Gods view in homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Petergray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kolbe300 said:
This simply isn’t true. There is no official Church teaching on the language we must use when speaking about homosexuality.

What this says to me is that it doesn’t matter what “they” say at all. You are going to place the words you desire in their mouths and assume you know the reasons for which they speak.

We are. And if we followed your theory, we wouldn’t be able to “hang out” with anyone at all because of it.

Is it about me, or is it about them? Great question. I wonder how Jesus would answer that question.

If I can identify with someone’s sexual orientation, what sin am I identifying with?

No. We are going in circles because you assume the word “gay” means one thing in every possible case. SpeakTruth, it’s obvious you are against “hanging out” with gay men and women, so I would really, really encourage you not to.
Click to expand...
None of the Courage men and women at the conferences call themselves Gay and I don’t have a problem with them. All you on here that seem upset with at me are homosexuals that don’t want to hear the truth. You know what? I still love you anyway. God knows what’s in each of our hearts and we can’t really know each other on a computer can we?

By the way the National Catholic of gay and Lesbians minitries promote homosexual behavior for anyone who wants to know. You can find it under there thoughts section.
God bless and have a good night.
GB
 
DexUK said:
Well, at the risk of rehashing earlier arguments, to many people the word ‘gay’** isn’t** loaded. That may be seen by some on here as caving in to a political campaign, but most people in the world - including many homosexuals - don’t even notice there’s a political campaign and just use the word innocently. I don’t think they’re ‘serving two masters’ and these are the people we are unwise to condemn for using the language that they do, because they don’t accept that they’re doing anything wrong - and, in fact, they’re not. To them it’s a neutral word with no overtones at all and, for many of them, to be told that they’re being wilfully political about it could quite possibly be offensive and would certainly risk turning them away.

We must always remember that when we evangelise to the world or even just try to explain our positions that we’re not talking to ourselves. We can’t use ‘our own language’ because the definitions of the terms we use differ from the definitions used by the people we’re trying to talk to. And then we get misunderstandings… and since the onus is on us to make ourselves understood, it means we have to use the language of the world to do so.

There’s no point complaining about it or getting indignant that the world uses ‘gay’ and other terms in ways we don’t like or agree with because it won’t change anything and often makes us look very intolerant and uncharitable.

It may look to us like the world is attached to a loaded term, but that’s just our perception - for the average joe on the street, he or she just uses it colloquially and can’t see what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, there are homosexuals like David Morrison who left the gay lifestyle (whose article and books were cited by me and speaktruth upthread), and successful writer and blogger Steve Gershom, who believe the opposite and hold a contrary position from yours:
I’m so used to being gay and Catholic, I forget how strange that sounds.
Click to expand...
I forget that, for some people, “homosexual” describes something like a different race, or maybe even a different gender. I forget that some Christians think I’m the worst kind of pervert (but a pervert they have to treat nicely), and some secularists think I’m the worst kind of hypocrite; the former because I’m sexually attracted to men, and the latter because I don’t do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Read the last part again. Yes, I’m attracted to men; no, I don’t sleep with them, for the same reason that a lot of Catholics don’t sleep with people they’re not married to. But you’d be surprised how often people hear the first part (gay) and not the second (celibate) — even though the second is the only part that’s up to me.
Click to expand...
I wrote a whole article once about what it was like to be a celibate, gay Catholic, and what was the first response in the combox? “Repent!!”
Click to expand...
Not that everyone who finds out that I’m gay is like that. Overwhelmingly, the people I’ve told — mainly family and close friends — respond with compassion and even admiration. Usually it’s something like “I’m honored that you trust me enough to tell me this.” But even the most understanding people don’t always understand what I mean, if only because (unlike me) they haven’t had the last 14 years to figure it out, and because “I’m gay” is not a simple sentence.
Click to expand...
I’m not very sensitive about the word “gay”, but some of us in the Gay Catholic business prefer the phrase “same-sex attraction,” or SSA. I find it more accurate than “gay” or “queer” or any of the others, just because it suggests that homosexuality is something I have rather than something I am. That’s the way I think of it. So the idea of gay culture, gay rights, gay marriage, gay anything really, is foreign to me. You might as well talk about gluten-intolerance culture, or musician’s rights.
Click to expand...
So much for the word “gay” that is supposedly more unambiguous than ambiguous to the world from the point of view of celibate homosexuals.

The word is not neutral, it remains confusing to a lot of people and this is conceded even by chaste homosexuals who do not share the use of “gay” according to you and others in this thread.

I am not as invested in the word as some are from both sides of the debate, because it does have its place in a conversation where both speaker and listener are already operating from the same definition. But such a conversation between individuals who do not know each other yet usually involves an amount of prefacing. Gay maybe a shorter easier-to-say word. However, there is a point in favoring simple, clear language from the get go, when a speaker wishes to be unambiguous and wants to minimize decoding and unintended subtext.

Yes, I’m concerned about the salvation of souls. Yes, I wish for a better way to reach out to a population that feels rejected by effective communication, by communication that does not compromise on the truth and is not short on charity.

