Homosexuality is illogical?

[buffalo]

Indeed, there is much in the Bible which we either ignore or treat in a symbolic way. But I think the Christian objection (certainly the Catholic objection) to homosexuality is based upon not just on Scripture, but on tradition - it is tradition which tells us what in the Bible is important, what is literal, and what is not.

Scripture has several references:

Gn 1:27 - complementarity of sexes reflects God’s inner unity
Gn 2:21-24 - transmission of life through total self-donation - one flesh
Gn 19 - original sin deteriorates to Sodom’s sin, destroyed
Lv18:22 - called abomination, cut off from people (v.29)
Lv 20;13 - both shall be put to death for abominable deed
Rom 1;27 - called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1Cor 6:9 - active homosexuals won’t inherit kingdom of God
1Tim 1:9-10 - those who engage in such acts called sinners

 

[rlg94086]

I was given sexual organs internally and externally that semi-function in the physical sense as a little of this, and a little of that (I don’t want to get too graphic). Am I natural? I was born this way, God made me this way. With certain reproduction techniques I can even have children, however my organs certainly don’t work like most other people’s, but they are still there and they work as God intended as far as I can tell.

Why give me something that works, and then I have everyone tell me that I have to be utterly chaste forever because it just MIGHT be a ‘little too close to being gay’ because I am ambiguous? I am told that the situations do not compare, yet the ‘solution’ is exactly the same for me as for them, absolute chastity, lack of love, utterly. My family has little to do with me, I had to move across the entire country because they were causing trauma in my life. My fiance is the only person in the world I have, and the church would rip us apart if it had its way. I just don’t think it’s fair for me, and I certainly don’t think it is fair for anyone else.

You are as natural as my brother who was born with physical birth defects. In his case, the defects don’t have an effect on his sex, but they are still genetic anomalies.

I don’t consider your case, and those of other intersexed individuals, the same as homosexuality. You are genetically not male or female. I agree with Dale_M that “sweeping and ill-advised pronouncements” should not be made by the Church regarding the intersexed. It is a much more complex issue than sexual desire directed toward the same sex, since you would be hard-pressed to find someone of the same sex.

 

[pathia]

Pathia, I think our scientific understanding of intersexuality is limited and the Church is ill-advised to make sweeping and inflexible pronouncements on this matter. I am sorry that you have encountered such difficulties, especially with your family. I truly wish it were otherwise.

It is odd, it makes sweeping pronouncements at the same time saying that ‘we don’t understand’. It is like they disallow me to do anything just because they are afraid that maybe just maybe it might be the wrong choice. If God set someone with such a confusing lot, it’s my honest opinion he would have mercy for me, and anyone who led me to any particular choice. In an effort to be always right about this matter, they won’t tell me ANYTHING, other than chastity, completely.

I am supposed to have ‘disinterested friendships’ first of all, what the heck is a disinterested friendship? How can you be disinterested about a friend, the very fact they’re a friend means you are interested in them!

Whatever they are, how the heck am I supposed to have one of those with my fiance, who is currently dependent on me because he served his country and was wounded? I certainly can’t leave him, or stop loving him, but the church would seem to have me do so.

 

[pathia]

You are as natural as my brother who was born with physical birth defects. In his case, the defects don’t have an effect on his sex, but they are still genetic anomalies.

I don’t consider your case, and those of other intersexed individuals, the same as homosexuality. You are genetically not male or female. I agree with Dale_M that “sweeping and ill-advised pronouncements” should not be made by the Church regarding the intersexed. It is a much more complex issue than sexual desire directed toward the same sex, since you would be hard-pressed to find someone of the same sex.

I am torn between being offended by having it called a defect, and not. I really don’t know what to say. To me, my cleft jaw and various other facial deformities, which were thankfully all repaired, are defects. Defects are something that need to be compensated, or repaired. I need no such thing with my intersexed nature, I was perfectly capable and functional before I was butchered by doctors at a young age.

My ‘defect’ was made WORSE by viewing it as a defect, instead of just letting it stand. Is that a defect, or maybe something that doesn’t really have a word yet? I just view it as a state of being. If someone was born with blue hair, would we force them to dye it a normal color? It doesn’t effect their daily life other than maybe some stares. We would only call it an abnormality/defect because we view it as such by matter of consensus.

I’ve seen men and women try to repair the ‘defect’ of their same sex attraction. Just like my own repairing, it was almost always a disaster. Sure, some were successful, but some became suicidal wrecks, viewing themselves completely worthless and a good few of them vanished. I don’t know where they went, they could be homeless or dead for all I know, at least two DID commit suicide, I know that much.

 

[rlg94086]

I am torn between being offended by having it called a defect, and not. I really don’t know what to say. To me, my cleft jaw and various other facial deformities, which were thankfully all repaired, are defects. Defects are something that need to be compensated, or repaired. I need no such thing with my intersexed nature, I was perfectly capable and functional before I was butchered by doctors at a young age.

