Homosexual Artists, Musicians, etc

[prayerrider]

One is always welcome to start forum threads about these other issues.

 

[MarkMcClendon]

The teaching is not that it’s healthy, valid, and normal. The teaching is that, while disordered (i.e., ordered to the wrong object) it cannot be held to be sinful, since sin requires volition, and sexual orientation is unchosen. The real question, I guess, is a broader one - why would God create a whole class of people with disordered attractions which are always wrong to act on?

 

[prayerrider]

If the attraction is rightly ordered, how can the sexual activity be wrong? How can the Church refuse holy matrimony to same sex couples, if their relationship is equal in every way to a man and a woman?

 

[prayerrider]

And is there another group that struggles with a particular sin and makes a fraction the amount of noise about their sin not really being a sin but rather normal, healthy, even virtuous?

 

[Jbrady]

And is there another group that struggles with a particular sin and makes a fraction the amount of noise about their sin not really being a sin but rather normal, healthy, even virtuous?

You are joking, aren’t you?

 

[prayerrider]

No. Please name these other groups, so that we can compare them. To keep the comparison valid, let’s restrict the comparisons to categories of current sexual sins: fornication, masturbation, incest, polyamory, necrophilia, bestality, etc. I’m genuinely unaware of organized Catholic groups that agitate for normalizing any of these other sexual sins.

 

[Elf01]

The use of the word “unjust” is unfortunate, too, as it implies that there is also “just” discrimination, as well.

Given that there are people who argue that not allowing two people of the same sex to marry or not baking a cake for a same sex wedding us discrimination I can see why unjust was included.

This has been taken as a blanket endorsement of discrimination of any kind by the homophobic subpopulation of the Church, who also latch onto the word “disordered” and use it in an expanded, clinical sense, i.e., “Homosexuality is a disease”, or even “Homosexuals are a disease”.

I hope I can get this across without causing offence. On an intelluctal level I accept that the primary purpose of sex is procreation. This implies that the natural attraction of a man is to a woman and the natural attraction of a woman is to a man. In that sense I do see same sex attraction as a disease, abiet a not very well understood one that does not have a cure. Note having a disease does not make someone less of a person.

 

[prayerrider]

This has been taken as a blanket endorsement of discrimination of any kind by the homophobic subpopulation of the Church, who also latch onto the word “disordered” and use it in an expanded, clinical sense, i.e., “Homosexuality is a disease”, or even “Homosexuals are a disease

And this is opinion, untestable, and hyperbolic.

 

[Jbrady]

To keep the comparison valid, let’s restrict the comparisons to categories of current sexual sins: fornication, masturbation, incest, polyamory, necrophilia, bestality, etc. I’m genuinely unaware of organized Catholic groups that agitate for normalizing any of these other sexual sins.

And that’s where you’re blind spot is. You are fixated on sex.

A good example would be the people I mentioned above, who use the Catholic Church as little more than a cover for their hatred of LGBT people, or Muslims, or Jews. It’s no different from the thinking of those “Christians” who used the Bible to justify slavery.

 

[Sbee0]

The courts take them quite seriously. They have Constitutional rights in USA just like everybody else.

Very true- I meant the things they say are intended to cause outrage and for their right to protest to be denied so they can sue and make money- and not because they are a serious church who really believes what they’re saying. They are a lot closer to con artists imo than a religious sect.

 

[prayerrider]

A good example would be the people I mentioned above, who use the Catholic Church as little more than a cover for their hatred of LGBT people, or Muslims, or Jews. It’s no different from the thinking of those “Christians” who used the Bible to justify slavery.

Again, this is hyperbole and conjecture. Which you’re free to indulge in.

 

[Jbrady]

Again, this is hyperbole and conjecture. Which you’re free to indulge in.

Sorry, we have no common ground on which to conduct further discussion.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

You know, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, & Caravaggio were rumoured to be gay. Of course they’re rumoured to gay because they were celibate.

 

[StatuensNParteDextra]

Nikola Tesla was celibate too and spoke of how women were removing themselves from the pedestal he himself held them on. I doubt he would have been such a genius had he not been able to channel that energy in other ways as he did.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But asking why someone applies one standard to gay people’s sexual sins and a different standard for almost everything else is a legitimate question.

Except that’s more of an unproven assumption than an actual objection.

 

[Thorolfr]

Isn’t adultery a sexual sin which is what the Catholic Church considers those who are divorced and remarried to be engaging in and most of those people don’t think that this is a sin of any sort.

 

[prayerrider]

How does one person’s sin mitigate the gravity of someone else’s sin?

 

[Thorolfr]

How does one person’s sin mitigate the gravity of someone else’s sin?

I didn’t say it does. But you wanted an example of another group who engage in what the Catholic Church considers a sin but who don’t think it’s a sin.

 

[prayerrider]

But you wanted an example of another group who engage in what the Catholic Church considers a sin but who don’t think it’s a sin.

No. What I asked for was examples of “organized Catholic groups that agitate for normalizing any of these other sexual sins.”

Certainly some Catholics convince themselves that their own grave sins are not really grave. This is human nature, and poor catechesis. However, barring invincible ignorance such self delusion does not mitigate the gravity of their sins. Nor does it have anything to do with the sins of others.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Except that’s more of an unproven assumption than an actual objection.

You mean I’m assuming the person doesn’t apply the same standard for all sinful behavior?

I suppose so, but it’s not a baseless assumption. I’ve seen multiple variations on this specific question on CAF…basically, “is it okay to listen to this music or watch this film when I know the actor or singer is gay?”

I have yet to see anyone ask “is it okay to listen to this music when I know the musician is living with his girlfriend” or “can I watch this movie directed by someone who divorced and remarried?”

It’s not a wild leap in the dark to suspect that many on CAF have some particular fixation on the sexual sins of gay people.