"homosexual person" myth or Truth

[jjr9]

I take it exactly for what it says.

No numbers are given. This is not a statistics report.

But the Catechism

It says “who experience an exclusive **or **predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

It is covering both.

I am only concerned by the Magisterium’s false claim that a group of people experience an exclusive SSA.
the predominate “homosexual person” is illogical.

What do you believe exclusive SSA means?

God bless

 

[jjr9]

It is important to read all that the Church Teaches regarding this difficulty and to read that that phrase as it is intended by the Church - rather than according to your framework.

I believe starting with a false premise such as anyone has an exclusive SSA is wrong.

God bless

 

[Rau]

…The Homosexual inclination (passion) is “lust.”

Then you declare the inclination to be sin, and so depart from what the Church teaches. There are many faithful Catholics who endure this unwanted inclination, who say no to it daily, and enjoy God’s favour.

It is the same passion that moves the adulterer and the fornicator to engage in illicit sex. The ninth commandment forbids lust of any kind.

This does not address why it’s object is a person of the same sex, and why persons who experience these attractions tell us they feel no such attraction to persons of the opposite sex. I believe your analogy fails.

 

[on_the_hill]

I believe starting with a false premise such as anyone has an exclusive SSA is wrong.

You cannot find a priest, a bishop, or anyone in Vatican who agrees with you, yet you persist in insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You. Are. Wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Then you declare the inclination to be sin, and so depart from what the Church teaches. There are many faithful Catholics who endure this unwanted inclination, who say no to it daily, and enjoy God’s favour.

It is St. Paul who declares the homosexual attraction to be a degrading passion. Do you disagree?

CCC 1766 …] Only the good can be loved. Passions “are evil if love is evil and good if it is good.”

This does not address why it’s object is a person of the same sex, and why persons who experience these attractions tell us they feel no such attraction to persons of the opposite sex. I believe your analogy fails.

I believe you miss the point. The attraction is evil not because its object is to the same sex or to the other sex but because the object of both passions is evil.

The sex addicts claim they are attracted to multiple persons of the opposite sex.
The homosexuals claim they are attracted to multiple persons of the same sex.

Do we condemn the former attraction as evil but not the latter? I think not. Both seek to love what is evil.

I also posted:

With God’s grace, they can change. The homosexual is no more lost than the kleptomaniac or the glutton. We do them a disservice if we confirm them in their disorders.

St. Paul tells us that the homosexual disposition is both “unnatural” and “degrading.” As such, this concupiscible disordered appetite is to be subordinated to reason and will. As with all evil inclinations; prayer, mortification and penance are the prescriptive cures. …]

We all have our crosses.

 

[Peter_J]

As someone who hasn’t participated but has read the posts on this thread, may I just say that I don’t think the discourse would get much worse if we deemed people to be laboratory experiments.

 

[Bookcat]

I believe starting with a false premise such as anyone has an exclusive SSA is wrong.

That is simply your belief that it is a false premise.

And again the Catechism has that little word “or” present.

It is covering all possibilities.

I am only concerned by the Magisterium’s false claim that a group of people experience an exclusive SSA.
the predominate “homosexual person” is illogical.
s

No - the Magisterium is not making a false claim.

Again the difficultly lies not in what the Catechism notes but in your perception of a problem in wording that does not exist.

It is not illogical by the why that some particular persons do not experience attraction for the other gender but only for their own. (Be it treatable or not - that is a different matter.)

Just as it is not illogical that some persons only are able to see certain colors or no colors at all. Or just as it is not illogical that some persons do not feel any pain. Or just as it is not illogical that some persons cannot walk but only can sit. Or that just as it is illogical that some particular person only learned due to their environment large this or that disordered experience that they later do not know another. etc etc

A disorder no matter what form it takes - is just that a disorder. It is logical. A suffering and a difficulty that some persons have here in this life due to the present state of things. Lasting for the rather short time here …if treatment etc does not remedy it.

Later there will be heaven…

…and then later the resurrection -the glorified body and the new heavens and new earth.

Which will be forever.

 

[o_mlly]

…]
The attraction is evil not because its object is to the same sex or to the other sex but because the object of both passions is evil.
.

Point of clarification:
Sexual attraction to the opposite sex may be good iff the object is one’s spouse.
Sexual attraction to the same sex is never good.

 

[Rau]

Point of clarification:
Sexual attraction to the opposite sex may be good iff the object is one’s spouse.

So one ought experience no sexual attraction for one’s fiance? You deem moral behavior to be present in attractions which may be unchosen. This is not Catholic teaching.

 

[o_mlly]

So one ought experience no sexual attraction for one’s fiance? You deem moral behavior to be present in attractions which may be unchosen. This is not Catholic teaching.

