K
Kolbe300
Guest
That is so astronomically far from the truth that I don’t even know how to respond.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
The word has come to mean a certain identity. You really cannot separate all the baggage.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Kolbe
**
That is so astronomically far from the truth that I don’t even know how to respond.**
Do you have problems with the sting of truth?
**
That is so astronomically far from the truth that I don’t even know how to respond.**
Do you have problems with the sting of truth?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Kolbe, I think’s precisely the reason not to use it. Because it does not advance communication to use ambiguous terms. That’s the point.
To some people (homosexual and heterosexual) “gay” means actively homosexual, engaging in sexual activity.
To other people (homosexual and heterosexual), “gay” is merely an attraction to the same sex, without any implication that the attraction is being acted upon.
To still other people (including many homosexuals), “gay” refers to entire worldview about identity, a worldview which includes how “essential” sexuality is to identity. Some of the more radical among this group believe that absolutely everything in life is influenced by sexual orientation – at least if one identifies as homosexual. (It’s never discussed whether my own approach to life, as a heterosexual, is permeated by my heterosexuality.) To these folks, there is nothing in life which is asexually decided. “Being gay” is special and unique, IOW, in a way fundamentally different from being a heterosexual.
K
Kolbe300
Guest
You really can separate the baggage when you realize you’re dealing with a human being and not a word or an agenda. And it isn’t even difficult to do. The amount of “power” some of you give the word gay is astounding to me.
No, I don’t. Why?
K
Kolbe300
Guest
Then don’t use the word. I have no problem with someone who doesn’t want to use the word. Where I have a problem is when one believes the word to mean only what they think it means or should mean. Why? Because of the following:
9 times out of 10, when someone uses the word “gay” on this forum, everyone jumps to conclude either option 1 or option 3 above. That assumption is so pervasive that even gay folks who are celibate are left continously defending themselves.
The average gay person in society isn’t going to be using the term SSA now or any time soon. That’s why I believe our best bet is to allow them to use the word without assuming anything because of it. That approach has worked really well for me, which is why I highly recommend it.
D
DexUK
Guest
Talk about sweeping generalisations… that takes the biscuit.
I know several homosexual people whom I have a close enough relationship to know that sodomy simply isn’t on their horizon. Some of them are celibate. All of them describe themselves as gay men.
And if we don’t make it clear who and what we’re talking about (which is my whole argument) then how are people to know what it is we mean?
There’s a lot of head-in-sand going on here.
Frankly I prefer daylight.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Again, Kolbe, your argument actually supports mine as well.
Ambiguous term, fraught with misunderstanding. I prefer to be clear.
F
fix
Guest
Perhaps in specific situations that is true, but in general usage it has baggage. If people continually acquiesce to words like that or marriage equality or pro choice or many other of these political terms it influences the way we all view reality. And that is what the ideologues want and hope for.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
If a rabid Protestant came onto these boards intending to convert the Romish Mary-worshiping Papist Mystery Religion Superstitionalists and refusing to use the word “Catholic” (because too many people use it to describe themselves [like the Orthodox and some Anglicans] but most don’t properly understand all of it’s political subtext in the proper way, and anyway, neither Jesus nor Paul called themselves Catholic so it’s not right that anyone should understand Catholic as a way of being Christian, but we all should understand it is a word used for those who reject the simple ways of the early church)–do you think such a person would receive a particularly enthusiastic welcome? No. For the most part, they’d be written off as absurdly ignorant.
Chances are, though, they’d be all-too-happy to be written off, returning to their particular enclave with stories about how the Romish Papists were so far gone in their error that they refused to see the light, because it stung them too much. And they’d be pat on the back by their co-religionists for doing their duty and trying to evangelize those who had fallen away from the true path. “I assaulted and insulted them with the truth! Then I dismissed all of their objections regarding my characterization of them as irrelevant and wrong! I’m really working in the vineyard today!” our rabid Protestant might say. But as anyone can see, such an evangelization tactic has less to do with the Gospel and more to do with establishing a Protestant identity over against a Catholic one. It’s nothing to do with the Good News, but everything to do with shoring up one’s own sense of self.