My brother struggled with the same issue regarding the word “defect.” For a while, he used the term “handi-capable” instead of handicapped. He found peace and has accepted himself for what he is - a human being who has physical challenges due to being born with a genetic anomaly.

pathia:

My ‘defect’ was made WORSE by viewing it as a defect, instead of just letting it stand. Is that a defect, or maybe something that doesn’t really have a word yet? I just view it as a state of being. If someone was born with blue hair, would we force them to dye it a normal color? It doesn’t effect their daily life other than maybe some stares. We would only call it an abnormality/defect because we view it as such by matter of consensus.

Okay…if you think that being born with blue hair is the same as being intersexed, I don’t know how to respond.

pathia:

I’ve seen men and women try to repair the ‘defect’ of their same sex attraction. Just like my own repairing, it was almost always a disaster. Sure, some were successful, but some became suicidal wrecks, viewing themselves completely worthless and a good few of them vanished. I don’t know where they went, they could be homeless or dead for all I know, at least two DID commit suicide, I know that much.

The Church does not require people to “correct” their attractions. She asks all of us to live a chaste life. That is probably why priests have counselled you similar to those with same sex attraction. When in doubt, celibacy and “disinterested friendships” are the safest thing to recommend. It isn’t because the Church is out to get you, or trying to ruin your life. Priests counsel us with what they hope will lead us to heaven. If they were to tell you “oh don’t worry about it” and be wrong, the result could be an eternal error.

 

[pathia]

My brother struggled with the same issue regarding the word “defect.” For a while, he used the term “handi-capable” instead of handicapped. He found peace and has accepted himself for what he is - a human being who has physical challenges due to being born with a genetic anomaly.

Okay…if you think that being born with blue hair is the same as being intersexed, I don’t know how to respond.

It’s a comparison, not supposed to be analogous obviously! What about a sixth finger, one that was completely and utterly functional. Would we cut it off, just because it’s abnormal? I think we would, and that bothers me.

The Church does not require people to “correct” their attractions. She asks all of us to live a chaste life. That is probably why priests have counselled you similar to those with same sex attraction. When in doubt, celibacy and “disinterested friendships” are the safest thing to recommend. It isn’t because the Church is out to get you, or trying to ruin your life. Priests counsel us with what they hope will lead us to heaven. If they were to tell you “oh don’t worry about it” and be wrong, the result could be an eternal error.

The Church itself has not ruined my life, but it’s proclamations on how I am supposed to live has ruined my life. When people find out about my intersex status, I am normally made QUITE unwelcome by congregations. I’m viewed as a freak, and a mutilated one at that, the public’s distinction between ‘pervert’ and how I am is very slim, to nonexistent. I’ve thought I trusted a person or two with my secrets, only to find it spread like wildfire through the congregation and find the doors seemingly spiritually and socially shut against me in a matter of weeks, it’s happened time and time and time again, and that is why I list myself as lapsed. The church did the lapsing for me however. Apparently I am supposed to live in the shadows and discuss my problems with no one else other than a priest. That is such a very lonely life, seemingly unnecessarily so.

As for correcting our attractions. It was a group of Catholic Priests that told my parents the name of a ‘good catholic doctor’ to help with my gender nonconformity as a child. It might not be official doctrine to do this, but it seems common enough, I’m not the only one who has this story. I still carry the emotional scars that doctor gave me to this day, over twenty years later.

 

[rlg94086]

It’s a comparison, not supposed to be analogous obviously! What about a sixth finger, one that was completely and utterly functional. Would we cut it off, just because it’s abnormal? I think we would, and that bothers me.

Of course not. Again, I will use my brother’s case. His bones grew faster than his muscles, causing deformities - especially in his feet (bilateral club feet) and his wrists (they are bent like someone with palsy). He had several operations to straighten his feet (thank you Shriner’s Hospital ), so he could walk. The doctors also discussed straightening his wrists. If he had this done, his hands/wrists would be straightened like most people have; however, his wrists would be fused so that there was no movement. The primary purpose was cosmetic - “he could shake hands like everyone else,” but it also allows a stronger grip (try gripping something with your wrists bent, and you will see why). My brother said “no.” He didn’t see the strength issue as limiting him much, and if someone is put off from shaking his bent hands then they have issues.

If someone is born blind and an operation can fix their sight, then it sounds like a good idea to me. If they are born deaf and their hearing can be repaired, then it makes sense. If they are born with a siamese “twin” and the two can be successfully separated, then that seems prudent to me. All of these are “defects,” and it does seem right to repair them.

pathia:

The Church itself has not ruined my life, but it’s proclamations on how I am supposed to live has ruined my life. When people find out about my intersex status, I am normally made QUITE unwelcome by congregations. I’m viewed as a freak, and a mutilated one at that, the public’s distinction between ‘pervert’ and how I am is very slim, to nonexistent. I’ve thought I trusted a person or two with my secrets, only to find it spread like wildfire through the congregation and find the doors seemingly spiritually and socially shut against me in a matter of weeks, it’s happened time and time and time again, and that is why I list myself as lapsed. The church did the lapsing for me however. Apparently I am supposed to live in the shadows and discuss my problems with no one else other than a priest. That is such a very lonely life, seemingly unnecessarily so.

