Get Ready to Rumble....Play Ball

[Robert_in_SD]

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.
,

Thank you for saying in this post what I have been stumbling to convey in my series of posts over the past two or three days.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So, for me, for the medical field…

I didn’t know that you spoke for the medical field. Nor did I know that these definitions:

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

…were universally recognized and used in the medical field.

I suspect, though, that while these definitions are quite germane to the “medicine” which you practice, they are not held in very high regard by the medical field generally.

I go with Nicolosi…

This is unsurprising–you are an acolyte of the religio-political subculture of which he is an hierophant, if not the chief mystagogue.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

Really? Please identify some of them.

Deo:

It looks like your argument is that you cannot admire someone if they do not lead a particular sort of life.

It may look that way to you, Deo. But once again you miss my point. These people were pointed out by Collins as his heroes precisely because they were by their actions advocating for his chosen lifestyle, and/or living his chosen lifestyle. He did not call Kennedy a hero because he was elected to Congress. He considred him a hero because he marched in the “Gay Pride” parade in Boston. They were identified as heroes precisely because of their choices to live and/or advocate in favor of homosexual conduct without remorse or regret.

Deo:

An inference is still an inference, reasonable or no.

And a reasonable inference supported by substantial evidence proves a fact Deo.

Deo:

Maybe, though I doubt it. But be that as it may, your case could not hang on your understanding of the word, “gay.”

I believe that his act of coming out as gay is a sufficient prima facie showing that Mr. Collins believes sexual acts between people of the same sex is not immoral. That being the case, it would be incumbent upon Mr. Collins to present evidence showing that he does not hold such a belief.

Imagine a press conference in which Mr. Collins is discussing his recent coming out as gay, and “Joe” reporter asks him, “So, Mr. Collins, as a gay man, are you saying that sex between two consenting men is okay, because I’m confused by your statement that you’re gay. You’re not being real clear with us.” Would Mr. Collins take your position and say, “Well Joe, I said I’m gay, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I endorse or agree with the idea that physical relations between two men is okay.” Or would his answer be something more like, “What a stupid question Joe! Of course! Next question!”

Peace,
Robert

 

[fix]

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.
,

All true, yet often denied.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Really? Please identify some of them.

I’m unwilling to name names–not because the information is secret, but because I feel that naming them would simply be crass and my be unwelcome by them–I don’t want to rope them into a thread in which they may not wish, for whatever reason, to participate. Sorry.

These people were pointed out by Collins as his heroes precisely because they were by their actions advocating for his chosen lifestyle, and/or living his chosen lifestyle.

When you say “heroes,” you must be doing your “reasonable inference” thing…because he didn’t refer to those folks as his heroes. Moreover, I’m still unclear regarding what Mr. Collins’ chosen lifestyle might be. Perhaps you can be more specific than his article was?

They were identified as heroes precisely because of their choices to live and/or advocate in favor of homosexual conduct without remorse or regret.

Again, they weren’t identified as heroes. Also, I didn’t see what Mr. Collins wrote about them as necessarily indicative of living a life dedicated to- or advocacy of homosexual sexual conduct. You’re reading into Mr. Collins’ story, Robert. You may be making reasonable inferences all over the place, but I suspect that those inferences are a result of eisegesis, not exegesis.

For me, precisely what Mr. Collins’ said is what he meant to say. You can make all the inferences you like, but doing so means that you don’t actually (for whatever reason) believe that Mr. Collins is saying all that he actually means to say–that you know more of what he means to say than he does. His article isn’t a puzzle or a code, Robert. If he didn’t explicitly say something, why assume that he actually meant to say it or wanted to say it or should have said it?

And a reasonable inference supported by substantial evidence proves a fact Deo.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, Robert. Are you saying that an inference can make something that is not a fact a fact? Or that inference proves that something which is factual is indeed factual–i.e., a fact cannot be truly factual unless it is first inferred as factual? Or are you saying that an inference can be proven factual given substantial evidence? (What, by the way, is your substantial evidence?)

I believe that his act of coming out as gay is a sufficient prima facie showing that Mr. Collins believes sexual acts between people of the same sex is not immoral.

Yes. Precisely. You believe. Yes. Indeed. I concur. And I would argue that this belief is based on the principle that correlation is, actually, causation. But it isn’t. Correlation is not causation.

Imagine a press conference in which Mr. Collins is discussing his recent coming out as gay, and “Joe” reporter asks him, “So, Mr. Collins, as a gay man, are you saying that sex between two consenting men is okay, because I’m confused by your statement that you’re gay. You’re not being real clear with us.”

