Homosexuals Come Home...we miss you....

[djames99]

Interesting, thanks.!

While I was reading your post it reminded me of this site which you may find interesting.

blog.adw.org/2009/11/fraternal-correction-the-forgotten-virtue/

It also covers many of the points I was trying to make on this topic in regards to confusing fraternaI correction with judging.

 

[Seeker1961]

In moral theology, I generally read the old theologians. The ones who wrote in Latin and who dealt with all the complex casus conscientiae. Apart from the rigorists (tutiorists) who in any case were condemned by Rome, Theologians considered fraternal correction to be treated with caution, and taking into account the rank of the person corrected and the rank of the corrector, the situation and the context. The authority of the corrector was considered very important.

A parent could correct a child, a priest a layman, etc. A friend might correct another; but for strangers of equal rank to do so was considered to be done only with great prudence.

I realize that in a modern democratic society these notions are almost incomprehensible; but that’s what I think is wrong with modern society.

You’d be taking away a lot of people’s fun if that was a rule.

I agree with your point. Fraternal correction is a good thing, but in today’s world what a lot of people are calling “fraternal correction” is nothing even close.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hadrianus;9618763:

In moral theology, I generally read the old theologians. The ones who wrote in Latin and who dealt with all the complex casus conscientiae. Apart from the rigorists (tutiorists) who in any case were condemned by Rome, Theologians considered fraternal correction to be treated with caution, and taking into account the rank of the person corrected and the rank of the corrector, the situation and the context. The authority of the corrector was considered very important.

A parent could correct a child, a priest a layman, etc. A friend might correct another; but for strangers of equal rank to do so was considered to be done only with great prudence.

I realize that in a modern democratic society these notions are almost incomprehensible; but that’s what I think is wrong with modern society.

You’d be taking away a lot of people’s fun if that was a rule.

I agree with your point. Fraternal correction is a good thing, but in today’s world what a lot of people are calling “fraternal correction” is nothing even close.

Except, Hadrianus and Seeker, not speaking up when a movement is openly promoting a violation, taking with it Catholic homosexuals, there would not be enough correctors with positions of ‘authority,’ to bring home the point. The Pope and bishops are routinely ridiculed if not undermined. There is an acceptance of their teaching, not blind acceptance, in her faithful citizenship. It is not like the teaching is nebulous or too difficult to understand. The difficulty is that the soil is hard and rocky, made so by habit or indulgence, not receptive, to fraternal correction.

I disagree that posters who cite Catholic teaching on homosexual behaviour are here to have fun when pro-gay arguments are made in this forum, if this is what you are saying, Seeker.

In close and in the spirit of the message of this thread, I repeat that I love my homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not discount or make excuses for heterosexual sins of all sorts, as we are often reminded in discussing this subject. We are a community of sinners, and we should help each other in our respective journeys to heaven.
,

 

[Seeker1961]

Except, Hadrianus and Seeker, not speaking up when a movement is openly promoting a violation, taking with it Catholic homosexuals, there would not be enough correctors with positions of ‘authority,’ to bring home the point. The Pope and bishops are routinely ridiculed if not undermined. There is an acceptance of their teaching, not blind acceptance, in her faithful citizenship. It is not like the teaching is nebulous or too difficult to understand. The difficulty is that the soil is hard and rocky, made so by habit or indulgence, not receptive, to fraternal correction.

I disagree that posters who cite Catholic teaching on homosexual behaviour are here to have fun when pro-gay arguments are made in this forum, if this is what you are saying, Seeker.

In close and in the spirit of the message of this thread, I repeat that I love my homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not discount or make excuses for heterosexual sins of all sorts, as we are often reminded in discussing this subject. We are a community of sinners, and we should help each other in our respective journeys to heaven.
,

I was kidding about the “fun” comment-I know a few people in RL who would have very little to say if their “fraternal correction” was taken from them.

ITA that we are a community of sinners and should support each other. I think as laypeople dealing with one another, when we talk about our own struggles more than we correct others, we’re probably on the right track. I’ve found that while our particular struggle may be different, there are commonalities in our striving to overcome them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I know a few people in RL who would have very little to say if their “fraternal correction” was taken from them.