Please separate the problems with the Church’s “proclamations” and the actions of the congregation. I absolutely feel terrible that you have to deal with people who treat you poorly out of ignorance. I remember very well the stares that my brother used to get when we would walk around in public places, and it ticked me off! I’m sure those stares are nothing compared to the way people are treating you.

pathia:

As for correcting our attractions. It was a group of Catholic Priests that told my parents the name of a ‘good catholic doctor’ to help with my gender nonconformity as a child. It might not be official doctrine to do this, but it seems common enough, I’m not the only one who has this story. I still carry the emotional scars that doctor gave me to this day, over twenty years later.

Again, the priests were doing what they thought was best. They were trying to help your parents put you into a position where you could live a normal life. Obviously, they were wrong. At the same time, if they had counselled nothing at all, I don’t think you would be emotionally scar-free. I believe you would still have had difficulty growing up and dealing with your differences compared to everyone else.

 

[homeloan]

So if a lifestyle poses no great risk of harm to anyone and it makes them happy, is it moral or not? I can’t really think of a situation where something fits those two criteria and *isn’t *okay.)

That’s not the point, Exalt. It’s condemned, case closed. Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200. Go straight to Hell (notice the word “straight”).

I see how my RC brothers and sisters defend the faith on these Forums. You either toe the line, or they’ll condemn you in a heartbeat. Tell you how you are diametrically opposed to the RC Faith. Quote you Catecisms and de fides. Depart, depart, depart!

Those of you who are homosexuals, stand firm. You’re exposed without an anchor. Another discriminated group within the Church looks beyond their restrictions because they have a role model to hang their bonnets on: the Blessed Virgin. Of course, I’m referring to females. Females, so chastised in the 2nd Chapter of 1st Timothy, you’d think the Apostle Paul was the PR agent for the Taliban!

Homosexuals, where is you anchor? As of now, it isn’t in the RC Church. Obviously, it isn’t in the Southern Baptist Church either. (See my topic on a female faculty member being dismissed this week. Why? It’s unbiblical for a female to “teach”/“instruct” men!!! (1st Timothy, 2nd Chapter - NAB, etc.).

However, I think Episcopalian’s and Presbyterian’s have discovered tolerance and seem to be permitting homosexuals to participate withou having to pass some sort of litmus test.

Time will tell.

But that great sucking sound is the mass exodus from certain established denominations and unfortunately, RC’s aren’t immune. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see some new Episcopalians and Presbyterians might very well be former RC’s who find the Church irreconcilable with their physical inclinations, urges and all.

Paradoxically, if it wasn’t for undocumented immigrants (here in the US) to fill the void of the withdrawal of so many Anglo RC’s, the American Church would be in deep doo doo.

But, as you see here on these Boards, homosexuals need not apply. RC’s have been through this before (Orthdox Schism & Reformation). They’ve survived, yes. But things are moving faster nowadays. Our enlightened world doesn’t look too positively on intolerance. If Jesus was among us now, in a physical body, do you think he would be as intolerant toward homosexuals leading otherwise decent lives, in monogomous s/s relationships?

Of course, the response you’ll hear in reply is that “you can withstand the urge that you were born with. After all, violent people have urges too and are able to keep them subdued.” Of course the ones who remind you of this are tucked-in closely with their spouses nightly… “Do as I say, not as I…, etc.”

 

[BlaineTog]

Of course, the response you’ll hear in reply is that “you can withstand the urge that you were born with. After all, violent people have urges too and are able to keep them subdued.” Of course the ones who remind you of this are tucked-in closely with their spouses nightly… “Do as I say, not as I…, etc.”

Slow down, please. My girlfriend of over a year and I broke up recently, not because we don’t love each other (we do), but because she’s in a bad place right now and can’t handle being in a relationship. You don’t think the urge to try to get her to put that aside isn’t overwhelming at times? Nevermind that it would probably kill her, at least I’d be happy, or as happy as one can be when the one you love is suffering from horrible depression only made worse because of the positive feedback loop being in a relationship with a perceptive person causes (I notice when she’s sad and that makes me sad, and she gets sadder because she knows she’s making me sad, which makes me sadder, which makes her sadder, and so on ad infinitum).

Obviously, our situations are much different. But don’t claim you know me. Don’t claim I don’t have to fight urges, like the urge to call her and try to come to some sort of arrangement that’s constantly nagging on me. And certainly don’t claim you have a cross to bear and that everyone else is just swimming. Most people are miserable in some way, and everyone has some difficulty to overcome.

And once again, how in the world do you expect the Catholic church to ever even think of accepting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle if you won’t produce reasoned arguments that effectively deal with all scriptural and doctrinal concerns? Because you threaten further-dwindling mass attendance? Do you want the Church to hypocritically pretend there’s no sin where it at least looks a heck of a lot like there is? If it’s just an appearance, through back the curtain and show us the little man working the switches and levers in back! Show us how our arguments fail and how yours bounds overhead! Show us where we’re wrong.

 

[Sheeniac]

That’s not the point, Exalt. It’s condemned, case closed. Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200. Go straight to Hell (notice the word “straight”).

I see how my RC brothers and sisters defend the faith on these Forums. You either toe the line, or they’ll condemn you in a heartbeat. Tell you how you are diametrically opposed to the RC Faith. Quote you Catecisms and de fides. Depart, depart, depart!

