I am an out gay man. Ask me anything.

[lynx]

Let’s find out! I am an openly gay man. Ask me anything.

Questions :3

1. Do you plan on raising children?
2. How do you plan on leaving a lasting impression on others in your lifetime?
3. Would you say in your society (oh man TX) is generally accepting or not accepting of your decision to express your homosexuality?
4. Did any part of Q3 affect your decision to be “out”?
5. If you had to rate your mental “fortitude”, 10 being nirvana and 1 being nervous wreck, where would you place yourself?
6. How would you characterize your body type?
7. At what age did you come to realize you were gay?
8. How many SSA people do you know?
9. What is something you are much better than most people at?
10. What is something you are worst than most people at?
11. Why are you choose Exalt as your handle on CAF and what are your goals in staying at CAF?

Sorry if these have been asked and answered. Maybe more Qs to follow.

 

[Edward_H]

Question: Why does it seem gay people decide that their identity derives from their sexual preference?

A heterosexual person will choose a dozen or so other attributes before offering their sexual preference as a key identifier.

Why is that?

For instance, if someone asked me who I was I might offer the following list.

I am child of God
I am a Catholic
I am a man
I am a husband
I am a father
I am an American
I am of Irish descent
I am an engineer
I am a Marine
I am a veteran
I am a combat veteran
I am a college graduate
I am from NC
I am white
I am a runner
I am a catechist
I am a heterosexual.

Why is this, that’s a fair and legitimate and charitable question.

 

[OrangeOwl]

Are you going to keep this up all night, so that anyone who steps away from the thread to do something silly like go to sleep for the night will be hopelessly behind in the morning?

I stepped away for a couple of hours, and I’m already behind. Love this thread!

Exalt, I suppose I’ll play along and ask you a question myself (and sorry if you’ve already answered this one – it’s hard to keep track on here).

How do you feel about those who choose to ignore their SSA and live a life of chastity within the Catholic Church?

Do you think that it is foolish, or even harmful?

And do you think that your opinion on this matter is in line with the majority of homosexuals?

 

[meltzerboy]

Question: Why does it seem gay people decide that their identity derives from their sexual preference?

A heterosexual person will choose a dozen or so other attributes before offering their sexual preference as a key identifier.

Why is that?

For instance, if someone asked me who I was I might offer the following list.

I am child of God
I am a Catholic
I am a man
I am a husband
I am a father
I am an American
I am of Irish descent
I am an engineer
I am a Marine
I am a veteran
I am a combat veteran
I am a college graduate
I am from NC
I am white
I am a runner
I am a catechist
I am a heterosexual.

Why is this, that’s a fair and legitimate and charitable question.

I’m not Exalt, but I think I can answer that question, as it applies not only to gay people. I believe ANYONE who is part of a group or who himself has been traditionally oppressed or discriminated against by society comes to think of the particular attribute that is the cause of their oppression as the main feature of their identity. So that, for example, a black person in the US who has been the victim of prejudice thinks of his being black as the main part of his identity. Or a Jew, as part of a religious group who has been oppressed for centuries, may think of himself mainly in terms of this identity. And so on. I don’t think it’s so much the individual’s choice to identify himself that way, but rather society that imposes that identification on him. Heterosexuals can list their sexual orientation last because that is rarely, if ever, an attribute that engenders prejudice and discrimination. Having said all that, it may be the OP does NOT identify himself primarily as a gay person, after all!

 

[Edward_H]

I’m not Exalt, but I think I can answer that question, as it applies not only to gay people. I believe ANYONE who is part of a group or who himself has been traditionally oppressed or discriminated against by society comes to think of the particular attribute that is the cause of their oppression as the main feature of their identity. So that, for example, a black person in the US who has been the victim of prejudice thinks of his being black as the main part of his identity. Or a Jew, as part of a religious group who has been oppressed for centuries, may think of himself mainly in terms of this identity. And so on. I don’t think it’s so much the individual’s choice to identify himself that way, but rather society that imposes that identification on him. Having said all that, it may be the OP does NOT identify himself primarily as a gay person, after all!

