Homosexuality Intrinsically Disordered?

[Vico]

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.

1 Cor 7:5-75 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession,* however, not as a command. 7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God,* one of one kind and one of another.a

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A jury must be disinterested, but not uninterested.

A jury must be impartial.

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.

…and society would be right.

I don’t agree that “homosexual” refers exclusively to one who is simply attracted to the same sex. .

Homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct.

By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

I really think that is the best definition.

 

[Rau]

I don’t agree that “homosexual” refers exclusively to one who is simply attracted to the same sex. .

Homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct.

By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

I really think that is the best definition.

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Joie de Vivre
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. *Clearly, much of society would be wrong to believe homosexuals, by definition, are engaging in sex with the same gender. Many choose to be chaste - and thus do not engage in homosexual relations.

Words are defined to describe “things” (including concepts, ideas, etc.). When our understanding of the “thing” evolves, we can find our language not quite sufficiently on-point, and eventually the dictionary expands to cater.

Sexual attraction is an interesting term itself. I read the following elsewhere:

*I wouldn’t disagree that “sexual attraction” (ie, attraction based on the male or female sex) is a good way to define sexual orientation, heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, etc. I But I just disagree that “sexual attraction” is equivalent to “an inclination to have sex with them.”*But it would seem true to say that a homosexual, if desiring sex, will desire it with someone of the same sex (and analogously for heterosexual).

 

[One_point]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joie de Vivre
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. Clearly, much of society would be wrong to believe homosexuals, by definition, are engaging in sex with the same gender. Many choose to be chaste - and thus do not engage in homosexual relations.

Words are defined to describe “things” (including concepts, ideas, etc.). When our understanding of the “thing” evolves, we can find our language not quite sufficiently on-point, and eventually the dictionary expands to cater.

Sexual attraction is an interesting term itself. I read the following elsewhere:

*I wouldn’t disagree that “sexual attraction” (ie, attraction based on the male or female sex) is a good way to define sexual orientation, heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, etc. I But I just disagree that “sexual attraction” is equivalent to “an inclination to have sex with them.”*But it would seem true to say that a homosexual, if desiring sex, will desire it with someone of the same sex (and analogously for heterosexual).

That quote makes little sense. the sexual attraction is for bring men and women together to mate and have sex and babies. to say that it is not ordered towards sex ultimately is introducing an artificial disconnect between a natural process and its ultimate purpose.

 

[SMGS127]

That quote makes little sense. the sexual attraction is for bring men and women together to mate and have sex and babies. to say that it is not ordered towards sex ultimately is introducing an artificial disconnect between a natural process and its ultimate purpose.

One Point: you may not have seen me link this in the other thread but it is a wonderful read. The following is particularly useful in this discussion:

sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/2012/05/looking-to-desire.html?m=1

Secondly, hard-line traditionalists tend to assume that same-sex attraction is fundamentally objectively disordered in all of its aspects. The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, in their recent document on Youth with Same-Sex Attractions, were very careful to explicitly spell out the fact that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered in so far as they concern the desire to have same-sex genital relations. That is, in so far as same-sex attractions are concupiscent, they are objectively disordered: a nice little tautology which only stands in need of clarification because it is counterintuitive to contemporary secular culture. What this means is that same-sex attractions, in so far as they are not concupiscent, are not disordered: another tautology, but one that is equally counterintuitive to many moral conservatives.

Melinda Selmys is a very well-respected orthodox Catholic theologian on issues of SSAs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

One Point: you may not have seen me link this in the other thread but it is a wonderful read. The following is particularly useful in this discussion:

sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/2012/05/looking-to-desire.html?m=1

Melinda Selmys is a very well-respected orthodox Catholic theologian on issues of SSAs.

Her “opinion” disregards Church teaching …

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Froman_curia%2Fcongregations%2Fcfaith%2Fdocuments%2Frc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html&ei=yRG9U4D6D-L58AHyxoCwAg&usg=AFQjCNGwNqxJRZRRzcsbaK2xANENUWb7Sw

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[SMGS127]

Her “opinion” disregards Church teaching …

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

This is exactly why the Canadian Council of Bishops explicitly clarified that the objective disorder of homosexuality is entirely rooted in the desire for, or object of, same-sex sexual activity. SSAs themselves are not disordered if aimed in a direction other than sexual/genital relations. Same-sex sexual activity is the only thing that is intrinsically disordered about homosexuality.