Of course, the response you’ll hear in reply is that “you can withstand the urge that you were born with. After all, violent people have urges too and are able to keep them subdued.” Of course the ones who remind you of this are tucked-in closely with their spouses nightly… “Do as I say, not as I…, etc.”

I told myself prior to posting, remember, homeloan is a Catholic searching to deepen his (her?) faith.

Many of us here replying are trying to temper our posts with charity and love. We feel sympathy for those who are tempted to sin because we all are tempted. So before you start accusing others of being uncharitable (in so many, many words) PLEASE try to understand where we are coming from.

The Truth is the Truth, whether you like it, I like it, or the person posting after me likes it. We do each other a disservice if we soften the Truth so much that it no longer resembles itself after we are done explaining things.

May I introduce myself as an unmarried poster? When I came Home, I took a LONG time looking at HMC and the Orthodox Church. I’m divorced, and hope not to spend my life alone. I knew an annulment would be the only thing that would allow me to remarry. I knew very little except all of the misunderstandings out there.

But I knew that the Orthodox Church, having full Apostolic Succession, allowed for remarriage.

So I took even longer.

After researching a little as to why the Orthodox Church had its position about remarriage, I came to the conclusion that I could only become a Catholic. I realized that I was making a choice that could mean that I could never remarry. And that as I grew in my Christianity, it would mean that I would fully need to resake my worldly ways. (translation = celibacy). What a horrible prospect, but I knew it could be done, so I started the process of coming Home.

My point is that I personally was in the same boat, albeit with a life jacket that may or may not have worked (so to speak).

Yeah, life is tough. Choices are hard. Things sometimes really don’t make sense. I have some physical issues that make me feel like I am in between a rock and a hard place, and wonder --really wonder-- how the heck God expects me to follow his Commandments.

But, the problem is mine, not the Church’s. With God’s help, I will mature out of my sinning ways by becoming more holy, as we are all called to be. But for anyone to give me advice for my specific set of (really really rare) circumstances that is counter to what the Church teaches isn’t love or compassion.

So stop with the nastiness towards those of us replying with the teachings of HMC.

Are you a woman? Do you feel oppressed by the patriarchy of the Church? Do you think that the Church is anti-woman? Is having Mary as a model offensive to you?

If so, I will pray for you. Equating St. Paul to the Taliban is pretty offensive to me. St. Paul wrote his letters to specific communities based on specific issues that may not apply to us exactly.

Mary is a model to us all, regardless of our sex! If you don’t see that, you might want to read up on some of the stories of the saints. Heck - I see similarities between what Jesus preached and what Mary lived.

I’ve been toying with the idea of a second tattoo (something I ruled out after the first one). Once I can figure out how to get FIAT designed so it would link back to Mary’s fiat, I plan on getting it done. I would hate to be at the beach and have someone make a comment about getting a tattoo having to do with a car. I’m sure my response would be very unChristian-like.

Now, why don’t we stay on the topic - homosexuality, and not how arrogant Catholics are, and how the ‘old men in Rome’ are just so mean to poor widdle women.

(Ms.) Sheeniac

 

[BlaineTog]

The first one doesn’t work, I agree, but the second, does. And here’s why:

There’s a point you havn’t considered, and that is the fact that homosexuality (in of itself) poses no more risk of harm than one should expect in the normal day-to-day life of a couple. Rampant promiscuity among heterosexuals is just as likely to involve sense.

If it is sin, it is harmful. I assume when you say that, you mean no one is being raped or coerced or abused unduly in at least a temporal fashion, right?

*And then there’s a fourth argument. Romantic relationships, long term unions, partnerships, marriage - whatever you want to call that sort of love between two people - makes gay people happy. I know a number of gay people my age. Most of them are single and have been single for a while. Two have been in a relationship for years and are very happy. Another has been in a three year relationship, followed by a 6 or 7 month period of being single, and now has been in a relationship for a few months. She seems happy - not about the breakup, of course - but is happy living this sort of life. So for many gay people, living as gay people - out of the closet, looking for relationships - make them happy. It brings joy to their lives.

So if a lifestyle poses no great risk of harm to anyone and it makes them happy, is it moral or not? I can’t really think of a situation where something fits those two criteria and *isn’t **okay.

A sociopath sitting off in a field somewhere silently cursing God forever. He’s happy (he has unique brain chemistry) and he’s not harming anyone (God certainly isn’t going to feel threatened by him, and there’s nobody around to hear him). Yet, he does great harm to himself.

Or to take a less extreme example, take an average Joe who thinks that the Catholic Church is the one true church, but defiantly refuses to become Catholic, specifically to spite God. He’s keeping it to himself, and yet he is attempting to damn himself to hell, and laughing his butt off the whole way down.

Or to take an even less extreme example, someone depressed who decides to kill themselves. In this example, let’s say they do it via autoerotic asphyxiation, so they die happy.

My point is happiness, especially temporal happiness, isn’t everything.

*The *real **reason you guys don’t like homosexuality is two fold. It is condemned by scripture and you feel it is unnatural. Regarding the first - having read the Bible and taken a great number of classes on it - I can tell you that the Bible is filled with all sorts of laws and disturbing details. I can’t tell you how you should interpret it, but I could very well argue a number of things that would be supported indeed by scripture - both the old and new testament.