That’s sad.

ITA that we are a community of sinners and should support each other. I think as laypeople dealing with one another, when we talk about our own struggles more than we correct others, we’re probably on the right track. I’ve found that while our particular struggle may be different, there are commonalities in our striving to overcome them.

I could not possibly agree more with that. In my experience it is actually a far more effective “fraternal correction” to bring to light one’s own failings. I say that from my response as a hearer.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I was kidding about the “fun” comment-I know a few people in RL who would have very little to say if their “fraternal correction” was taken from them.

ITA that we are a community of sinners and should support each other. I think as laypeople dealing with one another, when we talk about our own struggles more than we correct others, we’re probably on the right track. I’ve found that while our particular struggle may be different, there are commonalities in our striving to overcome them.

No quibble from me in what you stated. Let me just mention that many if not most postings with fraternal correction tone are borne from a real concern that the movement to legalize gay ‘marriage’ in all states along with its associated gay ‘rights’ (e.g., parenting and education of children, normalising homosexual behavior) is going full steam, driving the last nail or one of the last nails to the coffin burying the good of traditional marriage and family. The contribution of heterosexuals that embraced contraception and divorce are not being excused, which do not however take away the soundness and truth of Church teachings.
,

 

[Seeker1961]

No quibble from me in what you stated. Let me just mention that many if not most postings with fraternal correction tone are borne from a real concern that the movement to legalize gay ‘marriage’ in all states along with its associated gay ‘rights’ (e.g., parenting and education of children, normalising homosexual behavior) is going full steam, driving the last nail or one of the last nails to the coffin burying the good of traditional marriage and family. The contribution of heterosexuals that embraced contraception and divorce are not being excused, which do not however take away the soundness and truth of Church teachings.
,

No, they don’t-but my position remains that the stronger argument is the total argument. The Catholic position on gay marriage is not just about gay people, but talking to those outside the church would give you that impression. I believe strongly that by presenting the entirety of church teaching on marriage and the theology of the body we would have much more success at converting outsiders to our position. Seeing the whole picture would make it impossible to claim that the church and her members are only trying to attack gay people. Not to mention that by presenting the fullness of the theology we are showing the true treasure of the Church which might very well lead to more people seeing why we all remain committed to it.

 

[LisaA]

No, they don’t-but my position remains that the stronger argument is the total argument. The Catholic position on gay marriage is not just about gay people, but talking to those outside the church would give you that impression. I believe strongly that by presenting the entirety of church teaching on marriage and the theology of the body we would have much more success at converting outsiders to our position. Seeing the whole picture would make it impossible to claim that the church and her members are only trying to attack gay people. Not to mention that by presenting the fullness of the theology we are showing the true treasure of the Church which might very well lead to more people seeing why we all remain committed to it.

Seeker absolutely agree and as a convert, my understanding of Catholic teaching on the subject was woefully lacking. Most people, Catholic or non-Catholic don’t understand the prohibition against ABC, against fornication, (heterosexuals too), and the absolute scientific basis for these teachings of being consistent in our bodies being used as God intended. So while God did not intend homosexual relations, He also did not intend gluttony, excessive alcohol or use of recreational drugs. Unfortunately it seems the homosexual issue, because of the activsts and the media, becomes the flash point. That and “they oppress women” become the charactiture of the Church for the public.

Theology of the Body would be so useful in “sex education” in our schools. It’s so superior to the current focus of a) how to not get pregnant b) if you do get pregnant get an abortion and c) if it feels good do it just clean up afterward. The current focus on hedonism spawns death and destruction of human beings and society.

The Church has so much to offer greater society. But the great gifts are often hidden behind a mask of erroneous public thought.

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, they don’t-but my position remains that the stronger argument is the total argument. The Catholic position on gay marriage is not just about gay people, but talking to those outside the church would give you that impression. I believe strongly that by presenting the entirety of church teaching on marriage and the theology of the body we would have much more success at converting outsiders to our position. Seeing the whole picture would make it impossible to claim that the church and her members are only trying to attack gay people. Not to mention that by presenting the fullness of the theology we are showing the true treasure of the Church which might very well lead to more people seeing why we all remain committed to it.

