"homosexual person" myth or Truth

[Rau]

…I don’t think any person experiencing same-sex attraction in certain time periods in the past would have perceived themselves as a modern day homosexual does.

I can’t say. But it appears we agree that persons have experienced SSA in the past. When I hear or use the phrase “homosexual person”, it means nothing to me other than “a person who experiences same sex attraction”.

 

[Rau]

I’m not sure you can derive any normative statements from that really though. Saying certain parts of the body seem to serve a certain “purpose” isn’t the same as saying it’s immoral to move away from that “purpose.”

My posts in the recent interchange with Thor did not address morality.

 

[meltzerboy]

I think the idea of “homosexuality” and the modern conception of sexuality in its totality is a social construct. Certainly no similar conception existed before the 18th century - Edward II had sex with men, but he wasn’t gay or homosexual. He had sex with men not because he was simply attracted to their bodies or as part of a romantic relationship, but instead as part of some kind of masculine warrior relationship. The Spartans likewise practiced man-on-man sex in the same way, and Ancient Greek pederasty also was not homosexuality as we understand it. For us, homosexuality is understood in a similar way to our heterosexual relations, only between members of the same sex. A man is homosexual if he is attracted to other men and wants to form romantic relations with them. Edward II or a Spartan would struggle to understand our conception of homosexuality, and would most likely oppose it.

A homosexual person did not exist throughout much of history and in most societies, but they do now.

Not to mention the Papua, New Guinea sexual practice of oral sex between man and boy as an initiation rite of passage for the boy. This is not considered homosexual behavior; in fact, just the opposite: it is for the purpose of ensuring the boy develops masculine characteristics.

 

[o_mlly]

Not to mention the Papua, New Guinea sexual practice of oral sex between man and boy as an initiation rite of passage for the boy. This is not considered homosexual behavior; in fact, just the opposite: it is for the purpose of ensuring the boy develops masculine characteristics.

“Not to mention …” Really? That the Papuans have good intentions excepts their behavior from being labelled as homosexual? Using the same logic would exempt the Caananites’ practice of throwing newborns into the volcano as infanticide, after all they just wanted it to rain.

How does this Papuan atrocity argue for the normalcy of homosexual acts? The argument against normalizing homosexual acts in part is to avoid the very degradation in society, culture, relationships and, indeed, the very human person that these abominable acts foster and promote.

“Papua New Guinea (PNG) is often labelled as potentially the worst place in the world for gender violence.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_Papua_New_Guinea

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Again you are reading into the text.

The claim exists only in your mind.

Your PUTTING a meaning into the text that is not there.

Please let it go …it is a phantom.

The Church is not Teaching about questions or matters of the empirical sciences here.

The Church is teaching about - what? Moral life.

About the 6th Commandment. About LIFE IN CHRIST (title of the whole section).

The Catechism is covering all the possibilities.

If person D does not *experience *any other attraction that to their same gender - what are they do do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.

If person A *experiences *some attraction to their own gender and some attraction to the opposite gender - what are they to do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.

Or to put it differently - either person “says” they do not or do…it does not matter here.

A key word there in the CCC is “experience”.
*
No one can say “hey it does not apply to me cause I only experience SSA” or “I experience both…” The teachings regarding such apply to all those who experience such.*

One cannot debate with a person about what he personally “experiences”.

The point of the discussion in the Catechism is* the morality and the call to virtue*. That applies to them all (and to us all too) no matter what a person may say they experience.

The Church is not mistaken. Your difficulty is that your taking your personal subjective framing of things and investing meaning in the use of a phrase -one that has been used now for many years by the Church that is mistaken here. That is not being asserted.

Like taking Sacred Scripture where Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin -pluck it out and protesting that he is telling others to mutilate themselves…

One must disabuse oneself of that view by referring to the Church and finding that is not what is meant.

The Teachings of the Church - like those of Scripture must be understood in the way they are intended. What is actually being asserted. Or not.

Your difficulty is your importing something into the text that is not there. Reading into it.

The Church is teaching there about morality - not questions of empirical science…about this or that evidence or theory.

Persons stated experience -does not change the morality and the call to virtue.

In fact Bookcat, the phrase “used for many years” in a context where vocabulary needs to be capable of categoric use, is IN ADDITION TO the other phrases like “experiences” which is more realistic.

Jjr9 is justified in criticising its addition.

Jjr’s second problem which he doesn’t realise he has got, is about OSA.

Any time people have a thread like this, we need to answer all the questions and not only some of them.

Hoping this helps everybody!

 

[meltzerboy]

“Not to mention …” Really? That the Papuans have good intentions excepts their behavior from being labelled as homosexual? Using the same logic would exempt the Caananites’ practice of throwing newborns into the volcano as infanticide, after all they just wanted it to rain.

