Highlighting Same Sex attraction is a mistake

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I read the article, and it did not seem to be gay bashing. The author rejects both “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality.”
 
It’s an interesting theory. I think CAF is just making me overly cynical. These posts seem to spiral in that direction pretty quick.m😒
 
I agree completely. The article doesn’t especially condemn homosexual activity as being any more sinful than other sinful sexual acts. I find the article cogent and the references to Humanae Vitae are compelling.
It’s not "theory, " either. It’s natural and Divine law.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, one never knows which direction a thread will take. But I recall reading an essay in First Things quite awhile ago entitled “Against Heterosexuality.” The premise is that such sexual prefence categories are rather recent inventions, whereas the biological reality is that there are just men and women.
 
I think it’s an interesting article.

I’ve recently read an article about how sexuality was fluid in ancient times, and that, as you’ve mentioned, sexuality is a recent social construct.
 
JimG said:
The premise is that such sexual prefence categories are rather recent inventions,
Click to expand...
I believe it was Freud who first labeled homosexuality as a condition. Then the idea gained traction that “homosexual” was a type of person.
Before that, there were actions, which were judged as good or bad.
 
powerandglory said:
Oh, goody. Another open invitation to gay-bashing.
Click to expand...
I think people are getting fed up with all the normalization of sexual corruption being fostered, taught and encouraged everywhere corrupting the minds of children from the get-go and bashing anyone who dares disagree or criticize.
 
I found this part of the article really interesting but maybe its true significance is just beyond my grasp. I waffled wildly between “yes” and “so?” as I read the rest.
The word “heterosexual” is abnormal the way “feathered bird” is abnormal. It is the very nature of a bird to be feathered. To insist on including the word “feathered” before bird is an abnormal use of language because all “birds” by their very definition are feathered. Nothing is added to the meaning of “bird” with “feathered” appended before it. To append “feathered” to every instance of bird would indicate that the word “bird” had drifted from normalcy, and that it had become abnormal or corrupted.
Click to expand...
 
In the current vernacular, I believe that that reassigning is classified as some type of -phobic, being intolerant of genetic felines that identify as avian . . .

🤯😲😱
 
Some days I identify as a Tyrannosaurus rex. Usually only when I’m working with middle school kids.

 
Last edited:
JimG said:
The author rejects both “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality.”
Click to expand...
Judging by the opinion he is advocating for, I’m betting he has some SSA himself. That’s completely fine and people should just be open about it if they want to wade into a public discussion like this. That’s all I’m saying. I realize that there are more than a few SSattracted men out there like Micheal Voris who put forth all sorts of crazy ideas about homosexuality in an attempt to suppress their own desires, and make excuses that attempt to invalidate their own desires.

But I think the ideas he’s promoting are junk. He’s ignoring the definitions of terms, and even Church teaching on the subject. Just sad.
 
The very nature of sexuality is that it involves male and female, in a sexually complementary way of procreation. If humans were asexual, reproducing like amoebas, for example, there would be no notion of sexuality at all. The idea of sexuality means that reproduction is through the union of man and woman. The biological reality is that the only sexuality involves man and woman. Non-procreative sexual practices, whether between same or opposite sexes, are not sexuality at all.

From the article:
"In the very use of the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” we accept the corruption of “sexual” and “sexuality.” In using these words, the Church succumbs to the very corruption it must address and correct.

Rather than a sexuality objectively inherent in the biology of every human being, these terms reduce sexuality to subjective expressions anchored in sexual desire alone. Rather than unite us around something we all hold in common, they divide and reduce us to the smallness of every individual’s imagination. A sexuality whose meaning can vary by the individual has no meaning at all."
 
Last edited:
prayerrider said:
I agree completely. The article doesn’t especially condemn homosexual activity as being any more sinful than other sinful sexual acts. I find the article cogent and the references to Humanae Vitae are compelling.
It’s not "theory, " either. It’s natural and Divine law.
Click to expand...
If the article is correct, why was sodomy identified as one of the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance? It’s the only sexual sin identified this way.
 
Well, I’m hardly one to defend that act. If I understood the argument correctly, the term “heterosexuality” only arises as an oppositional term.
I also agree that God doesn’t intend any carnal relations for human beings other than those between one man and one woman, in marriage.
 
Pete Buttigieg, right. One of his biggest cheerleaders is a certain celebrity cleric.
 
I won’t speak to the author’s sexuality (I guess he wouldn’t want me to, by the article).

But, I agree with your point. He says “I know this may be dismissed as simple semantics, but these concerns are critical to the survival of the Church… because she’s supposed to teach truth”.
Like, this IS an interesting observation/ view that is being put forward by this person. I’ve never heard of it before. Perhaps a few other ppl have said things like this. So, does that mean that the Church has failed to teach the truth on this topic, because she hasn’t used this semantic argument that this guy came up with?

I feel the answer to this question must be the answer given by so many saints: “BY NO MEANS!”

It seems threads like this are getting better on CAF. Many on here have a good understanding of the very nuanced teaching on SSA that the Church has. And, the stuff this guy’s talking about seems to be his own new stuff. That isn’t part of the nuanced teaching that the Church has. And that we’ve all become familiar with (most of us).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top