We’re not asking for an exegesis interpretation, but rather an apologetics on how those Bible passages that specifically condemn homosexuality jive with the position that homosexuality is ok for Christians. I mean, trying to interpret the Book of Revelations in such a way that cheese is of the Devil is one thing, but here, the verse at least seems crystal clear. If you want homosexuality to be accepted by Christianity, you have to address those verses adequately. You can’t just say “ignore them,” which is basically what you said right there.

Regarding the whole unnatural business…

(I actually agree with this paragraph, by and large. I just don’t want you to think I’m skipping it willy nilly).

So the only leg the accusation of “unnatural” has to stand on is the Augustinian, philosophical version.

The only one that really makes sense to set it on anyway, IMO.

*I admit that I have a great deal of trouble understanding it. I know it has something to do with the meaning of body parts and other aspects of the world, but I really don’t know. I read the literature on it and it just doesn’t make sense. I think there are many who feel this way too - and because of that, the last leg of “unnatural” will fall away from public consciousness. Only theologians will talk about it, and it will become even more unpursuasive than it already is.

(Frequently I have found that Catholics will claim they think homosexual is unnatural because of the theological understand of “natural” - but when I press them on the issue, I find that they are just as incapable of coming up with an explaination as I am. And I suspect that they really “feel” homosexual is unnatural, and use the theological defination of the word as a cover, without really understanding it.)*

Yeah, this is largely why I don’t like explaining the issue in terms of “natural” vs “unnatural.” Most of the time, those words get used in a hand-wavey sort of way, which robs them of any use they might have otherwise had. Indeed, it glosses over the issue, really. If “Natural” is defined as “the way God wants things to be,” then calling homosexuality “unnatural” really just knocks the debate back a few steps to “Why does God not what homosexual acts to be?” or “What about homosexual acts makes them contrary to God’s will?” In other words, it gets us nowhere.

So, I’m going to try to describe this as well as I can, as I understand it. It’s a tricky, quasi-mystical explanation (though orthodox RCC doctrine, I’m pretty sure), it involves mechanisms which haven’t been fully revealed to us, and it’s more of a single coherent circle than a line of reasoning (which basically means you either understand it in its entirety, or the whole thing seems meaningless), but it seems, to me at least, pretty solid. And I’m gonna warn you right now, this is gonna be pretty long. So long, in fact, that I can’t finish it right now, though I’ve literally been working on it for hours at this point, because I want to get it right. So, until later, au revoir.

 

[pathia]

Again, the priests were doing what they thought was best. They were trying to help your parents put you into a position where you could live a normal life. Obviously, they were wrong. At the same time, if they had counselled nothing at all, I don’t think you would be emotionally scar-free. I believe you would still have had difficulty growing up and dealing with your differences compared to everyone else.

I WAS having a normal life. I was an effeminate child, it wasn’t the end of the world, it’s not like my teachers complained about it. The only concern was from my church and parents. It was only an issue because it was made an issue.

This ‘good catholic doctor’ had therapies such as the following. Effeminate kids(or tomboys for those born girls) had to keep a rubber band around their wrist, and were encouraged to snap it whenever we acted contrary to scripture, also our parents were encouraged to do it for us, because kids are little cheaters and liars. ‘Rough and tumble’ play was encouraged to the point of injury and hospitalization in attempts to ‘butch’ us up. This really didn’t seem to do anything to the other kids there, last time I checked they were still gay in the end, they were just the really over the top masculine stereotype instead of effeminate stereotype, it did nothing to their sexual attractions, just altered their exterior behavior.

Keep in mind this was done to children as young as five. At the time as far as I knew I was normal, I was never told I had an odd birth until I took my medical records after being kicked out. As far as I knew until I was 25, what was wrong with me downstairs was from ‘an accident when you were little’ not from genetic problems. Until I was 25 I just thought I was a person with SSA. See, the doctor encouraged covering up my past and those of anyone else who had similarly odd births. I wasn’t the only patient that likely was intersexed.

The only thing I really learned from those doctors and priests was that appearance is more important than truth, which doesn’t seem very healthy a message to give a six year old. Especially since one of the priests was…problematic in his own actions and he’s part of the recent scandals if I remember correctly. Again, this was like twenty years ago, so names are very blurry…but…it’s such a mess, and as far as my psyche is concerned, directly tied to the church, its actions and inactions.

 

[rlg94086]

I WAS having a normal life. I was an effeminate child, it wasn’t the end of the world, it’s not like my teachers complained about it. The only concern was from my church and parents. It was only an issue because it was made an issue.

This ‘good catholic doctor’ had therapies such as the following. Effeminate kids(or tomboys for those born girls) had to keep a rubber band around their wrist, and were encouraged to snap it whenever we acted contrary to scripture, also our parents were encouraged to do it for us, because kids are little cheaters and liars. ‘Rough and tumble’ play was encouraged to the point of injury and hospitalization in attempts to ‘butch’ us up. This really didn’t seem to do anything to the other kids there, last time I checked they were still gay in the end, they were just the really over the top masculine stereotype instead of effeminate stereotype, it did nothing to their sexual attractions, just altered their exterior behavior.