How does this Papuan atrocity argue for the normalcy of homosexual acts? The argument against normalizing homosexual acts in part is to avoid the very degradation in society, culture, relationships and, indeed, the very human person that these abominable acts foster and promote.

“Papua New Guinea (PNG) is often labelled as potentially the worst place in the world for gender violence.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_Papua_New_Guinea

I’m not saying that the practice is morally right or that I agree with it, but rather that it exists as the norm within this culture and the latter does not define it as homosexual behavior.

 

[Edward_Portman]

The argument against normalizing homosexual acts in part is to avoid the very degradation in society, culture, relationships and, indeed, the very human perso

That’s a lot of worlds. Care to prove them? Becuas eI open up The Bible, I open up history books and I see exactly THAT and MCUH worse committed by your god and Christians.

It’s especially rich coming from a person who worships god that ordered genocide of gay people. Coming from a member of a religious cult that has started a mass persecution of gay people that lasted for a thousand years. And I’m talking about real persecution. NAZI persecution of normal, ordinary people.

When Christians came into power in the Ancient World they started persecution not only those ones who believed differently and held different views.They declared that homosexual people should be burned alive. And they were. It was law.

Gay people were to be BURNED ALIVE like NAZI did in the NAZI Germany where gay people were burned alive in ovens in concentration camps.

In time executions got more humane, then it was prisons etc. All thanx to the spread of Judeo-Christian ideology.

It really amazes me that people who believe in this god , people who are members of this religious cult are allowed to have ANY say on the matters related to human rights and freedoms in regard to LGBT

It would be the same as Schutzstaffel members deciding what rights and freedoms should be allowed to Jews.

 

[goout]

That’s a lot of worlds. Care to prove them? Becuas eI open up The Bible, I open up history books and I see exactly THAT and MCUH worse committed by your god and Christians.

It’s especially rich coming from a person who worships god that ordered genocide of gay people. Coming from a member of a religious cult that has started a mass persecution of gay people that lasted for a thousand years. And I’m talking about real persecution. NAZI persecution of normal, ordinary people.

When Christians came into power in the Ancient World they started persecution not only those ones who believed differently and held different views.They declared that homosexual people should be burned alive. And they were. It was law.

Gay people were to be BURNED ALIVE like NAZI did in the NAZI Germany where gay people were burned alive in ovens in concentration camps.

In time executions got more humane, then it was prisons etc. All thanx to the spread of Judeo-Christian ideology.

It really amazes me that people who believe in this god , people who are members of this religious cult are allowed to have ANY say on the matters related to human rights and freedoms in regard to LGBT

It would be the same as Schutzstaffel members deciding what rights and freedoms should be allowed to Jews.

Ummm…wow
Did you ever take a history class?

You are wildly confused my friend about the difference between Nazism, and


Christianity?
wow.

And you must have not read the parts of history where god-less governments murdered 10’s of millions of people.
Selective and misdirected outrage is an outrage itself.

 

[o_mlly]

The argument against normalizing homosexual acts in part is to avoid the very degradation in society, culture, relationships and, indeed, the very human person that these abominable acts foster and promote.

That’s a lot of worlds. Care to prove them? Becuas eI open up The Bible, I open up history books and I see exactly THAT and MCUH worse committed by your god and Christians.

It’s especially rich coming from a person who worships god that ordered genocide of gay people. Coming from a member of a religious cult that has started a mass persecution of gay people that lasted for a thousand years…].

Welcome to CAF.

Do you have specific instances from the Bible or history that God “ordered genocide of gay people” or Christians “started a mass persecution of gay people”?

One argument that disordered behavior is, well, disordered is that when such behaviors become “normative” for society then that society slides quickly into the dustbin of history. Do you know of a “gay” society that has thrived and flourished across time?

 

[jjr9]

We are required to accept with docility the teaching of the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals.

I believe the false claim that some people experience an exclusive SSA is not a matter of faith or morals it
is a matter of truth.

If the Church did not respond to this lie about the nature of man then the faithful may be led into this and other falsehoods of modern psychology.

Can not the Magisterium enter a discussion of modern psychology without accepting the false premise of
exclusive SSA?

Do you believe anyone incapable of OSA?

God bless

 

[Bookcat]

I believe the false claim that some people experience an exclusive SSA is not a matter of faith or morals it
is a matter of truth.

The Magisterium is not discussing what you thinking it is discussing.

What section of the Catechism is that?
**
The moral section.**

The Catechism is discussing *morality *there.

That is: No matter what a person may state they experience - they are to live as a Christian …to live chastity.

 

[Thorolfr]

Do you believe anyone incapable of OSA?

Aside from an assertion with no proof, what evidence do you have that everyone is capable of OSA?