Now. Find a group of gay folks, start calling them sodomites, and then tell them that you refuse to use the words they use to identify themselves because they’re too politically inflected and aren’t precise enough and anyway, “gay” people have a faulty understanding of themselves to begin with so how can they say anything accurate about their own understanding of their identity…and then see if any of their ears start twitching to hear the Good News from your mouth. Like our rabid Protestant friend, you will have accomplished one thing and one thing only: a bolstering of your own sense of self.
I’ve seen Paul invoked rather often lately–why not become all things to all men that you might save some?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Charlemagne, there are two problems here: 1) you want the truth to sting, but you don’t care if it liberates; 2) you don’t care if your “truth” is actually true, so long as it stings. That is a profoundly sadistic notion of truth that you’re advocating. Indeed, it has nothing to do with truth, but everything to do with a profound disregard for what is true (we might call such a disregard ignorance if we were being generous), all at the service of ego.
This is ludicrous–people are talking about how words are understood by the world beyond these forums, not about how you should or shouldn’t defend the faith. If your defense of the faith amounts to little more than a defense of what terms should be used to describe a group of people who by and large reject your understanding of those terms, then I’m afraid you’re defending an intellectual construct or an ideology, but you’re getting nowhere near defending the faith.
If a rabid Protestant came onto these boards intending to convert the Romish Mary-worshiping Papist Mystery Religion Superstitionalists and refusing to use the word “Catholic” (because too many people use it to describe themselves [like the Orthodox and some Anglicans] but most don’t properly understand all of it’s political subtext in the proper way, and anyway, neither Jesus nor Paul called themselves Catholic so it’s not right that anyone should understand Catholic as a way of being Christian, but we all should understand it is a word used for those who reject the simple ways of the early church)–do you think such a person would receive a particularly enthusiastic welcome? No. For the most part, they’d be written off as absurdly ignorant.
Chances are, though, they’d be all-too-happy to be written off, returning to their particular enclave with stories about how the Romish Papists were so far gone in their error that they refused to see the light, because it stung them too much. And they’d be pat on the back by their co-religionists for doing their duty and trying to evangelize those who had fallen away from the true path. “I assaulted and insulted them with the truth! Then I dismissed all of their objections regarding my characterization of them as irrelevant and wrong! I’m really working in the vineyard today!” our rabid Protestant might say. But as anyone can see, such an evangelization tactic has less to do with the Gospel and more to do with establishing a Protestant identity over against a Catholic one. It’s nothing to do with the Good News, but everything to do with shoring up one’s own sense of self.
Now. Find a group of gay folks, start calling them sodomites, and then tell them that you refuse to use the words they use to identify themselves because they’re too politically inflected and aren’t precise enough and anyway, “gay” people have a faulty understanding of themselves to begin with so how can they say anything accurate about their own understanding of their identity…and then see if any of their ears start twitching to hear the Good News from your mouth. Like our rabid Protestant friend, you will have accomplished one thing and one thing only: a bolstering of your own sense of self.
I’ve seen Paul invoked rather often lately–why not become all things to all men that you might save some?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
S
speakttruth
Guest
I’m sorry but I disagree. We don’t NEED to please the world by using their language. Gay used to mean happy and now we can’t use that word in a sentence without people thinking about homosexuality. This the language that identifies the person sexual preference in the world. Look at all the countries and what language are they using to advance there agenda? Not SSA, not even homosexual. No GAY and GAY marriage. What part of that is a good thing? Why do you think they use the word? Yes some people may say that they are a chaste gay, but I happened to be the average person and it’s not a good thing to say your gay. Over and over the activists force it in your face. So I am glad some people are not living a gay lifestyle, but that is what people in general believe. You have a president talking about gay marriage and repeal the DOMA. So this word has power. l don’t give it power because I don’t use it. Your feeding the agenda. Sorry but you will never convince me that Jesus would want us to use a word that has people thinking your in a homosexual lifestyle. Why would you want them to think that way about you if your not? If your just a man with SSA. How is that keeping people away from the Church to acknowledge this? It is like a badge of honor or something to use the word.