Agree with this as well.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No, they don’t-but my position remains that the stronger argument is the total argument. The Catholic position on gay marriage is not just about gay people, but talking to those outside the church would give you that impression. I believe strongly that by presenting the entirety of church teaching on marriage and the theology of the body we would have much more success at converting outsiders to our position. Seeing the whole picture would make it impossible to claim that the church and her members are only trying to attack gay people. Not to mention that by presenting the fullness of the theology we are showing the true treasure of the Church which might very well lead to more people seeing why we all remain committed to it.

Seeker absolutely agree and as a convert, my understanding of Catholic teaching on the subject was woefully lacking. Most people, Catholic or non-Catholic don’t understand the prohibition against ABC, against fornication, (heterosexuals too), and the absolute scientific basis for these teachings of being consistent in our bodies being used as God intended. So while God did not intend homosexual relations, He also did not intend gluttony, excessive alcohol or use of recreational drugs. Unfortunately it seems the homosexual issue, because of the activsts and the media, becomes the flash point. That and “they oppress women” become the charactiture of the Church for the public.

Theology of the Body would be so useful in “sex education” in our schools. It’s so superior to the current focus of a) how to not get pregnant b) if you do get pregnant get an abortion and c) if it feels good do it just clean up afterward. The current focus on hedonism spawns death and destruction of human beings and society.

The Church has so much to offer greater society. But the great gifts are often hidden behind a mask of erroneous public thought.

Lisa

I’m a cradle Catholic who went to Catholic schools from kindergarten through undergraduate and my understanding of Church Teaching on this subject was woefully lacking.

My son went to a Marianist high school. They actually taught them this. Had Christopher West in. The kids today are getting much better catechesis than my generation did.

 

[gxensen]

Dude,

I wear sandals and shorts to mass and keep my eyes either up or to the ground…focus on what is necessary…what you did by going to the Eucharist should supersede the earthly mortals looks and glances…they don’t bother me…my mind is elsewhere…

Seems like your parish is seriously lenient on their dress code. The closest Catholic parish, which I can walk to, has a really strict dress code. Men have to wear suits, ties, a dress shirt, dress pants…and that whole deal. Women have to wear long modest skirts, have to wear conservative-dress tops, have to cover their heads with the mantillas…etc. If one doesn’t adhere to the dress code, he or she is not allowed in.

So, I remain “disordered” to Catholics no matter how I live my life. I’d be lying if I said that doesn’t hurt.

I think there is a huge problem with Catholics going around and just saying “You’re disordered” because it’s a loaded claim that is very open to ambiguous interpretation, mostly going negative. I think that one should only tell a person with SSA they commit a “disordered act” under the true context of why that act is “disordered,” which is a much longer process than just saying, “You’re disordered.” Now, I will truthfully say that I am not adequately familiar with the context of going into that, I have just (about a week ago) started deeply learning about Catholicism; but, I know enough to not just demonize people like that.

It leads to people doubting in God, being negative towards themselves, leaving the church, and many other things the devil tempts us to do; and, we must NOT help him take more people away from the grace of God.

This was my point, that the Catholic Church is not likely to get these people back, when they can find other churches which are accepting of them.

I know what you mean. I feel that this relates to the topic of what I call the “War of Evangelisation,” between all the sects of Christianity. And, from what I could tell, when I considered myself agnostic, we (the Catholics) are loosing, here in Colorado; mostly in the non-Latin American and non-Latin communities.

On another note,

I remember one time when I was in my high school’s choir room, waiting for something, I overheard my choir director, whom is a proud Baptist Christian, speaking soflty to someone else about how his parish was holding weekly meetings/classes, mostly for what he called “gays and lesbians,” so they could feel accepted and generally indoctrinated into his church, after a month of attending the meetings…and at the time it made me wonder how many other Protestant parishes do such things, which keep hindering the Catholic Church’s influnce and population, here in Colorado. :crying:

Maybe I could start something like this at my parish…when I become diamond-solid in my love for Jesus Christ, God, The Holy Spirit, and the Catholic church as a whole…

I’m a cradle Catholic who went to Catholic schools from kindergarten through undergraduate and my understanding of Church Teaching on this subject was woefully lacking.