Keep in mind this was done to children as young as five. At the time as far as I knew I was normal, I was never told I had an odd birth until I took my medical records after being kicked out. As far as I knew until I was 25, what was wrong with me downstairs was from ‘an accident when you were little’ not from genetic problems. Until I was 25 I just thought I was a person with SSA. See, the doctor encouraged covering up my past and those of anyone else who had similarly odd births. I wasn’t the only patient that likely was intersexed.

The only thing I really learned from those doctors and priests was that appearance is more important than truth, which doesn’t seem very healthy a message to give a six year old. Especially since one of the priests was…problematic in his own actions and he’s part of the recent scandals if I remember correctly. Again, this was like twenty years ago, so names are very blurry…but…it’s such a mess, and as far as my psyche is concerned, directly tied to the church, its actions and inactions.

Pathia,

IMHO, until you understand why your parents, priests and doctors did this (I’m 99.9% sure it wasn’t out of malice) and find a way to forgive them, you will never have peace. I’m not a psychologist and I’m not a priest, but you are an adult now. If you are going to spend your life hating the Church and your parents, it can’t be healthy.

I don’t know if a celibate life is what God would expect of someone who is intersexed. I do know and understand what the Church teaches about homosexual acts, and it is logical. If you desire to be close to God, then are going to have to pray, study and form your conscience - just like everyone else. I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[homeloan]

Slow down, please. My girlfriend of over a year and I broke up recently, not because we don’t love each other (we do), but because she’s in a bad place right now and can’t handle being in a relationship. You don’t think the urge to try to get her to put that aside isn’t overwhelming at times? Nevermind that it would probably kill her, at least I’d be happy, or as happy as one can be when the one you love is suffering from horrible depression only made worse because of the positive feedback loop being in a relationship with a perceptive person causes (I notice when she’s sad and that makes me sad, and she gets sadder because she knows she’s making me sad, which makes me sadder, which makes her sadder, and so on ad infinitum).

I was not personalizing my words to you. Not in the least. All of us have urges, and, in the case of your GF, maybe some psychological or relationship issues. So we all, from time-to-time will be frustrated because our urges go unfulfilled… for a time…

But, you can get a new GF, she can get a new BF, and solve certain urges w/o condemnation (well, except from RC’s if you give in to your sexual urges w/o the Sacrament of Marriage…).

A homosexual won’t ever be able to find peace in a monogamous, intimate s/s relationship as a RC,… unless the Church reassesses itself, or a new revelation is uncovered.

And once again, how in the world do you expect the Catholic church to ever even think of accepting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle if you won’t produce reasoned arguments that effectively deal with all scriptural and doctrinal concerns?

I don’t see the RC Church changing (anytime soon). Not as long as the intolerant biblical & tradition of "no intimate s/s partners for R/C homosexuals prevails.

Do you want the Church to hypocritically pretend there’s no sin where it at least looks a heck of a lot like there is?

The Church view its homosexuals who have intimate s/s relationships as guily of mortal sins. No need to confess repeatedly if they don’t vow to stop.

But you question begs another question. Did almighty God really intend such condemnation of homosexuals? Or perhaps could the authors of Holy Scripture maybe made a mistake when they were taking dictation from God? After all, they got it wrong when describing that the “sun rose in the east”, which we know is wrong. The earth rotates…
And of course, female RC’s certainly wear gold jewelry, fancy hair syles, pearls and costly clothing; even at Mass… despite St Paul’s admonition…

 

[Dale_M]

But, you can get a new GF, she can get a new BF, and solve certain urges w/o condemnation (well, except from RC’s if you give in to your sexual urges w/o the Sacrament of Marriage…).

Homeloan, you may find it difficult to believe given the state of Western culture, but fornication is condemned by the Bible in many places. Catholics are not the only Christians which regard it as sinful.

A homosexual won’t ever be able to find peace in a monogamous, intimate s/s relationship as a RC,…

hmmm… some have said they have found that peace. But I agree with you that official Church teaching grants no room for it.

This teaching of the Church places a great burden on individuals. It is a burden which each individual must take up for himself or herself. It is not for us to judge or condemn that person. We can only humbly point out what God expects.

 

[homeloan]

I told myself prior to posting, remember, homeloan is a Catholic searching to deepen his (her?) faith.

Or find logic to the RC faith (see, I’m on topic - I used the word “logic”!)

…So before you start accusing others of being uncharitable (in so many, many words) PLEASE try to understand where we are coming from.

I don’t believe anyone posting the opposite position is necessarily uncharitable. But they find condemnation of what they consider illogical behavior from the Church and Holy Scripture. I see this as intolerant and I don’t believe our Church, nor the Almighty, is intolerant.

The Truth is the Truth, whether you like it, I like it, or the person posting after me likes it. We do each other a disservice if we soften the Truth so much that it no longer resembles itself after we are done explaining things.

Intolerant is certainly not a word that can be softened. :nope:

May I introduce myself as an unmarried poster? When I came Home, I took a LONG time looking at HMC and the Orthodox Church. I’m divorced, and hope not to spend my life alone. I knew an annulment would be the only thing that would allow me to remarry. I knew very little except all of the misunderstandings out there.