Btw, the rest of Steve’s commentary in the link provides another articulation along the line that Kolbe has beautifully expressed in his reply post to mine earlier.
,
 
InSearchofGrace said:
On the other hand, there are homosexuals like David Morrison who left the gay lifestyle (whose article and books were cited by me and speaktruth upthread), and successful writer and blogger Steve Gershom, who believe the opposite and hold a contrary position from yours:
Click to expand...
I think Steve Gershom is awesome. He’s doing great work with his blog. You will notice, though, that his blog is called, “Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Fine.” Yes, he probably prefers the term SSA, but he cares more about reaching the rest of the world with his message. And he is doing just that. (edit) Steve is probably the last guy you can use as an example of one who refuses to use the word “gay” to describe his sexuality. He does it all the time. Anyways, I think if they had an emoticon waving a little white flag, I’d place it right here —>

I think this conversation has run its course for me. I wish you all the best and hope you have a blessed Lent!!!

Peace!
 
Kolbe300 said:
I think Steve Gershom is awesome. He’s doing great work with his blog. You will notice, though, that his blog is called, “Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Fine.” Yes, he probably prefers the term SSA, but he cares more about reaching the rest of the world with his message. And he is doing just that. (edit) Steve is probably the last guy you can use as an example of one who refuses to use the word “gay” to describe his sexuality. He does it all the time. Anyways, I think if they had an emoticon waving a little white flag, I’d place it right here —>

I think this conversation has run its course for me. I wish you all the best and hope you have a blessed Lent!!!

Peace!
Click to expand...
Well, for last person that would have to belong to Eve Tushnet. An article on her by the NY Times is here
 
fix said:
Yes, that is a great piece. He gets it. No concerns about this false notion one must embrace fake terms to evangelize.
Click to expand...
Evangelisation requires that we make our message understood. If we go around telling the world that to be “gay” is sinful (which we do, because we believe that to be “gay” is to accept physical homosexual behaviour) then the world which understands “gay” as being the same morally neutral thing that we understand “same sex attraction” to be, then we’re not going to get anywhere are we? Whenever the world hears us condemning something “gay” they’re hearing us condemn everyone who experiencing homosexual attraction. They’re wrong, but, as I keep on saying, it’s not up to them to understand us, it’s up to us to make ourselves understood.

We cannot hope to be an effective instrument of God if we’re not attuned to the people who we minister to. If we steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to recognise this fact then we actually damage our message and actually risk turning people away from God. It is absolutely not good enough to say “they should understand us”.
 
DexUK said:
Evangelisation requires that we make our message understood. If we go around telling the world that to be “gay” is sinful (which we do, because we believe that to be “gay” is to accept physical homosexual behaviour) then the world which understands “gay” as being the same morally neutral thing that we understand “same sex attraction” to be, then we’re not going to get anywhere are we? Whenever the world hears us condemning something “gay” they’re hearing us condemn everyone who experiencing homosexual attraction. They’re wrong, but, as I keep on saying, it’s not up to them to understand us, it’s up to us to make ourselves understood.

We cannot hope to be an effective instrument of God if we’re not attuned to the people who we minister to. If we steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to recognise this fact then we actually damage our message and actually risk turning people away from God. It is absolutely not good enough to say “they should understand us”.
Click to expand...
:banghead:
 
DexUK said:
Evangelisation requires that we make our message understood. If we go around telling the world that to be “gay” is sinful (which we do, because we believe that to be “gay” is to accept physical homosexual behaviour) then the world which understands “gay” as being the same morally neutral thing that we understand “same sex attraction” to be, then we’re not going to get anywhere are we? Whenever the world hears us condemning something “gay” they’re hearing us condemn everyone who experiencing homosexual attraction. They’re wrong, but, as I keep on saying, it’s not up to them to understand us, it’s up to us to make ourselves understood.

We cannot hope to be an effective instrument of God if we’re not attuned to the people who we minister to. If we steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to recognise this fact then we actually damage our message and actually risk turning people away from God. It is absolutely not good enough to say “they should understand us”.
Click to expand...
Explanation is all that is needed. No reason to adopt the worldly notions.
 
fix said:
Yes, that is a great piece. He gets it. No concerns about this false notion one must embrace fake terms to evangelize.
Click to expand...
And yet there are other Catholics who call themselves gay such as Eve Tushnet who writes for a number of magazine including National Catholic Register, Commonweal Magazine, Crisis Magazine, the American Conservative, Weekly Standard, the American Spectator and the National Review. That isn’t exactly a collection of flaming liberal magazines. You can find her blog here

Melinda Selmys has been on Catholic Answers Live and has self published several books, spoken at a Courage Conference, put a piece on the Courage website and still identifies as lesbian/queer. You can find her blog here
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
And yet there are other Catholics who call themselves gay such as Eve Tushnet who writes for a number of magazine including National Catholic Register, Commonweal Magazine, Crisis Magazine, the American Conservative, Weekly Standard, the American Spectator and the National Review. That isn’t exactly a collection of flaming liberal magazines. You can find her blog here

Melinda Selmys has been on Catholic Answers Live and has self published several books, spoken at a Courage Conference, put a piece on the Courage website and still identifies as lesbian/queer. You can find her blog here
Click to expand...
Sorry to here that. Also some if those publications are liberal.
 