My son went to a Marianist high school. They actually taught them this. Had Christopher West in. The kids today are getting much better catechesis than my generation did.

LOL

I envy both you and your son (darn I just sinned ). Even though I was an agnostic between the years of my early elementary school through graduating from high school, I always had the desire, in my heart, to attend a Catholic school. Sometimes, I consider possibly attending a Catholic affiliated collegiate institution in the future, like Regis University (because it’s nearby), but I just can’t risk being in debt. For some odd reason, God blessed Catholic universities, in the U.S. (as far as I’m aware), with a high price. And, I’m scared of debt, and I want to stay away from it as much as possible, which is why I’m going to work for a couple years, save up, and then jump into college…but, that’s another story.

 

[gxensen]

Seeker1961;9625006:

No, they don’t-but my position remains that the stronger argument is the total argument. The Catholic position on gay marriage is not just about gay people, but talking to those outside the church would give you that impression. I believe strongly that by presenting the entirety of church teaching on marriage and the theology of the body we would have much more success at converting outsiders to our position. Seeing the whole picture would make it impossible to claim that the church and her members are only trying to attack gay people. Not to mention that by presenting the fullness of the theology we are showing the true treasure of the Church which might very well lead to more people seeing why we all remain committed to it.

So, I remain “disordered” to Catholics no matter how I live my life. I’d be lying if I said that doesn’t hurt.

This was my point, that the Catholic Church is not likely to get these people back, when they can find other churches which are accepting of them.

Epan,

You spend most of your time supporting the “gay” agenda. Here you wrongly state that actions define a person. The Church welcomes all, including the likes of you. The actions are disordered not the person Epan. Your actions here are disordered but not you.

The “gay” agenda really annoys me, especially as a closet-libertarian <–of which I’m not proud of].

Anyway, CopticChristian, I would like to sincerely thank you for creating this thread. It seems that Christ truly lives within you.

When I looked towards CAF for insights on my accursedness, I always felt like I gained more insights on the Catholic faith, but more justifications to also heavily criticize myself, further hate myself, and supply my depression with more gasoline. I mean, it wasn’t the prohibitions on people with SSA to not have sex which partially turned me down from Catholicism, in fact even when I was agnostic, I actually lived pretty chastely, most the of the time; feeling really badly when I broke my chastity; and, looking down upon people where unchaste.

It was that my “silly dream” (of me platonically falling in love with another Catholic man, where we would live the rest of our lives in chastity in addition to celibacy, and have a loving third between the two of us, this loving third being God; and never get married out of respect towards to the church’s traditions, obviously) would never come true and is complete falsehood, from what I’ve understood so far.

So far, I’ve come to learn that my “silly dream” during my late child life and teen years is a disgrace, and that I should stray from it…now keep in mind that I am writing this from very generic view on Catholicism because I have just (about a week ago) began studying the faith, since I feel that God’s grace has called me back to his everlasting love and partial mercy, that’s what I seem to understand. I’m still learning. And, if any of you want to criticize me or correct me, PLEASE DO! I enjoy learning from my mistakes, misunderstandings…etc.

So, yeah, that’s at about where I am. An eighteen year old, with SSA, wants to return to his maternal faith but is still kind’f lost, and wants to become a saint, in addition to really not knowing what he wants to do with his future. LOL God blessed me with too many interests and desires to help the world.

And, whenever I think of my “silly dream” to rebuke it, I think of the J.K. Rowling quote, “One must always do what is right, and not what is easy,” and that indirect biblical quote which goes along, something, like, “God has a plan for you which you must honor, not you doing what you want.” So, I’ll keep praying to Him, praying rosaries to the Holy Spirit every night, and praying The Angelus at 6 in the morning and afternoon…until God can help me be happy again.

