey, I am gay,” is also no indication of what I may or may not get up to in the bedroom. If I want to tell you about what I may or may not get up to in the bedroom, I’ll start a separate conversation with you about it or indicate it during the course of a conversation. But what I may or may not get up to in the bedroom is not indicated by the use of the word “gay.”

I was born in Southern California, Coptic. Lots of people think that folks from Southern California are laid back. If I said, “Hey, I’m from Southern California,” someone might say, “Oh, you must be really laid back.” I would say, “No, I’m not particularly.” They might say, “Oh, then you must drive a car–it’s a real car culture out there.” To which I would say, “Sure it’s a car culture, but no, I don’t drive a car. I can drive a car. But I prefer not to. I don’t enjoy it, and I’m not very good at it.” They might say, “Okay. I bet you’re a democrat. People in Southern California are really liberal.” To which I would say, “No. I’m not a democrat.” They might say, “Surely you like palm trees.” To which I would say, “I like them well enough, I suppose, but not especially.” And I might eventually say, “Look…I was just telling you where I’m from. I wasn’t telling you my life story.”

If I were to tell you, “I’m gay,” I’m just indicating the drift of my affections. Not my life story. Not my politics. Not my sexual behavior. Not my grooming habits. Not the books I have in my library. Not the films I like. Not my aesthetic sensibility. Not my relationship status. Not my favorite color. Not the sort of food I like. Not my career goals. Nothing except this: I’m attracted to other guys. That’s it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Well,

With all the gay this and gay that and LGBT and marching in gay pride and gay rights I would imagine a kid looking at what is gay would have trouble choosing which gay what to look to…

Life is complicated. C’est la vie.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[stewstew03]

…
[Coming out of the closet means] [n]othing except this: I’m attracted to other guys.
…

Really? Then why is Jason Collins being celebrated as a hero? What’s the big deal?

.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I love how (supposedly) straight people take it upon themselves to know what ‘coming out’ means to a gay person.

I, as a straight person, am telling you what it means to me, as a member of the general public, when a public figure announces in a published statement that he is making his sexual orientation public. I’m sure there are many reasons why a person with same sex attraction would come out as gay. So, please don’t try to belittle me with the, “you don’t know because you’re not gay” argument. That dog won’t hunt.

antag:

Let me tell you this: when I ‘came out’ - I did so without ever having done anything ‘gay’ with any other man. I didn’t sign up to a political philosophy. I didn’t immediately rush off and find the nearest gay pride march to flounce about it. I didn’t immediately switch my real life political vote to those who support abortion or euthanasia. I didn’t suddenly cease to believe in God.

But your action as coming out had a social and political impact. By stating that you were “gay” you were publicly endorsing and accepting the general concept that homosexual acts are not immoral or wrong. You don’t have to affect a gay mannerism, or march in a parade, or switch your political party to create that impact.

antag:

So please, don’t you, a straight person, presume to know what the motives are for a gay person ‘coming out’. You can never experience that sense of ‘otherness’ that a gay person feels.

I’m not pretending to know that feeling. I was merely pointing out that Mr. Collins’ “coming out” actions (and his article) clearly aligned him with the belief that is commonly held by all those self-identifying as “gay” - i.e. that there is nothing wrong or immoral with homosexual acts. I do not have to feel or experience the sense of “otherness” that gay people feel before I can comment upon the political and social impact of Mr. Collins’ actions.

BTW - I have my own demons and my own sins with which I struggle. I’m not making any such presumption of motive or feeling with respect to Mr. Collins, beyond the assumption that he was not coerced to make his statements, and he did not *accidentally *“come out.” So will you please, as a gay person, stop turning this into an emotional argument. Being gay, as you say you are, does not mean that you cornered the market on feelings of alienation and rejection. We’re all human beings with feelings regardless of our sexual orientation.

Peace,
Robert

 

[fix]

I love how (supposedly) straight people take it upon themselves to know what ‘coming out’ means to a gay person.