Maybe so…and then there’s the chicken and egg problem…that our society, our media, our forms, our census, our newspaper headlines, our TV shows, the running civil conversation, a college campus indoctrination course, and forums like this…tend to reinforce these discriminated categories sort of only deepens our categories, training our brains how to think about ourselves.

It’s self-reinforcing.

 

[meltzerboy]

Exalt, given your rather young age, do you think perhaps you might change your views about Catholicism in the future after further study and reasoning, since you say you’re continuously reading about religion?

 

[Elizabeth502]

So that, for example, a black person in the US who has been the victim of prejudice thinks of his being black as the main part of his identity. Or a Jew, as part of a religious group who has been oppressed for centuries, may think of himself mainly in terms of this identity. And so on. I don’t think it’s so much the individual’s choice to identify himself that way, but rather society that imposes that identification on him. Having said all that, it may be the OP does NOT identify himself primarily as a gay person, after all!

These so-called equivalencies (racial and religious identities, with sexual “identity”) have been argued before on CAF, meltzerboy. They really are qualitatively different. This was also covered in a post by JREducation about a year ago. A heterosexual does not identify the central component of his identity as being heterosexual. And while you may say, 'That’s because he or she is not an “oppressed minority”, merely the fact that he or she is conscious of so-called ‘minority status’ as ‘central’ to his or her identity does show an elevated consciousness of sexuality, period. That in itself reflects imbalanced priorities – i.e., sexuality for one, minority status as another. When one becomes overly conscious of any minority status, one is prevented from a certain degree of freedom, right there. Thoughts and actions then tend to spring from that consciousness, defensively and self-consciously.

And I would judge such imbalance to be present also in any person of a religious minority or a racial minority who seemed incapable of relating on common terms within a majority population, despite whatever ‘history of oppression’ such a person could legitimately relate to.

And I have met such people (in both kinds of minority populations). Such people do not live healthy, open lives, but rather operate with a kind of ‘siege mentality’ when no siege is occurring.

(P.S. You’re not one of them! )

 

[meltzerboy]

These so-called equivalencies (racial and religious identities, with sexual “identity”) have been argued before on CAF, meltzerboy. They really are qualitatively different. This was also covered in a post by JREducation about a year ago. A heterosexual does not identify the central component of his identity as being heterosexual. And while you may say, 'That’s because he or she is not an “oppressed minority”, merely the fact that he or she is conscious of so-called ‘minority status’ as ‘central’ to his or her identity does show an elevated consciousness of sexuality, period. That in itself reflects imbalanced priorities – i.e., sexuality for one, minority status as another. When one becomes overly conscious of any minority status, one is prevented from a certain degree of freedom, right there. Thoughts and actions then tend to spring from that consciousness, defensively and self-consciously.

And I would judge such imbalance to be present also in any person of a religious minority or a racial minority who seemed incapable of relating on common terms within a majority population, despite whatever ‘history of oppression’ such a person could legitimately relate to.

And I have met such people (in both kinds of minority populations). Such people do not live healthy, open lives, but rather operate with a kind of ‘siege mentality’ when no siege is occurring.

(P.S. You’re not one of them! )

Thanks, Elizabeth, for your last statement! I wasn’t sure, for a moment, where you were going. No, I’m definitely NOT saying it is healthy, only that this is possibly the reason why minorities of all sorts define themselves in this way. I don’t quite understand why a sexual minority would be so different from others.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I stepped away for a couple of hours, and I’m already behind. Love this thread!

Exalt, I suppose I’ll play along and ask you a question myself (and sorry if you’ve already answered this one – it’s hard to keep track on here).

How do you feel about those who choose to ignore their SSA and live a life of chastity within the Catholic Church?

Do you think that it is foolish, or even harmful?

And do you think that your opinion on this matter is in line with the majority of homosexuals?

One important distinction. One cannot ignore SSA anymore than one can ignore normal sexual attractions. One can only survive SSA and hope that God is merciful and loving (as one so accursed, I can’t see Him that way…I only see the stern judge telling me that I’m not good enough and never will be).

 

[Windfish]

Thanks, Elizabeth, for your last statement! I wasn’t sure, for a moment, where you were going. No, I’m definitely NOT saying it is healthy, only that this is possibly the reason why minorities of all sorts define themselves in this way. I don’t quite understand why a sexual minority would be so different from others.