God as well as the church doesn’t hate gay people. Simply the act of homosexuality.
In the same way that the church doesn’t agree with a man and a woman sleeping together before marriage, it doesn’t agree with two men sleeping together.

God loves us all!
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
And yet there are other Catholics who call themselves gay such as Eve Tushnet who writes for a number of magazine including National Catholic Register, Commonweal Magazine, Crisis Magazine, the American Conservative, Weekly Standard, the American Spectator and the National Review. That isn’t exactly a collection of flaming liberal magazines. You can find her blog here

Melinda Selmys has been on Catholic Answers Live and has self published several books, spoken at a Courage Conference, put a piece on the Courage website and still identifies as lesbian/queer. You can find her blog here
Click to expand...
They don’t agree with her in Courage or Encourage, but she offers help for people that changed there life. The Courage site itself discourages the word. Gay. the director Fr. Harvey did in his books and Fr. Check also. Some people don’t want to let go of that part which they perceive as comrades with other homosexuals. Unfortunately misguided.
But obviously people will keep disagreeing.:knight2:
 
speakttruth said:
They don’t agree with her in Courage or Encourage, but she offers help for people that changed there life. The Courage site itself discourages the word. Gay. the director Fr. Harvey did in his books and Fr. Check also. Some people don’t want to let go of that part which they perceive as comrades with other homosexuals. Unfortunately misguided.
But obviously people will keep disagreeing.:knight2:
Click to expand...
Considering she still isn’t attracted to men why would she identify as ex-gay or something?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Considering she still isn’t attracted to men why would she identify as ex-gay or something?
Click to expand...
Dakota,
Did you mean wouldn’t? I think she want to be in both worlds, incase it doesn’t work out, which would be disingenuous to the people she is supposedly saying to, you can change. a lot of us on the Encourage list serve thinks she is on both sides and sympathetic because she still is SSA.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Considering she still isn’t attracted to men why would she identify as ex-gay or something?
Click to expand...
Gay is a political/ideological movement. So why would she identify as gay if she doesn’t agree with the politics or the ideology?

I think some people for fear of being hated by the gay community make compromises.
 
speakttruth said:
Dakota,
Did you mean wouldn’t? I think she want to be in both worlds, incase it doesn’t work out, which would be disingenuous to the people she is supposedly saying to, you can change. a lot of us on the Encourage list serve thinks she is on both sides and sympathetic because she still is SSA.
Click to expand...
"Melinda Selmys:
Orientation Change vs. Mixed Orientation Marriage
…
My homosexuality and/or gender issues are not accidental to my self. They are an important part of the quest by which I am becoming myself. They’re not the bedrock of my identity and they’re not the sine qua non of my existence. They may not be inscribed in my genetic code, and it may be that the fullness of my journey towards God will only be completed by overcoming and reconciling these difficulties, but the difficulties are still an absolutely essential part of the process of my self-becoming. To deny my queerness, or hold it at arm’s length as something completely outside the self, is in some sense to miss its import and its significance. “The truth unsaid, and the blessing gone if I forget my Babylon” (Leonard Cohen)
Nor is it accidental to my marriage. I did a lot of damage, both to my identity and to my relationship with my husband, by trying to conform to some sort of one-size-fits all narrative of sexual complementarity. Because I could not acknowledge the part of me that is “queer” in the early years of our relationship, I withheld that part of me from our marriage and tried to replace it with a simulacrum of “authentic femininity” which was not in any way authentic to me. This was a significant ommission in my gift of self. By pretending to be “straight,” and by trying to conform my life to a narrative of “orientation change” I deprived both myself and my husband of the full truth about who I am.
That’s why I prefer the language of “mixed-orientation marriage (MOM),” to traditional “ex-gay” tropes. To me, the former opens up the possibility of creating a model for conjugal relationships between gay people and opposite sex partners that is positive, appealing and that retains everything that is really authentic and important about queer identities. It makes it possible to discuss the ways in which sexual complementarity is different in an MOM than it is in other heterosexual marriages. It invites a conversation about the role of philia in gay-straight marriages, and of the ways in which friendship can mediate eros. It also makes it possible to discuss what value a gay person might derive from being in a heterosexual marriage. It takes the discussion beyond the notion of “change,” the notion of trying to become a different person in the hopes of playing a particular social role in the future, and it resituates it in terms of a realistic option for the person as he or she is in the present.
Click to expand...
source
Linux said:
Gay is a political/ideological movement. So why would she identify as gay if she doesn’t agree with the politics or the ideology?

I think some people for fear of being hated by the gay community make compromises.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that some Catholics think that, but most gays don’t.

Well, ask Seeker about how true that is.
 
Linux said:
Gay is a political/ideological movement. So why would she identify as gay if she doesn’t agree with the politics or the ideology?

I think some people for fear of being hated by the gay community make compromises.
Click to expand...
To some people, ‘gay’ is a political/ideological movement but to many other people it’s simply the sexual orientation.

I don’t fear being hated by homosexuals. I fear them perceiving that they are hated, for what that perception will then do to them…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top