If you all are wondering, as well, keep in mind that my depression is not just because of my SSA-disorder, it actually has complex roots, which is another story.

Ah, goodnight

May the Lord be with you.

NOTE:

Oh, and if I’m breaking any forum rules with the way I’m quoting, please mention it. I don’t want to be banned.

 

[TimeEntrance]

This thread deserves a .

Funny, I find it a bit patronizing.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Doesn’t the “God loves you” argument only really work with people who already believe in his existence, though?

I thought I wouldn’t nit pick over things like that (e.g., not all gay people are Catholic or even Christian) because I got the basic point of the original post. But yes… I would say you are more likely correct than not.

Personally, I don’t think homosexuals require anymore love than anyone else (heterosexual sodomites, mafiosi, Klansman, robbers, dishonest bankers, adulterers, homicidal maniacs, heterosexual rapists etc.). They are deserving of fair and equal charity that we would extend to any other human being that’s a neighbor or stranger.

If you really respect the full humanity of homosexuals - especially gay males - then portray them in movies and on TV or in your typed posts as heroic Army Rangers saving the lives of one of more heterosexual males and females.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I thought I wouldn’t nit pick over things like that (e.g., not all gay people are Catholic or even Christian) because I got the basic point of the original post. But yes… I would say you are more likely correct than not.

Personally, I don’t think homosexuals require anymore love than anyone else (heterosexual sodomites, mafiosi, Klansman, robbers, dishonest bankers, adulterers, homicidal maniacs, heterosexual rapists etc.). They are deserving of fair and equal charity that we would extend to any other human being that’s a neighbor or stranger.

If you really respect the full humanity of homosexuals - especially gay males - then portray them in movies and on TV or in your typed posts as heroic Army Rangers saving the lives of one of more heterosexual males and females.

The problem with your suggestion is that they do not even view themselves as heroes or doctors, or army men, etc.

They always say “I’m homosexual!” when identifying themselves. Obviously that is not their identity and humans are more than just sexuality. and if they do identify as being a hero for examole, they specify “I’m a Gay hero.” Why is there such a need for specification? They’re either a hero, doctor, lawyer, etc or they are not. After all, they are as equally as human, there’s no need to place “gay” as a prefix in front of anything.

So while I would portray them the way you suggest, they would vehemently disagree and simply state “I’m Gay.”

 

[LisaA]

The problem with your suggestion is that they do not even view themselves as heroes or doctors, or army men, etc.

They always say “I’m homosexual!” when identifying themselves. Obviously that is not their identity and humans are more than just sexuality.

So while I would portray them the way you suggest, they would vehemently disagree and simply state “I’m Gay.”

This has been my question as well. Of all characteristics, one is known by, why on earth would a particular sexual PRACTICE define them?

Homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, whatever…but this is SUCH a minor part of anyone’s life. Why is it so important to be known by your bedroom activities?

I truly do not get it.
Lisa

 

[TimeEntrance]

The problem with your suggestion is that they do not even view themselves as heroes or doctors, or army men, etc.

They always say “I’m homosexual!” when identifying themselves. Obviously that is not their identity and humans are more than just sexuality. and if they do identify as being a hero for examole, they specify “I’m a Gay hero.” Why is there such a need for specification? They’re either a hero, doctor, lawyer, etc or they are not. After all, they are as equally as human, there’s no need to place “gay” as a prefix in front of anything.

So while I would portray them the way you suggest, they would vehemently disagree and simply state “I’m Gay.”

You are speaking about Identity Politics. This has a long history in the U.S.

Anglo-Americans networked among themselves and understood themselves by how they weren’t like the uneducated and impoverished Catholic Irish.

The Irish networked around their Irishness to effectively disproportionately control the political machine of Chicago.

Jews have networked from the earliest days of Hollywood and have controlled it for a long time now.

Eventually American women used Identity Politics to secure the right to vote (the United States did not become a democracy until 1921 when it Federally protected the right of half its population [females] to vote). Black-American grabbed hold of Identity Politics by at least the 1960’s, ran with it, and have never let go.