 

[o_mlly]

I believe the false claim that some people experience an exclusive SSA is not a matter of faith or morals it
is a matter of truth.

I agree that whether or not some people experience an exclusive SSA is not a matter of faith or morals. We are all under the effects or Original Sin. We cannot pick our crosses but we believe with our cross comes the grace to carry it.

I believe that any and all impulses to experience sexual pleasures outside of a valid (opposite sex) and lawful marriage are temptations. Temptation always incline us to do evil and is a matter of morals about which the Magisterium is obliged to teach us.

1. Can not the Magisterium enter a discussion of modern psychology without accepting the false premise of
   exclusive SSA?
2. Do you believe anyone incapable of OSA?

God bless

1. I believe modern psychology is beyond the brief of the Magisterium. However, if modern psychology promotes errors that contradict the Magisterium teaching on the human condition then the Magisterium rightly rejects those errors as heresy.

The cutout in the Catechism on the homosexual person is just such an instance. If rather than promoting the normalcy of same sex attraction, modern psychology promoted the normality of premarital sex then the Catechism would (I hope) have a cutout for the “fornicator person.”

1. I don’t know. However, I do believe the vocations to the celibate life are valid callings.

 

[Rau]

…Do you believe anyone incapable of OSA?

That issue - capability - is not in frame in the CCC. What people may experience is in frame. And whether they experience exclusively SSA or OSA or degrees of both, the moral teaching of the Church is the same.

 

[Bookcat]

That issue - capability - is not in frame in the CCC. What people may experience is in frame. And whether they experience exclusively SSA or OSA or degrees of both, the moral teaching of the Church is the same.

Yes tis in the moral section of the CCC.

 

[Rau]

I’m not saying that the practice is morally right or that I agree with it, but rather that it exists as the norm within this culture and the latter does not define it as homosexual behavior.

I presume the practice is/was not born of (does not arise from) any attraction - boy for man or man for boy - nor of any carnal desire? I presume the practice does not signal or represent an attachment to same sex sexual acts, and it may well be the only such act of either party in their life?

So while the act is unquestionably a same sex or homosexual act, I agree we would not describe the participants as homosexual.

 

[jjr9]

If rather than promoting the normalcy of same sex attraction, modern psychology promoted the normality of premarital sex then the Catechism would (I hope) have a cutout for the “fornicator person.”

I believe that modern psychology promotes the normality of premarital sex along with a large number of
other perversions. Is there a limit to the number of “cutout persons” the Magisterium should accept as
real?

I believe that the Lord only created male and female persons and the Magisterium has put itself on
a slippery slope. As do all who untether themselves from the Sacred Deposit of Faith like the
Magisterium has done in this case.

God bless

 

[Rau]

I believe that modern psychology promotes the normality of premarital sex…

On what basis would psychology object to premarital sex or consider it (evidence of) an illness? Psychologists are not in the role of professing morality anymore than churchmen are in the role of professing the (social or other) sciences.

On the other hand, it is arguable that psychologists might profess concern at same sex sexual attractions and relations in light of their objectively aberrant nature. But that bridge was crossed, with psychologists concluding a lack of basis existed to define the condition as an illness. [One may or may not agree with that decision.]

 

[Thorolfr]

I believe that modern psychology promotes the normality of premarital sex along with a large number of
other perversions. Is there a limit to the number of “cutout persons” the Magisterium should accept as
real?

I believe that the Lord only created male and female persons and the Magisterium has put itself on
a slippery slope. As do all who untether themselves from the Sacred Deposit of Faith like the
Magisterium has done in this case.

God bless

I thought that the Magisterium is infallible. According to Catholicism.org: Vatican I taught that “both the Extraordinary (or Solemn) magisterium and the ordinary and universal magisterium are instruments of transmitting infallible dogma”:

*Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.*8]

“This passage tells us that the Church’s magisterium is infallible in both its solemn and its ordinary and universal modes.”

catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

So if the Magisterium is infallible, how could it make the error you mention? And if the Magisterium is not infallible, then what other of its teachings are also in error?

 

[Rau]

I thought that the Magisterium is infallible. According to Catholicism.org: Vatican I taught that “both the Extraordinary (or Solemn) magisterium and the ordinary and universal magisterium are instruments of transmitting infallible dogma”:

*Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.*8]

“This passage tells us that the Church’s magisterium is infallible in both its solemn and its ordinary and universal modes.”

catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

So if the Magisterium is infallible, how could it make the error you mention? And if the Magisterium is not infallible, then what other of its teachings are also in error?

The thing jjr9 claims the church teaches (though it does not) does not meet the criteria for an infallible teaching laid out in the text you quote. So that particular argument falls away. Nice try though.