Ethnic groups share a common self-understanding - including cultural and historical roots that shape their identity and world views. It truly makes sense that ethnicity is an important category or group. With that in mind, it does not make too much sense, imo, for one’s attraction to the same-sex to be comparable to ethnicity. To me, it seems pathological and seriously neurotic to take one’s sexual preferences and raise them to that level.

 

[Br.Carlo]

God’s peace. Joining this thread rather late, I am a PhD biologist. Exalt, you said:

“Evolution by natural selection seems to be the way all life came to it’s present state, humans included.”

Really? Can you explain how natural selection could produce homosexuality, since by its very nature it removes you from the gene pool? The ONLY thing natural selection favors is differential reproduction. It has no grand visions of “saving the planet from human overpopulation” or any other such nonsense that I have heard advanced by gay advocates as an excuse for their behavior. What IS obvious is the way that male and female bodies and psychologies are exquisitely fitted to one another, in fact MADE for one another.

You cannot use evolution as a prop for your perversion of human sexual function and relationship. What you have is a presupposition that has produced a faith, not a scientifically-based conclusion. Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Are you going to keep this up all night, so that anyone who steps away from the thread to do something silly like go to sleep for the night will be hopelessly behind in the morning?

That’s what she said.

I just couldn’t resist.

 

[cathoichelp]

Homosexuals have to identify as homosexuals because they are fighting for what they believe are their own civil rights … since you can not look at someone and say yep homosexual -
there becomes more of a need to express it …

It also makes sense when you look at anyone oppressed at any time … But you can look at someone and see they are a women or an African American -

I don’t think a homosexual finds their sexuality to be their most defining trait -
But when you are talking about gay rights people are going to identify as gay and stand up for themselves…
This does not mean they think their entire person-hood revolves around their sexuality.

 

[meltzerboy]

Ethnic groups share a common self-understanding - including cultural and historical roots that shape their identity and world views. It truly makes sense that ethnicity is an important category or group. With that in mind, it does not make too much sense, imo, for one’s attraction to the same-sex to be comparable to ethnicity. To me, it seems pathological and seriously neurotic to take one’s sexual preferences and raise them to that level.

Well, there is (or are) gay subcultures in society. The same with youth subcultures, women’s groups, etc. Maybe these divisions are less unified than ethnic groups, which have a longer history, but I think they exist nonetheless. Again, I feel it is not really the individuals who have raised their sexual preferences to the level of a culture, but the societies in which they live that have almost “forced” them to do so due to discrimination.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m not Exalt, but I think I can answer that question, as it applies not only to gay people. I believe ANYONE who is part of a group or who himself has been traditionally oppressed or discriminated against by society comes to think of the particular attribute that is the cause of their oppression as the main feature of their identity. So that, for example, a black person in the US who has been the victim of prejudice thinks of his being black as the main part of his identity. Or a Jew, as part of a religious group who has been oppressed for centuries, may think of himself mainly in terms of this identity. And so on. I don’t think it’s so much the individual’s choice to identify himself that way, but rather society that imposes that identification on him. Heterosexuals can list their sexual orientation last because that is rarely, if ever, an attribute that engenders prejudice and discrimination. Having said all that, it may be the OP does NOT identify himself primarily as a gay person, after all!

If one’s sexual orientation or one’s skin color becomes the primary identity, rather than something way more functional and relevant, such as being an American, or a husband, or a Catholic, it is not necessarily because of any outright oppression. We live in a land of liberty in America. We are so free that we can choose just about any way of life as long as it’s not overtly criminal. The selling of oppression (by the media, educational institutions, political parties) means that members of a group identify themselves as forever VICTIMS. Then the victims can be told that they need help in order to raise themselves up from the oppression they are under. When in reality, in 2011 America, there really is no oppression at all.

Think about it. In other countries homosexuals are simply killed. Ahmadinejad said in his country, there are no homosexuals, and he meant it. If someone dared to “come out” as being a gay man, he would simply be executed. There is no more slavery (it still exists in Africa however), and in fact, a mixed-race man is now our President. Women can do anything they like in our society and get paid handsomely. What oppression?