Ms. Selmys is an orthodox theologian, and, again, very well-respected in the Catholic Church. She is not disregarding Catholic teaching but rather upholding it in the face of rigorists.

 

[GaryTaylor]

SSAs themselves are not disordered if aimed in a direction other than sexual/genital relations. Same-sex sexual activity is the only thing that is intrinsically disordered about homosexuality

Satisfaction through concupiscence is denied by you. You admit to SSA and deny french making out is satisfaction within this realm. By definition which you play mental gymnastics which you rationalized this.

In English informal speech, French kiss refers to an amorous kiss in which the participants’ tongues extend to touch the other participant’s lips or tongue. The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrench_kiss&ei=WA69U-eYC4L08AHZkYHQBA&usg=AFQjCNF1benCd9xV6GTEXY6jRyigjL6wZw

The link is a blog, an opinion peace, not official teaching of the Church. Further “Obviously in so far as it leads to homosexual temptation, it is disordered”

Minimimized here…“Same-sex sexual activity is the only thing that is intrinsically disordered about homosexuality”

So the temptation is completely denied as “unique” and this excused the activity which in fact is disordered. In fact so is the temptation proposed as responsible love and concern.

 

[SMGS127]

Satisfaction through concupiscence is denied by you. You admit to SSA and deny french making out is satisfaction within this realm. By definition which you play mental gymnastics which you rationalized this.

In English informal speech, French kiss refers to an amorous kiss in which the participants’ tongues extend to touch the other participant’s lips or tongue. The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.

The link is a blog, an opinion peace, not official teaching of the Church. Further “Obviously in so far as it leads to homosexual temptation, it is disordered”

Minimimized here…“Same-sex sexual activity is the only thing that is intrinsically disordered about homosexuality”

I don’t feel it’s mental gymnastics. Nor do I believe that intimacy or romance are, in and of themselves, forms of concupiscence related to the condition of SSAs. I would agree that eros and sexual engagement are forms of concupiscence, but I disagree that these are necessary to involve oneself in while French kissing. Perhaps for some people, they are inseparable on a personal level from the act. But this is not true for every person; in fact, it is almost certainly untrue for purely asexual individuals.

I think that argument is incredibly straightforward.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps for some people, they are inseparable on a personal level from the act. But this is not true for every person; in fact, it is almost certainly untrue for purely asexual individuals

Some people being most and admittedly not yourself. As to it not being true for every person without sexual feelings or desires I see no reason why they would entertain that which they have no desire or feeling one way or another about.

But you do have feelings and desires, and do engage in this behavior but deny any responsibility of temptation.

 

[SMGS127]

Some people being most and admittedly not yourself. As to it not being true for every person without sexual feelings or desires I see no reason why they would entertain that which they have no desire or feeling one way or another about.

But you do have feelings and desires, and do engage in this behavior but deny any responsibility of temptation.

A) Asexual people still engage in certain acts of emotional bonding; making out can be one of these acts. They do it with no thought in any way to lusting or sex or sensual delight.

B) I take full responsibility for temptation. I do not deny responsibility for temptation. I deny the possibility of temptation. I am not wired to be tempted by making out . It’s never happened, period.

 

[GaryTaylor]

A) making out can be one of these acts. They do it with no thought in any way to lusting or sex or sensual delight.

I see no reason why they would entertain that which they have no desire or feeling one way or another about. So to me this is nonsense and insisting its true doesn’t make it so.

B) I take full responsibility for temptation. I do not deny responsibility for temptation. I deny the possibility of temptation. I am not wired to be tempted by making out . It’s never happened, period.

Your exceptional, unique as you say you can’t be tempted. You wind up making out and have no responsibility for the liability of the action and insist there is none by innocent intention. By the same manner any sexual act can be denied. So no you don’t take full responsibility you deny any exists.

Its the line drawing game and you are the master. And you search the internet for suspect articles to read into that which you want to hear.

Then you would have this tempting conversation with another to check and see if they are indeed tempted while knowing you are “unique”

Sounds more like victim hunting than responsible love and concern. But hey its your conscience.

 

[SMGS127]

I see no reason why they would entertain that which they have no desire or feeling one way or another about. So to me this is nonsense and insisting its true doesn’t make it so.