Let me tell you this: when I ‘came out’ - I did so without ever having done anything ‘gay’ with any other man. I didn’t sign up to a political philosophy. I didn’t immediately rush off and find the nearest gay pride march to flounce about it. I didn’t immediately switch my real life political vote to those who support abortion or euthanasia. I didn’t suddenly cease to believe in God.

I ‘came out’ because I was fed up of living a life where I didn’t meet up with other people’s expectations, because it was easier to tell the truth rather than answer the ‘why haven’t you find a girlfriend yet’ question with an evasive ‘because I havent found her yet’ answer. Lying by omission is every bit as much as lying by commission. I was living a lie by not acknowledging my sexuality.

So please, don’t you, a straight person, presume to know what the motives are for a gay person ‘coming out’. You can never experience that sense of ‘otherness’ that a gay person feels. You can never experience the knowledge that every new person you meet will presume something about you that isn’t actually true. You will never have to endure, in the normal course of social interaction, the dread that someone will ask an innocuous question that will leave you wondering whether you need to ‘come out’ yet again to another person or whether you need to avoid that particular ‘domestic enquiry’ with yet another lie or evasion or gender non-specific pronoun.

So, we are to believe that when a public figure “comes out” that means they accept the attraction to the same sex is disordered? They really want to be chaste? They reject the public persona of “gay” identity that the interest groups promote?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I guess it all comes down to this, no? Someone says, “I’m gay,” and you hear, “I endorse a particular repertoire of sexual behaviors and/or political positions.”

This is the repetition of a misstatement of my position. I did not say this. My only point is that if someone “comes out” as Mr. Collins did, he is publicly endorsing the position that sexual acts between two people of the same sex is just fine. I’m not saying he endorses any particular repertoire and/or any political positions. You seem to be quite willing to affix this position to me, but I’m not going to agree, because it’s not the point I’m trying to make. My point is much more general, and it is verifiable with reference to Mr. Collins’ own words, in his own article.

Deo:

i didn’t see him talk about sex in his article, so I was generally unwilling to assume anything about his sex life. You seem more willing to make those assumptions based solely on your religio-political reading of the word “gay.”

Once again, I’m not making any of those assumptions either. I’m commenting upon his views, which he made clear, and not his past and/or current sex life.

Deo:

He may indeed like to marry another man some day. As a Roman Catholic, you know that that is “marriage” in name only–i.e., he wishes to avail himself of the rights and responsibilities the state understands by the term “marriage” should he find someone with whom he wishes to share his life and who wishes to share their life with him. I don’t see where sexual sin is necessitated in such an arrangement–certainly heterosexual marriage does not provide an imprimatur on sexual sins which occur in such a relationship, so why should it be any different in a same-sex “marriage?”

Marriage implies the physical union of two people. Failure to physically consummate a marriage is grounds for an annulment even among heterosexual couples. Your argument here is very weak.

Deo:

By the way, there are plenty of gay folks who don’t believe in same-sex marriage, but they still persist in calling themselves “gay.” Why? Because, as I’ve stated over and over in this thread, “gay” is the popular and colloquial term for one who is same-sex attracted. Identifying as “gay” doesn’t mean identifying with a particular political platform, whatever it may be.

Once again, you’re setting up a straw man. My position has never been that to be “gay” implies a platform of ideas. The ONLY point I’m making is that self-identifying as “gay” implies the belief that homosexual sex acts are not immoral. There are “gay” men and women in both political parties, and scattered across the political landscape.

Deo:

Now. Mr. Collins’ does indeed appear to support same-sex marriage. But it’s not because he identifies as “gay.”

Another obtuse argument. I’m not saying that he’s gay because he supports same-sex marriage. I pointed to the fact that he identified his gay uncle, who is in a committed long-term relationship with a same-sex partner, as a positive role model as evidence that he sees nothing wrong or immoral with homosexual acts.

Deo:

Whatever Mr. Collins’ political positions on any number of topics, none of them are necessitated by the fact that he refers to himself as “gay.” But you would see them as necessarily arising from his choice of nomenclature.