The question would be rather gauche, no? (It also looks like a form of begging the question.) But aside from that, if such a question were asked, Mr. Collins could very easily respond, “Joe, I told you I was attracted to other guys. I wasn’t talking about my sex life. It looks like you think that all this coming out business was an opportunity for me to publicly talk about sex. That’s not what it’s about. I don’t want to talk publicly about sex. Did you actually read the article I wrote in Sports Illustrated, Joe? Did I talk about sex in there? Do you *want * or need me to talk about sex, Joe? To be honest, that’s what’s confusing to me. Also? Why ‘as a gay man?’ Do you think that, as a gay man, sex should be the most important thing in my life? Could you maybe try to be less insulting, Joe?”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I didn’t know that you spoke for the medical field. Nor did I know that these definitions:

…were universally recognized and used in the medical field.

diz be simple taxonomy Deo…that is what we Doc’s do…

Man with cough
Man with cough, producing sputum
Man with cough, producing purulent sputum
Man with cough, producing purulent sputum having difficulty breathing
Man with cough, producing purulent sputum having difficulty breathing, smoking…

it ain’t that difficult to understand universally defining descriptions in the field of medicine…as seen here…

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 suspect, though, that while these definitions are quite germane to the “medicine” which you practice, they are not held in very high regard by the medical field generally.

spend some time reading the ICD-9…it is just descriptors…

140 Malignant neoplasm of lip convert 140 to ICD-10
140.0 Malignant neoplasm of upper lip, vermilion border convert 140.0 to ICD-10
140.1 Malignant neoplasm of lower lip, vermilion border convert 140.1 to ICD-10
140.3 Malignant neoplasm of upper lip, inner aspect convert 140.3 to ICD-10
140.4 Malignant neoplasm of lower lip, inner aspect convert 140.4 to ICD-10
140.5 … unspecified, inner aspect convert 140.5 to ICD-10
140.6 Malignant neoplasm of commissure of lip convert 140.6 to ICD-10
140.8 Malignant neoplasm of other sites of lip convert 140.8 to ICD-10
140.9 … unspecified, vermilion border convert 140.9 to ICD-10

This is unsurprising–you are an acolyte of the religio-political subculture of which he is an hierophant, if not the chief mystagogue.

Lacking understanding of Taxonomy, lacking understanding of ICD-9 style thinking and coding…your resentment leads to imagining a picture of someone that is

performing ceremonial duties in
a religous and political sub-culture

indicating that there is some other culture to be sub to and then

suggesting Nicolosi is a priest interpreting sacred mysteries and someone that initiates people into these mysteries…

Now, let me aid you…male parts do not belong in orifices of other males…that is no mystery…males that do that have been shown to inherit unhealthy lifetsyles and based on Revealed Truth, Catholic, and I am sure you would not claim this to be a mystery religion, declares the obvious that those acting on these obvious abnormal, deviant behaviors are disordered in their acts based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, not reason alone…

Now it ain’t no mystery and many that act in these ways could use a priest…Ok…

 

[Edward_H]

.

male and female He created them sexual

No, God created them both in His image. He created them for unity. He created them as a complementary unity.

God created us for unity…divine and temporal. He put our “destination” in our bodies. We don’t make sense…as JPII has said…as a solitude.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, God created them both in His image. He created them for unity. He created them as a complementary unity.

God created us for unity…divine and temporal. He put our “destination” in our bodies. We don’t make sense…as JPII has said…as a solitude.

Edward ma man…help me out here…

Male and Female He created them…

to be sexual?

to be asexual?

It is understood that there is to be unity however to say No…clouds my mind…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace & Peace!

I’m unwilling to name names–not because the information is secret, but because I feel that naming them would simply be crass and my be unwelcome by them–I don’t want to rope them into a thread in which they may not wish, for whatever reason, to participate. Sorry.

Whoever they are, especially the young and impressionable who came onto this board with questions and struggles with homosexuality issues, I hope they are reading this. If it has been suggested or they have been goaded to believe subtly or directly in open forum or via PM at CAF, that physical expression of same sex attraction will liberate them, they would in reality be risking a form of enslavement. If they have been convinced that “it gets better” by being true to their same sex feelings, that there would be that special someone they will meet, maybe not necessarily with monogamy in mind, that it will happen, that the relations could bear good fruit and/or the flourishing of the spirit, they were sold a bill of goods. I happen to have sat in front row seat with a loved one’s life playing out before and after “coming out”. The consequence is not pretty. No amount of flowery or high sounding words and contorted pro-gay spin could bring about a happy end for an unrepentant gay who spent his youth in active homosexual living.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

Edward ma man…help me out here…

Male and Female He created them…

to be sexual?

to be asexual?