Asexuals are not aromantic. They do things that are romantic in nature that are not sexual in nature. They would, more than anyone else, understand what I mean by making out in an agape fashion.

Your exceptional, unique as you say you can’t be tempted. You wind up making out and have no responsibility for the liability of the action and insist there is none by innocent intention. By the same manner any sexual act can be denied. So no you don’t take full responsibility you deny any exists.

I am not unique, though clearly my experience is not as prevalent as I thought. And yes, I take full responsibility. Making out is not a sexual act. Sex is a sexual act and is always immoral, regardless of intentions. The licitness of French kissing is dependent on whether it is performed with sexual intent or with moral intent.

Sounds more like victim hunting than responsible love and concern. But hey its your conscience.

That’s not insulting at all . I don’t need to prove anything to you, but I most certainly would make sure I am not leading my girlfriends into sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Asexuals are not aromantic. They do things that are romantic in nature that are not sexual in nature. They would, more than anyone else, understand what I mean by making out in an agape fashion.

I supplied the definition there is no misunderstanding. Romantic by definition- involving love between two people. : making someone think of love : suitable for romance.

And French kissing is defined and given also- In English informal speech, French kiss refers to an amorous kiss in which the participants’ tongues extend to touch the other participant’s lips or tongue. The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.

A “kiss with the tongue” stimulates the partner’s lips, tongue and mouth, which are sensitive to the touch. The practice is usually considered a source of pleasure. The oral zone is one of the principal erogenous zones of the body.

I am not unique, though clearly my experience is not as prevalent as I thought. And yes, I take full responsibility. Making out is not a sexual act. Sex is a sexual act and is always immoral, regardless of intentions. The licitness of French kissing is dependent on whether it is performed with sexual intent or with moral intent…

What moral intent? “The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.”

Clearly not as prevalent as you thought which should lead your self assurance to skeptical thinking. Add to this the insistence to squeeze the definition of making out into a narrow paradigm. So yes all this considered you are unique. And a red flag would go up with anyone listening.

I most certainly would make sure I am not leading my girlfriends into sin.

I know your intentions are pure. Sorry I disagree with your line of reasoning.

 

[Bookcat]

And French kissing is defined and given also- In English informal speech, French kiss refers to an amorous kiss in which the participants’ tongues extend to touch the other participant’s lips or tongue. The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.

A “kiss with the tongue” stimulates the partner’s lips, tongue and mouth, which are sensitive to the touch. The practice is usually considered a source of pleasure. The oral zone is one of the principal erogenous zones of the body.

What moral intent? “The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.”

Clearly not as prevalent as you thought which should lead your self assurance to skeptical thinking. Add to this the insistence to squeeze the definition of making out into a narrow paradigm. So yes all this considered you are unique. And a red flag would go up with anyone listening.

And…

Even if such was not intended as erotic - or for some very unusual reason not be so – such is still not something for two persons of the same sex ever to engage in. One will not find any solid theological defense of such proposal. Such is not the way for “friends” to bond. They bond by doing things together - with common interests, sharing of struggles and joys etc. Not by “making out”. Or “french kissing”.

Such simply is not something to be done with persons of the same gender, or ones sibling or ones toddler or ones grandmother etc. Such is already a no go.

Should one bond with ones toddler or grandmother that way?

(setting aside here the question of sinful making out or french kissing between boyfriend and girlfriend).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryTaylor View Post
And French kissing is defined and given also- In English informal speech, French kiss refers to an amorous kiss in which the participants’ tongues extend to touch the other participant’s lips or tongue. The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.

A “kiss with the tongue” stimulates the partner’s lips, tongue and mouth, which are sensitive to the touch. The practice is usually considered a source of pleasure. The oral zone is one of the principal erogenous zones of the body.

What moral intent? “The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.”

Clearly not as prevalent as you thought which should lead your self assurance to skeptical thinking. Add to this the insistence to squeeze the definition of making out into a narrow paradigm. So yes all this considered you are unique. And a red flag would go up with anyone listening.

And…

Even if such was not intended as erotic - or for some very unusual reason not be so – such is still not something for two persons of the same sex ever to engage in. One will not find any solid theological defense of such proposal. Such is not the way for “friends” to bond. They bond by doing things together - with common interests, sharing of struggles and joys etc. Not by “making out”. Or “french kissing”.