ANOTHER STRAW MAN. C’mon Deo, this is really below the belt. I never said that being “gay” meant the adoption of a platform of positions on political issues like gay marriage. My only point is that coming out as gay is an action that implies support for the notion that homosexual acts between consenting adults is AOK. Not sure how many times I can say this before it sinks in.

Deo:

It may surprise you to learn this, Robert, but: There is no gay hive mind.

It may surprise you to learn this Deo, but: I never said that there was such a thing.

Peace,
Robert

 

[antag]

So, please don’t try to belittle me with the, “you don’t know because you’re not gay” argument. That dog won’t hunt.

But your action as coming out had a social and political impact. By stating that you were “gay” you were publicly endorsing and accepting the general concept that homosexual acts are not immoral or wrong. You don’t have to affect a gay mannerism, or march in a parade, or switch your political party to create that impact.

I’m not pretending to know that feeling.

You are telling me what my thoughts and feelings are. That is ‘pretending to know my feelings’. You do not and cannot know that. I didn’t choose to come out in order to endorse anything - I just came out so that I wouldn’t have to lie any more. I choose to use the word ‘gay’ because that’s what everyone else uses. You seem to have a very different understanding of it.

So will you please, as a gay person, stop turning this into an emotional argument. Being gay, as you say you are, does not mean that you cornered the market on feelings of alienation and rejection. We’re all human beings with feelings regardless of our sexual orientation.

Of course it’s an emotional argument when people tell me and people like me what it is we’re doing, thinking and subscribing to. When you’re wrong about that, what do you think my reaction is going to be? Happiness? When that happens day in, day out, how do you suppose that makes me feel? I can tell you it makes a person feel oppressed, ground down, fatigued.

I am gay because I am gay. I would be gay whether I cavorted with a thousand men in a bathhouse or whether I lived the life of a completely chaste solitary hermit on an island in the middle of the ocean. Yet I read all the time on places like this forum that I’m subscribing to some sort of ‘gay groupthink’ or that I’m validating this thing or that thing. Coming out as gay doesn’t mean a person publicly endorses anything whatsoever - for me it just meant the world knew not to ask ''why haven’t you found a girlfriend yet?" Please have the grace to accept that and stop making judgements about who or what I am other than someone who is telling the truth about himself.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You are telling me what my thoughts and feelings are.

No. I am not.

antag:

Of course it’s an emotional argument…

No. It is not.

antag:

I would be gay whether I cavorted with a thousand men in a bathhouse or whether I lived the life of a completely chaste solitary hermit on an island in the middle of the ocean.

Mr. Collins made a very public statement about being “gay.” There was nothing apologetic or remorseful about it. His position as a gay man is clear - i.e. there is nothing wrong with homosexual conduct between two consenting adults. I am not saying he is engaging in the conduct, just that his public position as an out gay man is an expression to the world that such conduct is moral and good.

Antag, do you believe, as a gay man, that it is morally acceptable for two consenting adult men to have a sexual relationship with each other? (I’m not asking about your personal life, just your opinion on the matter in the abstract. Don’t make it personal.) Do you know of any men or women who self-identify as “gay” who believe that two men, or two women, would be engaging in immoral conduct if they had a sexual relationship?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

My only point is that if someone “comes out” as Mr. Collins did, he is publicly endorsing the position that sexual acts between two people of the same sex is just fine. I’m not saying he endorses any particular repertoire and/or any political positions.

Here’s my position: when someone comes out as gay, they are saying that they are attracted to the same sex. Until they say anything particular about endorsing sexual acts either generally or specifically, it does not behoove us to speculate about whether or not they endorse any particular repertoire of sexual acts either generally or specifically. Moreover, given that there are people who identify as gay and who do not make such endorsements, it would also behoove us not to automatically assume that just because someone identifies as “gay” that they approve of any particular sexual behaviors either generally or specifically.

