Homosexuality Intrinsically Disordered?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Setimet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SoulSolace said:
MY HEAD HURTS!! LOL…

So the attraction … well… attraction to me is lust… I think ???

Ugh. 🙂

What you said makes sense though.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Are you married? Did arriving at that state necessitate lust? Did you avert your eyes? Do you hope to marry? Do you fear lust will stand in your way?
 
Rau said:
Are you married? Did arriving at that state necessitate lust? Did you avert your eyes? Do you hope to marry? Do you fear lust will stand in your way?
Click to expand...
Actually, and this is directed at Prodigal_Son too, I would have described it the same way you did once upon a time. That is why it made sense to me.
Yes though, I can look at a person and see that they are attractive, but it has become almost like a clinical acknowledgement. (not entertaining any notions)
Now I simply wish to see a person for who they are on the inside. Is that so bad?
As for lust within the realm of marriage, I don’t see that as sin, other than concupiscence.
As for the other questions…sorry, that delves into the personal. 🙂

God bless.
 
stltoday.com/news/local/metro/male-turtles-are-feminized-by-chemical-found-in-plastics/article_8696e983-bc2c-5b6b-a9e4-b3f4f194d1a0.html

This is a study about how a turtle’s gender can be effected by chemicals from plastics.

What we all need is love!

Jesus as Mark and Matthew’s Gospel stated: Jesus cured all of their illnesses–all illnesses. Come, Lord Jesus!

We are all injured. This might be a better word than disordered.

I most certainly am a sick or injured person.

That is why I have to say: Come, Lord Jesus.
 
First of all, SoulSolace, you are distinguishing yourself right now by your humility, and willingness to listen. Thank you – it is, sadly, a rare trait. (And one that I hope I have!) :o
SoulSolace said:
Actually, and this is directed at Prodigal_Son too, I would have described it the same way you did once upon a time. That is why it made sense to me.
Yes though, I can look at a person and see that they are attractive, but it has become almost like a clinical acknowledgement. (not entertaining any notions)
Now I simply wish to see a person for who they are on the inside. Is that so bad?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a matter of it being “bad” to act as you do. But it’s impossible to “see what someone is on the inside”, because we ARE our bodies. We are not only our bodies – just like a book isn’t only its cover. Now one might have an inordinate obsession with the covers of books, or an inordinate obsession with human skin. But engaging with a person IS engaging with skin. The awkwardness I experience when talking to a pretty young lady is a good and holy thing. It makes her feel good, and makes her feel more like herself.
As for lust within the realm of marriage, I don’t see that as sin, other than concupiscence.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does. Any inordinate focus on sexual pleasure in a marriage is wrong.
 
SoulSolace said:
Actually, and this is directed at Prodigal_Son too, I would have described it the same way you did once upon a time. That is why it made sense to me.
Yes though, I can look at a person and see that they are attractive, but it has become almost like a clinical acknowledgement. (not entertaining any notions)
Now I simply wish to see a person for who they are on the inside. Is that so bad?
As for lust within the realm of marriage, I don’t see that as sin, other than concupiscence.
As for the other questions…sorry, that delves into the personal. 🙂

God bless.
Click to expand...
🤷 I only suggest you ask yourselves the question and see if they offer insight.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
First of all, SoulSolace, you are distinguishing yourself right now by your humility, and willingness to listen. Thank you – it is, sadly, a rare trait. (And one that I hope I have!) :o

I don’t think it’s a matter of it being “bad” to act as you do. But it’s impossible to “see what someone is on the inside”, because we ARE our bodies. We are not only our bodies – just like a book isn’t only its cover. Now one might have an inordinate obsession with the covers of books, or an inordinate obsession with human skin. But engaging with a person IS engaging with skin. The awkwardness I experience when talking to a pretty young lady is a good and holy thing. It makes her feel good, and makes her feel more like herself.

The Catholic Church does. Any*** inordinate ***focus on sexual pleasure in a marriage is wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is understood already.(bolded)
The focus of marriage should not be the physical, as any number of things can change that.
I saw a quote one time; “Getting married should not be for the consummation of sex, but the consummation of love.”

btw, I am now getting ads on my homepage to view singles in my area… same gender…:confused:
 
SoulSolace said:
Yes, that is understood already.(bolded)
The focus of marriage should not be the physical, as any number of things can change that.
I saw a quote one time; “Getting married should not be for the consummation of sex, but the consummation of love.”
Click to expand...
In marriage, however, sex is required for consummation and there must be a physical aspect. In describing what marriage is and how it differs from other loving mutual care that might take place between siblings or between parents and children, sexual consummation is not sufficient, but it is necessary. It is what makes the union exclusive, as well. A committed arrangement of mutual care and united action in the world can include any number of persons, related by blood or not, as in a monastery.
 