You are also a deep thinker and express yourself lucidly and comprehensively. Very smart!

I could only become a Catholic. I realized that I was making a choice that could mean that I could never remarry. And that as I grew in my Christianity, it would mean that I would fully need to resake my worldly ways. (translation = celibacy). What a horrible prospect, but I knew it could be done, so I started the process of coming Home.

Hmmm…

My point is that I personally was in the same boat, albeit with a life jacket that may or may not have worked (so to speak).

Ah, but that life jacket makes all the difference in the world. You can have intimacy because the Church allows and encourages you to. Providing you follow certain rules. But if you’re homosexual, you have no lifejacket. You have a millstone tied around your neck and your encouraged to jump into the sea if you don’t control your urges.

Yeah, life is tough. Choices are hard. Things sometimes really don’t make sense. I have some physical issues that make me feel like I am in between a rock and a hard place, and wonder --really wonder-- how the heck God expects me to follow his Commandments.

I can dig it…

But, the problem is mine, not the Church’s. With God’s help, I will mature out of my sinning ways by becoming more holy, as we are all called to be. But for anyone to give me advice for my specific set of (really really rare) circumstances that is counter to what the Church teaches isn’t love or compassion.

If you only consider one great commandment, “Do unto others…”, and you’re with someone who is adult & consensual, and its only between you two, and by being together, you’ve caused nO harm or hardship on others, where is the sin? You certainly won’t get arrested for whatever it is that you did, consensually.

So stop with the nastiness towards those of us replying with the teachings of HMC.

I am not nasty! But I am not too smart… What does "HMC’ stand for? I’m sure its something so recognizable you will have grounds to call me a dolt. But, that’s better than nasty!

Are you a woman? Do you feel oppressed by the patriarchy of the Church? Do you think that the Church is anti-woman? Is having Mary as a model offensive to you?

I am anonymous I guess that makes my gender, uhhh, anonymous…

If so, I will pray for you. Equating St. Paul to the Taliban is pretty offensive to me. St. Paul wrote his letters to specific communities based on specific issues that may not apply to us exactly.

Sorry. I use hypebole because sometimes, mistakenly, I think it might cover my points when I’m too lazy to dig up cold, hard facts.

Mary is a model to us all, regardless of our sex! If you don’t see that, you might want to read up on some of the stories of the saints. Heck - I see similarities between what Jesus preached and what Mary lived.

Careful; Joseph (St Joseph), we’re told, was older. Mary was 14 (we’re told). Today, Joseph would be arrested for statutory rape, whether he had relations with her or not.

I’ve been toying with the idea of a second tattoo (something I ruled out after the first one). Once I can figure out how to get FIAT designed so it would link back to Mary’s fiat, I plan on getting it done. I would hate to be at the beach and have someone make a comment about getting a tattoo having to do with a car. I’m sure my response would be very unChristian-like.

Speaking of beach, the weather’s warming. Can’t wait to see the new bikini’s… Why not a Jag (car or cat), there’d be no mistaking that…

Now, why don’t we stay on the topic - homosexuality, and not how arrogant Catholics are, and how the ‘old men in Rome’ are just so mean to poor widdle women. (Ms.) Sheeniac

Bless you child And I didn’t say all Catholic’s are arrogant; nor how the old men in Rome are mean to poor widdle women… especially those with sexy tattoos… :

 

[Exalt]

I assume when you say that, you mean no one is being raped or coerced or abused unduly in at least a temporal fashion, right?

Yes.

A sociopath sitting off in a field somewhere silently cursing God forever. He’s happy (he has unique brain chemistry) and he’s not harming anyone (God certainly isn’t going to feel threatened by him, and there’s nobody around to hear him). Yet, he does great harm to himself.

Or to take a less extreme example, take an average Joe who thinks that the Catholic Church is the one true church, but defiantly refuses to become Catholic, specifically to spite God. He’s keeping it to himself, and yet he is attempting to damn himself to hell, and laughing his butt off the whole way down.

Or to take an even less extreme example, someone depressed who decides to kill themselves. In this example, let’s say they do it via autoerotic asphyxiation, so they die happy.

My point is happiness, especially temporal happiness, isn’t everything.

Mmmkay. So that’s all you can come up with? Someone who believes that Christianity is true and hates God anyway, a sociopath who lives alone, and someone with depression who has a asphyxiation fetish?

Wow, talk about extreme examples…

But, you’re right. Happiness isn’t everything. But the happiness of gay people is a part of the picture that can’t be ignored. As I said before, there is a whole picture to be looked at - and must be wieghed.

The way I see it, you could put the issue of the morality of homosexuality on a scale. On one side, you have the arguments for homosexuality, and on the other, you have the arguments against it. I have looked at both: On the side against, you have the whole “natural” issue and the Bible. On the side for, you have the happiness of homosexuals and the harmlessness of their behavior.

Regarding the “It’s Not Okay” side of the scale: You address the natural issue below, so I’ll let it alone for a second. The Bible, however, as we have discussed, is a book that is … unreliable (the nicest word I could come up with) for moral teaching. Everything from divine edicts to murder countless innocent people - to misogyny - to condoning slavery - and countless other examples. I could probably write an encyclopedia or two on the subject. Needless to say, I don’t think the Bible is very reliable.