Your position is: “if someone ‘comes out’ as Mr. Collins did, he is publicly endorsing the position that sexual acts between two people of the same sex is just fine. …]coming out as gay is an action that implies support for the notion that homosexual acts between consenting adults is AOK.”

I do not find your position to obtain in reality, Robert. Coming out as gay is not indicative of any position on any sexual acts. It is indicative of being same-sex attracted. Again, I suspects politics at work in your insistence to the contrary.

Mr. Collins may personally endorse same-sex sexual behaviors both generally and specifically. I find no explicit reference to sexual activity in his article, so I can’t say for sure. I suspect he might be perfectly fine with same-sex sexual behavior, but not by virtue of his coming out as “gay,” but because of other things he writes in his article.

My point is much more general, and it is verifiable with reference to Mr. Collins’ own words, in his own article.

The verification you seem to find in his article is from inference and assumption. Again, I found no explicit reference to sexual activity in his article. He mentioned his uncle. He mentioned a parade. I didn’t see sexual activity mentioned with reference to his uncle or the parade. Where is the explicit reference to sexual activity which would serve as objective verification of your position?

Marriage implies the physical union of two people. Failure to physically consummate a marriage is grounds for an annulment even among heterosexual couples.

It implies that to you. Our Lady and St. Joseph were married, but I believe there was no physical union between them. Are you saying that I should assume that there was a physical union between them? That would be odd. At any rate, the general possibility of annulment on one ground or another does not translate into a particular necessity for annulment.

Unless something is explicitly stated, I don’t know that an implication is anything to go on in particular cases. It may be normal to assume that married people have sex. Fine. But it may not be appropriate to assume anything about any particular married couple’s sex life.

I’m not saying that he’s gay because he supports same-sex marriage.

That’s not what I wrote, Robert. I wrote that identifying as gay does not mean that one will necessarily support same-sex marriage.

I pointed to the fact that he identified his gay uncle, who is in a committed long-term relationship with a same-sex partner, as a positive role model as evidence that he sees nothing wrong or immoral with homosexual acts.

Are you saying that you have real and explicit evidence that Mr. Collins’ gay uncle’s relationship includes sexual activity? It wasn’t in the article I read. Perhaps you’re referring to a different article?

Also, is it now a sin to take another flawed human being as a role model? Or does the sin lie in modelling stability in a relationship?

My only point is that coming out as gay is an action that implies support for the notion that homosexual acts between consenting adults is AOK.

You keep making the assertion, Robert, but I just don’t see it playing out in reality. And implication is not necessarily reality.

Mr. Collins identifies as gay. Granted. He seems to support same-sex marriage. He may think that homosexual sexual behavior is perfectly acceptable. But correlation is not causation. You cannot assume that just because he comes out as gay (which is understood popularly as an admission of being same-sex attracted) that that means he’s coming out for homosexual sexual activity as well. Again: correlation is not causation.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[stewstew03]

…
I suspect he might be perfectly fine with same-sex sexual behavior…
…

Um… Isn’t that what we’ve been saying? And isn’t that what you’ve been insisting we have no right to suspect? (Because, as narrow-minded, religious homophobes, we lack the ability to see things from any other perspective).

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Really? Then why is Jason Collins being celebrated as a hero? What’s the big deal?

Personally, I have no idea. Our culture has emptied the word “hero” of all meaning. It’s become a synonym for “someone we admire.” Big deal. Likewise, people say “tragedy” when what they mean is “catastrophe” or “horrific accident” or “terrible event.” Sophokles’ Oidipous Tyrranos is a tragedy. A little girl that gets hit by a school bus is a horrific accident.

Conceptually, though, I imagine that people admire Mr. Collins for choosing to be honest about the drift of his affections in the face of public scrutiny, making himself vulnerable to personal attack when he could have just as easily have chosen personal comfort by eschewing honesty and vulnerability. I imagine others see him as providing a role model for gay foolks who don’t fit into the general understanding of what “gay” people are stereotypically supposed to look and/or be like–and that’s apparently rather inspiring to some people.

