Institutionalizing Sexually Disordered Relationships as Good?

[Nate13]

The only difference is that the alcoholic has to make himself an alcoholic. I didn’t choose my attractions. We are not going to get into a discussion as to whether being attracted to the same sex is a choice because you would have to be pretty out of touch to even propose such a thing in the year 2011.

If an alcoholic never had an experience with alcohol then your right, that person would never even no the choice existed even if he was predisposed to do that. With regards to homosexuality however a person is going to meet people of the same sex and has no chance to steer away from situations that would make those feelings of attraction come up. The only difference your really specifying here though is that homosexuality is worse than alcoholism because you have no chance to pull yourself away from situations that could cause the condition to manifest itself. While I could possibly choose to stay away from alcohol for life, it would be almost impossible to stay away from people of the same sex. All this shows though is that homosexuality is much harder to handle as opposed to alcoholism.

I don’t understand why it matters. Even if homosexuality is a choice, unless it is empirically harmful, (i.e. there exists more evidence than religious people simply asserting that it is) I see no reason for the government not to extend the same protection to committed gay couples as to committed heterosexual couples.

Actually it does matter quite a bit. Polygamy is a choice as well. Polygamy is illegal because it is easily seen to be damaging to society. There are almost equal populations of males and females and if marriages start having one male with five females, that presents obvious problems. However polygamy would have a minimal affect on society if it only involved a small part of the population.

What homosexuality has going for it is the fact that supposedly it is not a choice to any degree. If it is a choice then that all of sudden begs the question as to how many homosexual couples could the future hold? If 10% of the male population was homosexual that would create problems for 10% of the female population unless 10% of that population was also homosexual. There is no way to regulate to make sure the same amount of each population is homosexual and would therefore be a potential problem for society. There is also the problem that homosexual relationships up to this point are far from stable in general. You could blame this on the government not recognizing it and discrimination, but I would point to the polygamist couples that make their situation work. Polygamy in general probably has a more proven track record of working and being stable than homosexual relationships do.

If homosexuality is a choice it should be handled exactly as polygamy is now. The government makes it illegal, but it does not stop it from happening. There are people who practice polygamy in the United States, however only one of the wives is the “official” wife. The others are wives in all respects except legal recognition. Homosexuality would exist exactly as it does now.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I still maintain:

1. I did not imply nor do I believe that homosexuality is (necessarily) present at birth. I can’t imagine a case in which it would be, so I will say that it just doesn’t happen.
2. Alcoholism doesn’t exist in anyone before the consumption of alcohol because alcoholism is a chemical dependency on alcohol. Even if one has merely a drink while having the genetic predisposition to becoming an alcoholic, it, by no means, determines that they will become an alcoholic. Sure, genetically influenced predisposition to a proclivity to drink can manifest itself before someone consumes alcohol. I’ll admit that. It doesn’t prove alcoholism, however. This segues into…
3. The difference I was trying to explain is that homosexuality, since it is more than merely the proclivity to have (or even want) sex with someone of the same gender, and it manifests itself earlier than sexual desires do, it does, in fact, exist independent of any action the homosexual himself takes. I didn’t have to perform a sexual act with myself or anyone else in order to have a predominant aesthetic and affectionate attraction to other guys, even before my pituitary gland went into business and started giving me feelings below the gut whenever I saw a cute guy. In order for someone to be an alcoholic, they need to first develop a chemical dependency. There are plenty of guys that have certain “gay” qualities (creative, good dressers, sensitive, artsy, gentle, etc.) and they’re not gay. They probably had a pretty darn good shot at developing attractions for the same sex because of these qualities, but for whatever reason, they didn’t. The same way someone with a predisposition to like drinking doesn’t become an alcoholic. The only difference is that the alcoholic has to make himself an alcoholic. I didn’t choose my attractions. We are not going to get into a discussion as to whether being attracted to the same sex is a choice because you would have to be pretty out of touch to even propose such a thing in the year 2011.

snip

1. The mental circuitry that controls attraction is laid down in the womb, the sexual component is turned on so to speak during puberty. The sexual differentiation of the brain and body occur at different times thus allowing one to be feminine in one aspect, but not the other.
2. The proclivity is to drink to excess not just to drink
3. Those qualities that you just named are all feminine and are the result of certain parts of the brain functioning in a more feminine way.

I don’t understand why it matters. Even if homosexuality is a choice, unless it is empirically harmful, (i.e. there exists more evidence than religious people simply asserting that it is) I see no reason for the government not to extend the same protection to committed gay couples as to committed heterosexual couples.

The government can’t restrict private individuals’ actions for no reason. Speed limits and drunk driving laws reduce fatalities in car accidents, voting rules ensure fair elections, building codes ensure that builders don’t make unsafe buildings. What would be the basis for a law banning gay marriage? Sure, people argue about “traditional definitions” but the reality is that there exist religions today that are willing to marry gay people. For the government to outlaw gay marriage, it would violate the establishment clause because denominations that wished to marry gays would not be allowed “the free exercise thereof.” Making gay marriage legal does not violate the establishment clause because Catholics are still free to not recognize gay marriages, in much the same way that they don’t recognize civil divorce. The only way, therefore, for the government to ban gay marriage is to find conclusive evidence that gay marriage is harmful.

Except of course the purpose of a marriage has been to facilitate raising children advantages such as paternity leave, tax breaks etc.are designed to assist that (especially the tax breaks, they really only exist if there is a substantial disparity in incomes such as one is a stay at home parent).