Honestly you people don’t get it. The harm this agenda has done to families, you have no idea.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Dex
**
And if we don’t make it clear who and what we’re talking about (which is my whole argument) then how are people to know what it is we mean?**
That is why sodomy is the right word to use. Any other aspect of gay relations is sinless.
**
And if we don’t make it clear who and what we’re talking about (which is my whole argument) then how are people to know what it is we mean?**
That is why sodomy is the right word to use. Any other aspect of gay relations is sinless.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Deo
Charlemagne, there are two problems here: 1) you want the truth to sting, but you don’t care if it liberates; 2) you don’t care if your “truth” is actually true, so long as it stings. That is a profoundly sadistic notion of truth that you’re advocating. Indeed, it has nothing to do with truth, but everything to do with a profound disregard for what is true (we might call such a disregard ignorance if we were being generous), all at the service of ego.
I detect some hate behind these remarks, so I am not going to answer them.
Charlemagne, there are two problems here: 1) you want the truth to sting, but you don’t care if it liberates; 2) you don’t care if your “truth” is actually true, so long as it stings. That is a profoundly sadistic notion of truth that you’re advocating. Indeed, it has nothing to do with truth, but everything to do with a profound disregard for what is true (we might call such a disregard ignorance if we were being generous), all at the service of ego.
I detect some hate behind these remarks, so I am not going to answer them.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace & Mercy! Deo Gratias!
You are rather conveniently sensitive to egoistic delusion, Charlemagne.I detect some hate behind these remarks, so I am not going to answer them.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace & Mercy! Deo Gratias!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
C
CaptBell800
Guest
Regardless of whether it’s objectively correct or not, referring to people as “sodomites” will not win anyone over to your side. If we want to have an actual, practical effect which is good, we shouldn’t be using that kind of language. It will not do us good. It will only push people away.
And no, I am not condoning sin. That isn’t the point at all. The point is that there are effective methods which aid in conversion, and there are harmful methods which damage conversion.
And no, I am not condoning sin. That isn’t the point at all. The point is that there are effective methods which aid in conversion, and there are harmful methods which damage conversion.
S
speakttruth
Guest
Boy that is a little extreme. Where did you find the word to describe your feelings of being attracted to the Same sex.? Who started using the word Gay to describe themselves as people that are like they are a different race? Who is fighting for civil rights when they already have them? What is GAY pride month that they force people to celebrate in schools and in the government? They are all chaste people right? This isn’t about a word and all of you know it, it is what it represents. Your all giving it power. Don’t use it and there won’t be a problem with anyone thinking your a sodomite if your worried about it. How many die because of Aids? Why? It certainly is relevant to people’s perception. My Goodness. Would you define a thief by what he does or what he is? My son wanted to tell everyone he is gay not because he was chaste, but because he wanted to be accepted for that lifestyle.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Why do you have an issue with a word having more than one meaning, even the word computer has several meaningsAgain, Kolbe, your argument actually supports mine as well.
Ambiguous term, fraught with misunderstanding. I prefer to be clear.
The word gay organically morphed into the meaning of homosexual and not through a very nice path.
OED:
You forget the many heterosexuals are sodomites too.
Look, I live in the gay ol’ state of California (meets at least three different definitions) and I don’t recall much about gay history/pride/whatever month being talked about in school
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I explained that abundantly. Refer to my posts. It’s an issue of communication, which is compromised if not precise and with commonly understood key terms.
A
andrewstx
Guest
What truth? It is a fact that many homosexuals despise the act of sodomy as much as the rest of the world.
Many heterosexuals practice sodomy as a primitive form of birth control.
Perhaps you could read in the Prophets where the sin of Sodom is defined. It is pride and lack of hospitality, not a word about any sexual activity.
- Status