But I can’t say that I find Mr. Collins more heroic now than I did last year. But then, I’m not a basketball fan and had no idea who he was until last week or so. I figure: he’s a child of God and a fellow traveler on the Way. That’s enough for me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Um… Isn’t that what we’ve been saying? And isn’t that what you’ve been insisting we have no right to suspect? (Because, as narrow-minded, religious homophobes, we lack the ability to see things from any other perspective).

Not quite, stewstew. You have been behaving as if your suspicions were reality–as if you had all the evidence needed to pass judgment on him simply because he used the word “gay.” My suspicions are not based on his use of the word “gay,” nor do I find that my suspicions are credible enough to serve as objective and explicit evidence on which I may pass judgment. I cannot, however, say the same regarding your position.

As I wrote to you much earlier in this thread:

Could you be right about Mr. Collins–that in “coming out” as “gay” he has knowingly and explictly endorsed a particular repertoire of deviant sexual behaviors? It’s possible. It’s also possible that such an endorsement was not part of his project when he wrote his article for Sports Illustrated. For the sake of accuracy and from the perspective of charity, admitting that other possibilities exist beyond our pet interpretations of things and refraining from jumping to too many conclusions too early seems to be the most circumspect (dare I say “perspicacious”?) route. That route was not taken in this thread.

(Also, I never called you or anyone who shared your position a religious homophobe. While your understanding of the word “gay” is an understanding shared by a particular religio-political subculture, there’s no reason to suggest that an erroneous understanding of a word constructs you or the subculture as homophobic. Consequently, it never occurred to me to even make such a suggestion. I would characterize your position as ideologically / polemically inflected, but not homophobic. Although, your suggestion that I see you as a homophobe is just another example of that ideological inflection in your rhetoric.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Here’s my position: when someone comes out as gay, they are saying that they are attracted to the same sex.

They are also saying that it’s okay if one chooses to act upon that same-sex sexual attraction. To say that this is not so is simply not recognizing reality.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked antag, and I would like an honest answer. Do you know any people who publicly identify themselves as “gay” who believe that any sexual act between two people of the same sex, at any time, is wrong?

Deo:

I do not find your position to obtain in reality, Robert. Coming out as gay is not indicative of any position on any sexual acts. It is indicative of being same-sex attracted.

And your position is that if someone publicly identifies himself as “gay” we cannot assume that they believe it’s alright for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in sexual activity. I find you position to be absolutely non-credible. I suspect politics at work in your insistence to the contrary.

Deo:

I suspect he might be perfectly fine with same-sex sexual behavior, but not by virtue of his coming out as “gay,” but because of other things he writes in his article.

Again, your position is stretching the bounds of common sense beyond the breaking point.

Deo:

The verification you seem to find in his article is from inference and assumption. Again, I found no explicit reference to sexual activity in his article. He mentioned his uncle. He mentioned a parade. I didn’t see sexual activity mentioned with reference to his uncle or the parade. Where is the explicit reference to sexual activity which would serve as objective verification of your position?

The verification is the result of deduction and reason. One cannot identify a gay uncle in a committed same-sex relationship, and best friends who are “gay pride” supporters as heroes and role models without implying that one is perfectly comfortable with the sexuality that underscores both the “pride” and the “committed relationship.”

Deo:

Unless something is explicitly stated, I don’t know that an implication is anything to go on in particular cases. It may be normal to assume that married people have sex. Fine. But it may not be appropriate to assume anything about any particular married couple’s sex life.

It is one thing to assume without evidence. It is quite another to draw a reasonable inference from the facts at hand. Put another way, if I had to prove in a court of law that Mr. Collins believed sexual acts between people of the same sex was not immoral or wrong, I think I could easily meet my burden of proof with the evidence gathered from the statements in his article.

Peace,
Robert

 

[stewstew03]

…
You have been behaving as if your suspicions were reality…

Nope. Simply supported by evidence.