Homosexuals as an invisible minority have used Identity Politics to improve their lot in America and West.

I’m not totally against Identity Politics. It has its advantages (and draw backs).

Ideally there would be no need for Identity Politics. We would treat everyone with a level of fairness. But unfortunately we humans usually aren’t that benevolent or just.

In South Africa - from my understanding - lesbians draw the most disdain. More than male homosexuals. In places like the United States and Jamaica male homosexuals draw the most disdain and young lesbianism is culturally celebrated.

In Brazil it seems to be less clear cut. Not unusual for Brazil it seems to be a place of contradictions. Young male homosexuals - and transsexuals - seem to be simultaneously disdained while culturally celebrated at the same time. As best impression I can get from an outsider - distantly looking at Brazil through media - lesbianism seems to be less celebrated than young, handsome, well built male homosexuality.

Anyways… in male homosexuals are portrayed as weak and womanish and incapable of fighting. They are not boxers, Spartans (just look at the movie 300), Navy SEAL’s or Army Rangers. They are not Marines or mafiosi or outlaw bikers.

The best charity I think a person can extend to homosexuals is portray them as U.S. Navy SEAL’s, Richard the Lion hearteds’, U.S. boxers, and in the case of the arguably homosexually active Abraham Lincoln, as great U.S. Presidents.

In other words treat them like heterosexuals.

The reason gay people get caught up on their sexual identity is because it is the reason they have been shunned by one or more people, been the objects of jokes and ridiculed, and maybe even physically assaulted.

Just remember… when God needed to send a Catholic army to free the Holy Land he sent a gay man. When he need a U.S. President to end slavery and lead a nation through a bloody Civil War he sent a - likely - bisexual or closeted gay man.

 

[LisaA]

You are speaking about Identity Politics. This has a long history in the U.S.

Anglo-Americans networked among themselves and understood themselves by how they weren’t like the uneducated and impoverished Catholic Irish.

The Irish networked around their Irishness to effectively disproportionately control the political machine of Chicago.

Jews have networked from the earliest days of Hollywood and have controlled it for a long time now.

Eventually American women used Identity Politics to secure the right to vote (the United States did not become a democracy until 1921 when it Federally protected the right of half its population [females] to vote). Black-American grabbed hold of Identity Politics by at least the 1960’s, ran with it, and have never let go.

Homosexuals as an invisible minority have used Identity Politics to improve their lot in America and West.

I’m not totally against Identity Politics. It has its advantages (and draw backs).

Ideally there would be no need for Identity Politics. We would treat everyone with a level of fairness. But unfortunately we humans usually aren’t that benevolent or just.

In South Africa - from my understanding - lesbians draw the most disdain. More than male homosexuals. In places like the United States and Jamaica male homosexuals draw the most disdain and young lesbianism is culturally celebrated.

In Brazil it seems to be less clear cut. Not unusual for Brazil it seems to be a place of contradictions. Young male homosexuals - and transsexuals - seem to be simultaneously disdained while culturally celebrated at the same time. As best impression I can get from an outsider - distantly looking at Brazil through media - lesbianism seems to be less celebrated than young, handsome, well built male homosexuality.

Anyways… in male homosexuals are portrayed as weak and womanish and incapable of fighting. They are not boxers, Spartans (just look at the movie 300), Navy SEAL’s or Army Rangers. They are not Marines or mafiosi or outlaw bikers.

The best charity I think a person can extend to homosexuals is portray them as U.S. Navy SEAL’s, Richard the Lion hearteds’, U.S. boxers, and in the case of the arguably homosexually active Abraham Lincoln, as great U.S. Presidents.

In other words treat them like heterosexuals.

The reason gay people get caught up on their sexual identity is because it is the reason they have been shunned by one or more people, been the objects of jokes and ridiculed, and maybe even physically assaulted.

Just remember… when God needed to send a Catholic army to free the Holy Land he sent a gay man. When he need a U.S. President to end slavery and lead a nation through a bloody Civil War he sent a - likely - bisexual or closeted gay man.