It is understood that there is to be unity however to say No…clouds my mind…

I took Edward to mean that God created male and female to be unitive, with sexuality as a function of that unitive purpose.

Just my guess.

 

[Edward_H]

Edward ma man…help me out here…

Male and Female He created them…

to be sexual?

to be asexual?

It is understood that there is to be unity however to say No…clouds my mind…

He created them FOR unity…right? at lots of levels it’s apparent hormonal, cellular, organ, mental, spiritual, etc.

Our differences are only understood inthe light of an intended unity, no?

A mini trinity.

To BE a unity with Him.

 

[Edward_H]

I took Edward to mean that God created male and female to be unitive, with sexuality as a function of that unitive purpose.

Just my guess.

Yes. Good guess!!

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes. Good guess!!

I took Edward to mean that God created male and female to be unitive, with sexuality as a function of that unitive purpose.

and my original question was…

Male and Female He created them…

to be sexual?

to be asexual?

based on a prior statement

male and female He created them sexual

to which Edward answered…

No.

**and now we are back to male and female he created them sexual **"to be unitive, with sexuality as a function of that unitive purpose."

completing the sentence with Edward’s words…

so…

male and female he created them sexual…implies what Edward said No to, with the understanding that this was written by a Catholic, on CAF, having posted many times having read and studied the Catechism…I would imagine there should be little room for doubt that

male and female he created them sexual…implies

what Edward added…

 

[Edward_H]

and my original question was…

based on a prior statement

to which Edward answered…

No.

**and now we are back to male and female he created them sexual **"to be unitive, with sexuality as a function of that unitive purpose."

completing the sentence with Edward’s words…

so…

male and female he created them sexual…implies what Edward said No to, with the understanding that this was written by a Catholic, on CAF, having posted many times having read and studied the Catechism…I would imagine there should be little room for doubt that

male and female he created them sexual…implies

what Edward added…

I am an engineer and programmer. I can’t follow the cryptic approach to discussion and see no reason to maintain the ongoing style of indirect language. If this were a program, I’d send it back to the junior engineer for refactoring…too prone for bad performance in reality.

One of the divine attributes of God is simplicity. Let’s get back to His simple plan for us…unity of will in this life, and total unity with Him in the next.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am an engineer and programmer. I can’t follow the cryptic approach to discussion and see no reason to maintain the ongoing style of indirect language. If this were a program, I’d send it back to the junior engineer for refactoring…too prone for bad performance in reality.

One of the divine attributes of God is simplicity. Let’s get back to His simple plan for us…unity of will in this life, and total unity with Him in the next.

So,

are you offering constructive criticism or something other than that?

 

[Edward_H]

So,

are you offering constructive criticism or something other than that?

A constructive criticism that the point we’re on is quite simple and doesn’t need a whole scaffolding of indirect references to carry it.

God created us male and female in HIS image, which is a Trinitarian union.

We…you…and I and all others were meant for…were designed for union, here on earth and in the life to come.

We are ‘incomplete’ by ourselves. We were not meant to be a solitude.

The fundamental LIVING entity of this world is not an individual, but a family…an imperfect trinity that, with God, we struggle our WHOLE life to build and perfect with His grace.

 

[CopticChristian]

A constructive criticism that the point we’re on is quite simple and doesn’t need a whole scaffolding of indirect references to carry it.

God created us male and female in HIS image, which is a Trinitarian union.

We…you…and I and all others were meant for…were designed for union, here on earth and in the life to come.

We are ‘incomplete’ by ourselves. We were not meant to be a solitude.

The fundamental LIVING entity of this world is not an individual, but a family…an imperfect trinity that, with God, we struggle our WHOLE life to build and perfect with His grace.

So,

To be constructive, you would have to agree that our points of view are the same. You would have to agree that a few words as compared to more words are not in conflict. You would agree that the Church is correct and has taught both of us to understand Divine Revelation, Male and Female He created them. We agree.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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.

…]

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.
,

The gist of what you say in this post seems to be: the word “gay” is inconveniently multivalent. I agree. It is.

Some comments on things not particularly essential to that point, though:

“Gay” has proven to be the best packaging and marketing for homosexuality by Kirk and Madsen, …]

Two things:

1–You don’t know the history of the word “gay” if you think Kirk and Madsen (in 1989) are the ones who popularized it.
2–You overvalue Kirk and Madsen’s work–I had no consciousness of their writings until I started frequenting these forums (I’m put in mind of Caliban’s line in The Tempest: “You taught me language, and my profit on’t / Is I know how to curse”), and while I’ve not yet read their work and do not plan to (it looks rather boring to me), what I’ve read of it suggests it represents pretty basic PR strategies and techniques–and that, judging by their own timelines, they failed. That failure is likely due to them being more important to “homosexual agenda” enthusiasts on the right than they ever were to any homosexual “militants” they desired to advise.