…simply because he used the word “gay.”

He didn’t “simply use the word gay” did he?

…nor do I find that my suspicions are credible enough to serve as objective and explicit evidence on which I may pass judgment. I cannot, however, say the same regarding your position.

Except, you’re perfectly willing to pass judgment on me; based on evidence, of course.

I would characterize your position as ideologically / polemically inflected, but not homophobic. Although, your suggestion that I see you as a homophobe is just another example of that ideological inflection in your rhetoric.)

Again, you’re perfectly willing to pass judgment on me, based on evidence that you see of my “ideological inflection.” It simply can not be a reasonable inflection, right? It must, it MUST be an ideological inflection.

Apparently you find that your suspicions are credible enough to serve as objective and explicit evidence such that it enables you to pass judgment on my “ideological” influences.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

They are also saying that it’s okay if one chooses to act upon that same-sex sexual attraction. To say that this is not so is simply not recognizing reality.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked antag, and I would like an honest answer. Do you know any people who publicly identify themselves as “gay” who believe that any sexual act between two people of the same sex, at any time, is wrong?

And your position is that if someone publicly identifies himself as “gay” we cannot assume that they believe it’s alright for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in sexual activity. I find you position to be absolutely non-credible. I suspect politics at work in your insistence to the contrary.

Again, your position is stretching the bounds of common sense beyond the breaking point.

The verification is the result of deduction and reason. One cannot identify a gay uncle in a committed same-sex relationship, and best friends who are “gay pride” supporters as heroes and role models without implying that one is perfectly comfortable with the sexuality that underscores both the “pride” and the “committed relationship.”

It is one thing to assume without evidence. It is quite another to draw a reasonable inference from the facts at hand. Put another way, if I had to prove in a court of law that Mr. Collins believed sexual acts between people of the same sex was not immoral or wrong, I think I could easily meet my burden of proof with the evidence gathered from the statements in his article.

Peace,
Robert

I note that wherever in the homosexuality spectrum one is, indulging in homosexual sex or not, the “gay” category is conveniently embraced. Said word, it appears, affords detachment to and deniability of behavior that classifies a homosexual, a man who has sex with another man, and a woman with another woman, an unnatural sexual act based on simple biology and lack of complementarity.

“Gay” has proven to be the best packaging and marketing for homosexuality by Kirk and Madsen, whether self-identified gays of this day are witting or unwitting, willing or unwilling, movers of the homosexual agenda. It succeeded to a great extent in sanitizing homosexuality in the minds of the conflicted, effectively throwing confusion in discussion and leading to questionable consensus.

There is much effort by some members in this forum to peel away homosexual behavior from what is alleged as the homosexual state of mind and essence, as if there is a vast ocean separating the two and they are in opposition to each other. They are close to each other.

When one has reached the point of self-identifying as gay and “comes out,” it may or may not mean that the person is ready to engage or is already engaging in homosexual behavior. It may or may not mean that one is entertaining the thought of finding a same sex partner to “marry” and with whom he or she can have a “family.”

But all the above associated with being gay are not incongruous or disconnected with coming out as gay. They are all in the purview of the alternative lifestyle of homosexuals who did or do not stop at just interest in a member of the same sex.

Although much debated in these threads already, there is wisdom in using a self descriptor of same sex attracted instead of gay. To self-identify as gay at the least is the first step, an initial surrender to the idea that there is nothing wrong with actualized homosexuality, with giving oneself the permission to act on the homosexual urge.

In no way do I minimize the suffering of homosexuals. Having a close family member who lived through the heartaches of life as one, I have empathy for those with this struggle.
,

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Do you know any people who publicly identify themselves as “gay” who believe that any sexual act between two people of the same sex, at any time, is wrong?

Yes. I have met them on these forums, in fact.

One cannot identify a gay uncle in a committed same-sex relationship, and best friends who are “gay pride” supporters as heroes and role models without implying that one is perfectly comfortable with the sexuality that underscores both the “pride” and the “committed relationship.”