Regarding the “It’s Okay” side of the scale: Yes, happiness isn’t everything. And yes, harmlessness isn’t everything. But *when combined *that makes a very, very strong argument.

Yeah, this is largely why I don’t like explaining the issue in terms of “natural” vs “unnatural.” Most of the time, those words get used in a hand-wavey sort of way, which robs them of any use they might have otherwise had. Indeed, it glosses over the issue, really. If “Natural” is defined as “the way God wants things to be,” then calling homosexuality “unnatural” really just knocks the debate back a few steps to “Why does God not what homosexual acts to be?” or “What about homosexual acts makes them contrary to God’s will?” In other words, it gets us nowhere.

So, I’m going to try to describe this as well as I can, as I understand it. It’s a tricky, quasi-mystical explanation (though orthodox RCC doctrine, I’m pretty sure), it involves mechanisms which haven’t been fully revealed to us, and it’s more of a single coherent circle than a line of reasoning (which basically means you either understand it in its entirety, or the whole thing seems meaningless), but it seems, to me at least, pretty solid. And I’m gonna warn you right now, this is gonna be pretty long. So long, in fact, that I can’t finish it right now, though I’ve literally been working on it for hours at this point, because I want to get it right. So, until later, au revoir.

.<

How it will possibily break the combined argument of harmlessness and happiness, I have no idea at all. Apparently it takes hours and a great deal of mental ability to understand it.

Happiness and harmlessness versus a highly flawed and unreliable two-thousand-plus year old book and a complex argument that takes hours and hours to put together.

Hmm…

You can see, of course, why so many people are beginning to understand that homosexuality is fine.

 

[mlchance]

Happiness and harmlessness versus a highly flawed and unreliable two-thousand-plus year old book and a complex argument that takes hours and hours to put together.

Hmm…

You can see, of course, why so many people are beginning to understand that homosexuality is fine.

Precisely. The problems are often rooted in fuzzy-headed definitions of “happiness” and “harmlessness” coupled with a wide-ranging ignorance of/prejudice toward Scripture complicated by a great deal of intellectual sloth that refuses to think long and hard about things.

How clever of you to sum up so succintly.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Exalt]

I WAS having a normal life. I was an effeminate child, it wasn’t the end of the world, it’s not like my teachers complained about it. The only concern was from my church and parents. It was only an issue because it was made an issue.

This ‘good catholic doctor’ had therapies such as the following. Effeminate kids(or tomboys for those born girls) had to keep a rubber band around their wrist, and were encouraged to snap it whenever we acted contrary to scripture, also our parents were encouraged to do it for us, because kids are little cheaters and liars.

They still do that! When my parents found out I was gay, I was 14. I wore a rubber band for the next year and a half. Sadly, I believed everything they said. (Being cut off from your friends and being restricted from almost every single privilege I had before for a couple years will break any child’s opinions. They actually have a word for that, in psychology: Identity foreclosure. Ya’ll should look it up sometime.)

My wrists were red from age 14 well through 16. Any impure throught - any beginning of any kind of fantasy involving any kind of romance between me and another boy - immediately resulted in a spike of pain to my wrists. Now when other men try to touch me, I flinch. Gee, I wonder how that happened. Another great idea from Christianity, right? Turning otherwise-normal boys and girls into a conditioning experiment gone horribly wrong is not my idea of “the Love of Jesus”.

 

[Exalt]

Precisely. The problems are often rooted in fuzzy-headed definitions of “happiness” and “harmlessness” coupled with a wide-ranging ignorance of/prejudice toward Scripture complicated by a great deal of intellectual sloth that refuses to think long and hard about things.

How clever of you to sum up so succintly.

– Mark L. Chance.

You could say many things about me, but *ignorance of scripture *is definately *not *one of them. I have a four-year BA degree in Religion and the majority of my classes were 100% Biblical exegesis. I’ve read scripture. I’ve read in between the lines. I’ve analyzed the greek and the hebrew. I’ve looked at the scrolls from Qumran, the earliest copies of the Septuagint, and many other manuscripts. I’ve studied the most prominent Biblical scholars of our age. I’m quite sure the two biblical studies professors will be popping up on the radar very soon. I am *not *ignorant of scripture.

But am I prejudiced towards it? Not at all. I look at it honestly. There is much good in it, sure. There are very beautiful stories. There are very good messages. But there are also very terrible messages. And there are also horrible stories. And there is evil in it as well. Is it a fascinating collection of books from a fascinating culture? Of course. Should it be our guidebook for morality? No. No. No no no no no.

And did you just accuse me of intellectual sloth? Really? Are you kidding? I’ve been on this forum longer than you. I’ve been in the thick of your religion. I’ve seen it up close and personal for many years. I’ve thought about these issues far more than the vast majority of people in the world. I have taken the issue of homosexuality more seriously than any other person I have ever met in my entire life.

An intellectual sloth, I am not.

But it’s cute of you to dismiss me so easily. Good try. But swing - and miss. Three times, too! But I’ll be nice and let you try again. Maybe you’ll say something that *actually *applies to me.