EasterJoy said:
In marriage, however, sex is required for consummation and there must be a physical aspect. In describing what marriage is and how it differs from other loving mutual care that might take place between siblings or between parents and children, sexual consummation is not sufficient, but it is necessary. It is what makes the union exclusive, as well. A committed arrangement of mutual care and united action in the world can include any number of persons, related by blood or not, as in a monastery.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’m not expressing myself clearly. Bear with me…
I understand physical attraction within, and even before, marriage.
I am agreeing that it shouldn’t be the primary focus of a marriage though.
People need to relate on a much deeper level than just the physical.
I think one of the problems with divorce these days, is that people decide once the physical attraction is gone, then they need to move on.
And in some cases, their marriage may have been based solely on physical, thus why nothing is left to maintain once the physical attraction has fizzled out.

God bless you.
 
SoulSolace said:
Okay, I’m not expressing myself clearly. Bear with me…
I understand physical attraction within, and even before, marriage.
I am agreeing that it shouldn’t be the primary focus of a marriage though.
People need to relate on a much deeper level than just the physical.
I think one of the problems with divorce these days, is that people decide once the physical attraction is gone, then they need to move on.
And in some cases, their marriage may have been based solely on physical, thus why nothing is left to maintain once the physical attraction has fizzled out.

God bless you.
Click to expand...
I can see where you are coming from. If a spouse is incapacitated and cannot engage in marital relations, the couple is still married. They ought to expect to stay together.

I am concerned, however, that you might give someone the impression that a spouse who gains weight or starts to sag ought to expect to be seen as a brother or sister, rather than continuing to be seen as a spouse, or that sexual relations are a “low” or “secondary” aspect of marriage. If a spouse is told they need to “relate on a much deeper level than just the physical” in the sense that they need to give up on the idea of expecting marital relations that are still possible, that can ring very hollow. As canon law puts it: Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life. (Can. 1135)
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
What a flippant response, do you have anything meaningful to say?
Click to expand...
I, most likely, would have a very meaningful response…if I understood what you meant by your post.

I take it you do not accept the definition I posted…??
 
EasterJoy said:
I can see where you are coming from. If a spouse is incapacitated and cannot engage in marital relations, the couple is still married. They ought to expect to stay together.

I am concerned, however, that you might give someone the impression that a spouse who gains weight or starts to sag ought to expect to be seen as a brother or sister, rather than continuing to be seen as a spouse, or that sexual relations are a “low” or “secondary” aspect of marriage. If a spouse is told they need to “relate on a much deeper level than just the physical” in the sense that they need to give up on the idea of expecting marital relations that are still possible, that can ring very hollow. As canon law puts it: Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life. (Can. 1135)
Click to expand...
No. That isn’t what I mean at all.
I know there is even scripture that advises spouses to not refrain from one another, lest they be tempted beyond their capacity.

God bless.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
I, most likely, would have a very meaningful response…if I understood what you meant by your post.

I take it you do not accept the definition I posted…??
Click to expand...
Basically it is:
x is to y as a is to b

Do you know what the word disinterested means?
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Basically it is:
x is to y as a is to b

Do you know what the word disinterested means?
Click to expand...
Ahhh, I get the “x is to y as a is to b” but I would argue that B is to S… or simply BS.

I do know what the word disinterested means. If you are implying that you are disinterested…that is fine. In my lifetime I have learned that disinterest breeds ignorance.

Have a wonderful day.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Ahhh, I get the “x is to y as a is to b” but I would argue that B is to S… or simply BS.

I do know what the word disinterested means. If you are implying that you are disinterested…that is fine. In my lifetime I have learned that disinterest breeds ignorance.

Have a wonderful day.
Click to expand...
Define “disinterested”.

PS I’m not saying I am disinterested.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
If you are not disinterested, then you should have an inkling of the meaning…

but if it helps:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinterested
Click to expand...
A jury must be disinterested, but not uninterested.

Disinterested when used correctly refers to impartiality, to not being involved for their own sake however much of society uses it to refer to apathy to someone not caring.

Homosexual when used correctly refers to someone who is attracted to the same sex, however much of society uses it to refer to someone who engages in sex with the same sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top