 

[meltzerboy]

Homosexuals have to identify as homosexuals because they are fighting for what they believe are their own civil rights … since you can not look at someone and say yep homosexual -
there becomes more of a need to express it …

It also makes sense when you look at anyone oppressed at any time … But you can look at someone and see they are a women or an African American -

I don’t think a homosexual finds their sexuality to be their most defining trait -
But when you are talking about gay rights people are going to identify as gay and stand up for themselves…
This does not mean they think their entire person-hood revolves around their sexuality.

Good points and you may be right. I think healthier gay people probably are able to define themselves more broadly, but, as you say, when the issue is one of gay rights, more gay people, who may otherwise be invisible, will identify themselves.

 

[Waiting]

Can you see how that strikes me as condescending?

If we must descend into metaphor, I imagine this discussion like this: Me and people like me have been living over in one town, and y’all have been living in another town, and we’re coming together to have a calm, friendly chat.

Sorry if I gave you a wrong idea of what I was saying. Actually, I meant exactly what I said – no more, no less. I really think that under the outer layer of your “I don’t believe personality,” that you do believe deeply in God and need to feel His love. Hence the deep interest in religion. Truthfully, that’s nothing to be ashamed of. We were all born to be with God, and as St. Augustine says, “Our hearts are restless 'til they rest in Thee.”

 

[meltzerboy]

If one’s sexual orientation or one’s skin color becomes the primary identity, rather than something way more functional and relevant, such as being an American, or a husband, or a Catholic, it is not necessarily because of any outright oppression. We live in a land of liberty in America. We are so free that we can choose just about any way of life as long as it’s not overtly criminal. The selling of oppression (by the media, educational institutions, political parties) means that members of a group identify themselves as forever VICTIMS. Then the victims can be told that they need help in order to raise themselves up from the oppression they are under. When in reality, in 2011 America, there really is no oppression at all.

Think about it. In other countries homosexuals are simply killed. Ahmadinejad said in his country, there are no homosexuals, and he meant it. If someone dared to “come out” as being a gay man, he would simply be executed. There is no more slavery (it still exists in Africa however), and in fact, a mixed-race man is now our President. Women can do anything they like in our society and get paid handsomely. What oppression?

I don’t agree that there is no discrimination in America. I do agree with you that there is less than in the past and that other countries have more. But to say that discrimination against gay people, women, Blacks, Jews, etc. is COMPLETELY a thing of the past is not true. Not even in liberal academia.

I would also like to apologize for hijacking this thread from Exalt!

 

[EmLo]

Hello,

Have you read John Paul II’s teachings on the theology of the body? I think that might explain a lot about the Catholic view on the body, marriage, etc., and it may help you to see things in a different light. I would recommend Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. He does a really good job of explaining theology of the body, and it is a quick and interesting read!

I think the main point to think about here is not a list of do’s and don’ts, but rather an understanding of God’s love for us and what He is calling us to do (love Him and love one another). Sacramental marriage allows us to participate (in a limited sense) in the Divine love of the Trinity - what a gift! Christopher West explains this in much more detail in Theology of the Body for Beginners.

I think when you see the beauty of marriage the way God designed it - to be something that is completely self-giving AND life-giving - you may begin to see how our own attempts to mess with that are misguided and ultimately lead us away from true love. Another example that parallels homosexual acts is the use of contraception between heterosexual couples (even in marriage). In both cases, the sexual act is closed to the possibility of life. Furthermore, there is not a total gift of self (i.e. the fertility is not given).

I’m praying for you! God bless!

 

[Exalt]

You began this thread by saying “Ask me anything”. If people ask you to justify what you are doing and why you are doing it, your not going to defend yourself? If you do, you have a debate. If you don’t then you are merely using the CAF facility to post your own views.

Which is it?

Hey John, I really appreciate your comments and thoughts. I purposefully glossed over the specific reasons why I rejected the arguments against homosexuality because I’m not interested in debating at this time. It’s a little beyond the scope of this thread, and I don’t want to make it seem like I’m engaging in apologetics.

Hopefully it’ll be enough to say that I thoroughly have extensively considered the Catholic arguments against homosexuality for a long time, and came to the conclusion that they were unreasonable.

If you’d like to make a different thread and invite to debate with you there, I’d totally consider it.