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.

The distinction between behavior and attraction is in the catechism. Perhaps I don’t understand what your point is here. It’s my belief that homosexual sexual behavior is not a necessary expression of being same-sex attracted. Would you say that it is? I doubt it. So what are you saying?

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.

Identifying as gay is a first step to homosexual sexual behaviors only if you want it to be. But it needn’t be. We can make some pretty terrible decisions subsequent to identifying ourselves as one thing or another. Identifying as American could be the first step to being a boorish tourist in Paris. But it needn’t be. Identifying as German could be the first step to hosting a really bad Oktoberfest. But it needn’t be. Identifying as a liberal could be the first step to embracing abortion. But it needn’t be. Identifying as conservative could be the first step to embracing capital punishment. But it needn’t be.

Thank you for saying in this post what I have been stumbling to convey in my series of posts over the past two or three days.

Robert, if what you meant to say is what InSearch said (which I understand to be: “gay”
is inconveniently multivalent) then I think our discussion is at an end.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Whoever they are, especially the young and impressionable who came onto this board with questions and struggles with homosexuality issues, I hope they are reading this. If it has been suggested or they have been goaded to believe subtly or directly in open forum or via PM at CAF, that physical expression of same sex attraction will liberate them, they would in reality be risking a form of enslavement. If they have been convinced that “it gets better” by being true to their same sex feelings, that there would be that special someone they will meet, maybe not necessarily with monogamy in mind, that it will happen, that the relations could bear good fruit and/or the flourishing of the spirit, they were sold a bill of goods. I happen to have sat in front row seat with a loved one’s life playing out before and after “coming out”. The consequence is not pretty. No amount of flowery or high sounding words and contorted pro-gay spin could bring about a happy end for an unrepentant gay who spent his youth in active homosexual living.
,

InSearch, I’ve a feeling you have no idea how much I enjoy you. I say that with all sincerity.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

The gist of what you say in this post seems to be: the word “gay” is inconveniently multivalent. I agree. It is.

Some comments on things not particularly essential to that point, though:

Two things:

1–You don’t know the history of the word “gay” if you think Kirk and Madsen (in 1989) are the ones who popularized it.
2–You overvalue Kirk and Madsen’s work–I had no consciousness of their writings until I started frequenting these forums (I’m put in mind of Caliban’s line in The Tempest: “You taught me language, and my profit on’t / Is I know how to curse”), and while I’ve not yet read their work and do not plan to (it looks rather boring to me), what I’ve read of it suggests it represents pretty basic PR strategies and techniques–and that, judging by their own timelines, they failed. That failure is likely due to them being more important to “homosexual agenda” enthusiasts on the right than they ever were to any homosexual “militants” they desired to advise.

The distinction between behavior and attraction is in the catechism. Perhaps I don’t understand what your point is here. It’s my belief that homosexual sexual behavior is not a necessary expression of being same-sex attracted. Would you say that it is? I doubt it. So what are you saying?

Identifying as gay is a first step to homosexual sexual behaviors only if you want it to be. But it needn’t be. We can make some pretty terrible decisions subsequent to identifying ourselves as one thing or another. Identifying as American could be the first step to being a boorish tourist in Paris. But it needn’t be. Identifying as German could be the first step to hosting a really bad Oktoberfest. But it needn’t be. Identifying as a liberal could be the first step to embracing abortion. But it needn’t be. Identifying as conservative could be the first step to embracing capital punishment. But it needn’t be.

Robert, if what you meant to say is what InSearch said (which I understand to be: “gay”
is inconveniently multivalent) then I think our discussion is at an end.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I don’t care what the dictionary says.

I don’t care what the history of a word is.

I care what I say and what I think and believe it means.

I know what you think it means and to spend so many words defending what it is you believe and want it to mean defies understanding.

You want to be correct? Ok…You are correct for you.

You are not correct for me and to suggest that Jason Collins is SSA, as is the basis of this thread,

Stating…I am gay, I support Same Sex marriage…Supreme Court determing his fate, trying to write a book, languising over missing a march in gay pride parades, believing that he is a model of some kind…

Here is how it works…

Someone says…he is gay or I am gay…I ask…are you actively homosexual…no, just SSA…then I say, well then you are not gay…and then we dialogue and I explain…because St. Paul says…

Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…and to renew the mind we have to dialogue and rather than just accept the conformed to the world point of view…I have repented=changed my mind and I want to help others transform their minds and I can’t do it if I say…Ok…you’r gay…how was your day…Ok…

He is not just SSA…get over it…