You think Lincoln was gay? Oh PUH LEASE…that is simply ridiculous. Aside from that, how in the world would this matter? Do we know the sexual practices of ANY of our Presidents…well maybe Clinton and Kennedy but for the most part we have no idea about their private lives.

And that is the POINT. One cannot be private about skin color. To claim some kind of equality of bigotry with Jim Crow laws or the KKK is specious at best and insulting to those who died as a result of their skin color, or those who defended them to the death.

Here’s a suggestion…DONT SHARE YOUR PRIVATE LIFE and people will not make it an issue. DADT is a perfectly appropriate way for adults to live. I do not care if the people I meet are into fetishes or bondage or al fresco practices. Neither do I care about what those with SSA do in their bedrooms.

Again what is it about homosexuality that compels its practitioners to first shove it in our faces and then react in high dudgeon when people object to being privy to private activities?

Keep your sex life to yourself and you’ll probably find a lot less objection to it.

Lisa

 

[SuperLuigi]

This has been my question as well. Of all characteristics, one is known by, why on earth would a particular sexual PRACTICE define them?

Homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, whatever…but this is SUCH a minor part of anyone’s life. Why is it so important to be known by your bedroom activities?

I truly do not get it.
Lisa

That is a good point and it doesn’t define a whole person.

But it’s a consequence of the progressive movement dividing Americans into special interest groups for influence and votes.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

You are speaking about Identity Politics. This has a long history in the U.S.

Anglo-Americans networked among themselves and understood themselves by how they weren’t like the uneducated and impoverished Catholic Irish.

The Irish networked around their Irishness to effectively disproportionately control the political machine of Chicago.

Jews have networked from the earliest days of Hollywood and have controlled it for a long time now.

Eventually American women used Identity Politics to secure the right to vote (the United States did not become a democracy until 1921 when it Federally protected the right of half its population [females] to vote). Black-American grabbed hold of Identity Politics by at least the 1960’s, ran with it, and have never let go.

Homosexuals as an invisible minority have used Identity Politics to improve their lot in America and West.

I’m not totally against Identity Politics. It has its advantages (and draw backs).

Ideally there would be no need for Identity Politics. We would treat everyone with a level of fairness. But unfortunately we humans usually aren’t that benevolent or just.

In South Africa - from my understanding - lesbians draw the most disdain. More than male homosexuals. In places like the United States and Jamaica male homosexuals draw the most disdain and young lesbianism is culturally celebrated.

In Brazil it seems to be less clear cut. Not unusual for Brazil it seems to be a place of contradictions. Young male homosexuals - and transsexuals - seem to be simultaneously disdained while culturally celebrated at the same time. As best impression I can get from an outsider - distantly looking at Brazil through media - lesbianism seems to be less celebrated than young, handsome, well built male homosexuality.

Anyways… in male homosexuals are portrayed as weak and womanish and incapable of fighting. They are not boxers, Spartans (just look at the movie 300), Navy SEAL’s or Army Rangers. They are not Marines or mafiosi or outlaw bikers.

The best charity I think a person can extend to homosexuals is portray them as U.S. Navy SEAL’s, Richard the Lion hearteds’, U.S. boxers, and in the case of the arguably homosexually active Abraham Lincoln, as great U.S. Presidents.

In other words treat them like heterosexuals.

The reason gay people get caught up on their sexual identity is because it is the reason they have been shunned by one or more people, been the objects of jokes and ridiculed, and maybe even physically assaulted.

Just remember… when God needed to send a Catholic army to free the Holy Land he sent a gay man. When he need a U.S. President to end slavery and lead a nation through a bloody Civil War he sent a - likely - bisexual or closeted gay man.

TimeEntance,

I agree with you. I would portray them like anyone else. The problem is not with me, it is with them. They disagree. They insist in being portrayed as gay, not as a Navy Seal.

As we know, gays are not always the cliche womanly man. They can be thugs or bodybuilders. In a movie where the hero is a Navy Seal, how do you knowhes not gay? How do you know he’s straight? Do they ever say, “Oh this great heroic Navy Seal! He’s straight and heroic!” He could very well be gay? Any of the Spartans could be gay?