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

All finance do not marry. Your interpretation of lust as permissible for those outside the marriage contract is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Bookcat]

So one ought experience no sexual attraction for one’s fiance? You deem moral behavior to be present in attractions which may be unchosen. This is not Catholic teaching.

Sexual attraction towards ones fiancee can yes be ordered and chaste. Right.

Such is not meaning lust or seeking or consent to sexual pleasure.

But merely finding ones fiancee attractive.

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

All finance do not marry. Your interpretation of lust as permissible for those outside the marriage contract is not Catholic teaching.

Read too fast. The person is not discussing lust.

 

[Rau]

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

All finance do not marry. Your interpretation of lust as permissible for those outside the marriage contract is not Catholic teaching.

The CCC quotes are sound. Your characterisation of sexual attraction as Lust is not.

 

[meltzerboy]

Many uninformed straight people use the term “homosexual lifestyle” when talking about gay people. Can you tell me what you think this lifestyle entails? Is there also a heterosexual equivalent called the “heterosexual lifestyle” (I’ve rarely heard that term used)?

People who belong to out-groups (which means they are not a member of your own in-group) are often thought of in uniform ways. So it is not unusual for heterosexuals to think of homosexuals as participating in a uniform homosexual lifestyle, especially since many straight people do not associate with or know gay people at a personal level. The reverse is not so much the case since more gay people are aware of differences between straight people’s lives, either due to direct association or common knowledge of the mainstream culture.

This is not only a sexual thing. People who do not know Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Jews also tend to categorize members of each of these groups in a uniform, homogeneous way and associate each with a common lifestyle.

 

[Rau]

The attraction is evil not because its object is to the same sex or to the other sex but because the object of both passions is evil.

Neither attraction, in itself, amounts to a ‘human act’ wherein moral culpability arises. Sexual attraction to the same sex is ‘objectively disordered’, but this is entirely distinct from ‘intrinsically evil’. Sin can only arise when the will acts. Our attractions are not chosen - but what we do with them - how we respond - is. And finally, it is right to say that SSA is “not a good thing” because it draws a person toward what is morally evil. The faithful who experience it surely would wish to be free of it.

The sex addicts claim they are attracted to multiple persons of the opposite sex.
The homosexuals claim they are attracted to multiple persons of the same sex.

I don’t know why you equate “sex addicts” (and by that term I don’t know whether you mean a person with an identified psychological compulsion, the proverbial college student who decides he’s going to bed everyone woman in the class, or something else) with “homosexual” persons.

Do we condemn the former attraction as evil but not the latter? I think not. Both seek to love what is evil.

Attractions are not chosen. Embracing attractions in the manner you suggest is a step beyond experiencing attractions. The will is not at work in the former.

We all have our crosses.

This much is true.

 

[o_mlly]

Sexual attraction towards ones fiancee can yes be ordered and chaste. Right.

Such is not meaning lust or seeking or consent to sexual pleasure.

But merely finding ones fiancee attractive

Read too fast. The person is not discussing lust.

Read more closely. The person is discussing sexual attraction, not just attraction. These emotions are not the same.

 

[o_mlly]

The CCC quotes are sound. Your characterisation of sexual attraction as Lust is not.

Outside of marriage what do you think sexual attraction moves one toward? Illicit sexual acts.

 

[o_mlly]

N…]
Attractions are not chosen. Embracing attractions in the manner you suggest is a step beyond experiencing attractions. The will is not at work in the former.

Attractions which lead to only sin are evil. If one allows the attraction to well up in them repeatedly then they allow themselves to enter into the proximate occasion of sin.

 

[Thorolfr]

People who belong to out-groups (which means they are not a member of your own in-group) are often thought of in uniform ways. So it is not unusual for heterosexuals to think of homosexuals as participating in a uniform homosexual lifestyle, especially since many straight people do not associate with or know gay people at a personal level. The reverse is not so much the case since more gay people are aware of differences between straight people’s lives, either due to direct association or common knowledge of the mainstream culture.

This is not only a sexual thing. People who do not know Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Jews also tend to categorize members of each of these groups in a uniform, homogeneous way and associate each with a common lifestyle.

 

[Rau]

Attractions which lead to only sin are evil. If one allows the attraction to well up in them repeatedly then they allow themselves to enter into the proximate occasion of sin.

You now are moving closer to the truth. To experience the attraction itself is not to do evil.

 

[Bookcat]

Read more closely. The person is discussing sexual attraction, not just attraction. These emotions are not the same.

As I noted:

Sexual attraction towards ones fiancee can yes be ordered and chaste.

Such is not meaning lust or seeking or consent to sexual pleasure.

But merely finding ones fiancee attractive.