It looks like your argument is that you cannot admire someone if they do not lead a particular sort of life. Robert, there are lots of people I admire for any number of reasons who have not lived stellar lives when it comes to morality. The painter Francis Bacon, for instance. The philosopher George Batailles. That they are my “heroes” in the colloquial sense does not mean that I endorse their lives as suitable models of the moral life.

It is quite another to draw a reasonable inference from the facts at hand.

An inference is still an inference, reasonable or no.

Put another way, if I had to prove in a court of law that Mr. Collins believed sexual acts between people of the same sex was not immoral or wrong, I think I could easily meet my burden of proof with the evidence gathered from the statements in his article.

Maybe, though I doubt it. But be that as it may, your case could not hang on your understanding of the word, “gay.” I would venture to guess that simply saying, “Mr. Collins believes sexual acts between people of the same sex is not immoral because he says he’s ‘gay’,” would not meet any burden of proof.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Again, you’re perfectly willing to pass judgment on me, based on evidence that you see of my “ideological inflection.” It simply can be a reasonable inflection, right? It must, it MUST be an ideological inflection.

Apparently you find that your suspicions are credible enough to serve as objective and explicit evidence such that it enables you to pass judgment on my “ideological” influences.

What judgment have I passed on you, stewstew? Where did I say you were leading an immoral life or endorsing a menu or immoral behaviors? I am engaging in an act of fraternal correction: you are wrong with regard to your understanding of the word “gay.” That’s all. That doesn’t make you evil or immoral, stewstew. It just makes you wrong. No big deal.

And where did I pass judgment on your ideology or your influences? That I don’t appear to agree with it/them is no indication that I find it/them immoral.

Your defensiveness is interesting, stewstew, even revealing–but it’s un-necessary. I’m sure you’re a lovely person. It’s just that your understanding of the word “gay” is not normative, and you should be aware of that.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Yes. I have met them on these forums, in fact.

It looks like your argument is that you cannot admire someone if they do not lead a particular sort of life. Robert, there are lots of people I admire for any number of reasons who have not lived stellar lives when it comes to morality. The painter Francis Bacon, for instance. The philosopher George Batailles. That they are my “heroes” in the colloquial sense does not mean that I endorse their lives as suitable models of the moral life.

An inference is still an inference, reasonable or no.

Maybe, though I doubt it. But be that as it may, your case could not hang on your understanding of the word, “gay.” I would venture to guess that simply saying, “Mr. Collins believes sexual acts between people of the same sex is not immoral because he says he’s ‘gay’,” would not meet any burden of proof.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Beautiful, Eloquent, define away…however I refuse to accept your proposition as should anyone thinking about avoiding confusion…

I am gay…wow…did not know…dating?..whose your boyfried?..
No, I am SSA, haven’t done anything, don’t date, don’t want a boyfriend…I just have SSA
But you say you are gay…
well I was told that gay means SSA…and so to be true I say I am gay…but I am working through it…

I struggle.
with what?
SSA…
are you gay…
no…just these thoughts, these feelings, doesn’t make me gay…

So, for me, for the medical field…

male and female He created them sexual
sexual being with SSA is a person with SSA
sexual being with SSA acting on SSA is acting Homosexual
sexual being with SSA acting on SSA acting Homosexual accepting this as a fai de compli has reinvented themselves as “gay” and wants others to believe it is something other than male and female He created them

I go with Nicolosi…

Your words, number too many…

Gay as Self-Reinvention
by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.

I would like to propose a socio-analytic view of the formation of gay identity. This view is based upon the perspective I have gained from the clinical treatment of over 400 homosexually-oriented men during eighteen years as a practicing psychologist.

“The gay identity” has been portrayed as a civil-rights and self-determination issue. We Americans, who love freedom, have loved it too much and have lost our moorings. Our most influential institutions–professional psychology and psychiatry, churches, the education establishment, and the media–have fallen to the gay deception. Because gay is, I am convinced, a self-deceptive identity.