Such simply is not something to be done with persons of the same gender, or ones sibling or ones toddler or ones grandmother etc. Such is already a no go.

Should one bond with ones toddler or grandmother that way?

(setting aside here the question of sinful making out or french kissing between boyfriend and girlfriend).

"French kissing is an upward persuasion for a downward invasion"– Sister Mary Kathleen, 8th grade teacher and moral theologian 1958

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

A jury must be impartial.

…and society would be right.

I don’t agree that “homosexual” refers exclusively to one who is simply attracted to the same sex. .

Homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct.

By extension, a homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct.

I really think that is the best definition.

Given that homosexuality wasn’t coined that way and wasn’t used that way for the first half of it’s existence to claim is was universally defined that way is false.

Her “opinion” disregards Church teaching …

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Froman_curia%2Fcongregations%2Fcfaith%2Fdocuments%2Frc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html&ei=yRG9U4D6D-L58AHyxoCwAg&usg=AFQjCNGwNqxJRZRRzcsbaK2xANENUWb7Sw

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Actually it is entirely in accordance with Catholic teaching and is virtually identical to what is said by the Canadian and English bishops.

Satisfaction through concupiscence is denied by you. You admit to SSA and deny french making out is satisfaction within this realm. By definition which you play mental gymnastics which you rationalized this.

In English informal speech, French kiss refers to an amorous kiss in which the participants’ tongues extend to touch the other participant’s lips or tongue. The implication is of a slow, passionate kiss which is considered intimate, romantic, erotic or sexual.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrench_kiss&ei=WA69U-eYC4L08AHZkYHQBA&usg=AFQjCNF1benCd9xV6GTEXY6jRyigjL6wZw

The link is a blog, an opinion peace, not official teaching of the Church. Further “Obviously in so far as it leads to homosexual temptation, it is disordered”

Minimimized here…“Same-sex sexual activity is the only thing that is intrinsically disordered about homosexuality”

So the temptation is completely denied as “unique” and this excused the activity which in fact is disordered. In fact so is the temptation proposed as responsible love and concern.

That’s not minimization, that is reading precisely what has been written.

"French kissing is an upward persuasion for a downward invasion"– Sister Mary Kathleen, 8th grade teacher and moral theologian 1958

Err, what?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Given that homosexuality wasn’t coined that way and wasn’t used that way for the first half of it’s existence to claim is was universally defined that way is false.

Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. Then the “gay” movement began to redefine it as a normal and immutable condition
equivalent to heterosexuality, **a state-of-being completely independent of conduct.
**

This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable.

It is not science.

It is a legal and political strategy.

The problem is that they can’t prove it.

Err, what?

Yep! That’s what Sister said. It was very clear and understandable to us 13 and 14 year old boys and girls.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. Then the “gay” movement began to redefine it as a normal and immutable condition
equivalent to heterosexuality, **a state-of-being completely independent of conduct.
**

This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable.

It is not science.

It is a legal and political strategy.

The problem is that they can’t prove it.

Could you source any of this? The word “sexuality” seems completely counter to what you’re saying alone.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. Then the “gay” movement began to redefine it as a normal and immutable condition
equivalent to heterosexuality, **a state-of-being completely independent of conduct.
**

This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behavior based and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable.

It is not science.

It is a legal and political strategy.

The problem is that they can’t prove it.

Yep! That’s what Sister said. It was very clear and understandable to us 13 and 14 year old boys and girls.

1892 C. G. Chaddock tr. R. von Krafft-Ebing Psychopathia Sexualis iii. 185 (heading) Great diminution or complete absence of sexual feeling for the opposite sex, with substitution of sexual feeling and instinct for the same sex. (Homo-sexuality, or contrary sexual instinct.)

1892 C. G. Chaddock tr. R. von Krafft-Ebing Psychopathia Sexualis iii. 255 He had been free from homo-sexual inclinations.
1892 C. G. Chaddock tr. R. von Krafft-Ebing Psychopathia Sexualis iii. 256 The homo-sexual woman offers the same manifestations, mutatis mutandis.

Both sourced from OED

That is are first instance of those words therefore you are wrong.

I failed to understand it initially because I do not grasp such plebeian things with ease.