If an alcoholic never had an experience with alcohol then your right, that person would never even no the choice existed even if he was predisposed to do that. With regards to homosexuality however a person is going to meet people of the same sex and has no chance to steer away from situations that would make those feelings of attraction come up. The only difference your really specifying here though is that homosexuality is worse than alcoholism because you have no chance to pull yourself away from situations that could cause the condition to manifest itself. While I could possibly choose to stay away from alcohol for life, it would be almost impossible to stay away from people of the same sex. All this shows though is that homosexuality is much harder to handle as opposed to alcoholism.

snip.

except of course the problem with homosexuality is the engaging in sex, if one has never been exposed to the concept of sex with someone of the same sex then how could one develop such a thing if it isn’t innate?

Homosexuals aren’t attracted to everyone of the same sex just as heterosexuals aren’t attracted to everyone of the opposite sex.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

**(1)If an alcoholic never had an experience with alcohol then you’**re right, that person would never even know the choice existed even if he was predisposed to do that. **(2)With regards to homosexuality however a person is going to meet people of the same sex and has no chance to steer away from situations that would make those feelings of attraction come up. The only difference you’**re really specifying here though is that homosexuality is worse than alcoholism because you have no chance to pull yourself away from situations that could cause the condition to manifest itself. While I could possibly choose to stay away from alcohol for life, it would be almost impossible to stay away from people of the same sex. All this shows though is that homosexuality is much harder to handle as opposed to alcoholism.

(1) The choice to do what? The choice to take a drink and seal his fate for the rest of his life (which I don’t believe is the case at all) or the choice to drink to excess and become an alcoholic? You didn’t really specify which one, so instead of merely presuming you meant something you didn’t and building an argument, I’m asking for clarification.

(2)Wow. You can lead a horse to water…

You hit the nail on the head quite well. The problem is that the nail didn’t go all the way through the board.

Yes, it’s true. One cannot simply avoid homosexuality if the ingredients are just right for it to happen. It. just. happens. We don’t even know why it does yet. On the other hand, we DO know why people BECOME alcoholics despite not knowing why some people are more predisposed to becoming alcoholics. What you just said shows that homosexuality is 1. even more of a mystery than alcoholism because there are two facets that we’re not sure of as opposed to merely one in alcoholism and 2. that homosexuality is not worse than alcoholism, but, as I have been trying to bring home for the past couple of days now (whew!), point blank, it’s just not the same. Your own argument defeated itself. Are we done now?

1. The mental circuitry that controls attraction is laid down in the womb, the sexual component is turned on so to speak during puberty. **(1)The sexual differentiation of the brain and body occur at different times thus allowing one to be feminine in one aspect, but not the other.
   **
2. The proclivity is to drink to excess not just to drink

3)** Those qualities that you just named are all feminine and are the result of certain parts of the brain functioning in a more feminine way.**

(1) Feminine? Define feminine.

(2) Wow. Just…wow. First you just toss around the word “feminine” without any real meaning behind it and then you toss it around again, though this time in a sexist manner. Are you trying to say that it’s not masculine to be creative? A good dresser? Sensitive? Artsy? Gentle? Etc.?

1. First off, throughout history (particularly western history), the greatest minds tended to be male. The greatness of their intellect relied on a great deal of creativity. Even the people whose minds we don’t often associate with lofty cognition were extremely creative in the way that they subdued the earth and created a prototype for just about all that we use and know now, and most of those minds happened to be male. How is creativity feminine?
2. Men of aristocracy, royalty, etc. throughout the ages used clothing to show their station and their role in society. Even today, the suit makes a statement that no other article of male clothing makes. There are tons of different ways that creative men (while maintaining a fair amount of masculinity) dress well. How is dressing well feminine?
3. Just about every iota of male aggression comes from male sensitivity. Men want respect, they’re territorial and protective, and no good man will ever stand for molestation (the archaic sense, you guys). Even when a man has a cool, controlled exterior, deep down, he is bothered when he or something/someone he loves is threatened. How is sensitivity feminine?
4. There is no amount of masculinity that can ever completely assuage the proclivity in men of high standard to be cultured and learned in the ways of artist endeavor. Would you mind explaining to me how ‘artsiness’ can at all be inherently feminine?
5. Do you have children? Do you know a man who does? Have you ever seen him with his child(ren) at a time when he wants to show love? Tenderness? How can a man’s heart not melt when his child looks up at him and smiles? He’s their role model. He’s their protector. He’s their provider. He’s their #1 fan. Any good father shows this by not only showing his children the right way to live, which can at times include discipline, but by showing them love through his gentleness. Can you explain how the h-e-double hockey sticks gentleness is feminine? IT’S A FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT for crying out loud. Are you seriously going to tell me that men are not inherently wired to be gentle?

sigh

What I’ve demonstrated is that while you think of masculinity and femininity in terms of strict adjectives, I think of masculinity and femininity in terms of how adjectives (which can apply to just about every human being) are typically expressed in different ways between men and women. There’s nothing inherently masculine or feminine about any of the things I originally mentioned in my post.

 

[Nita]

As Catholics, it is correct to judge homosexual acts as objectively wrong, but it is not correct to judge the people themselves and to assume that they commit subjective sins. I think it is particularly unkind to consider them to be psychotic, as suggested.

I agree with what Dakota says: Have you ever considered that they might not realize it is wrong, that they might think they are expressing love?

…"

They also deserve to be made aware of the truth – the truth that Scripture teaches and the truth that the Catholic Church teaches. Whether they will accept those truths, accept that homosexual activity is not an expression of love for the other person, is up to them. Handing on the truth to others is to show love for them.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

snip

(1) Feminine? Define feminine.

(2) Wow. Just…wow. First you just toss around the word “feminine” without any real meaning behind it and then you toss it around again, though this time in a sexist manner. Are you trying to say that it’s not masculine to be creative? A good dresser? Sensitive? Artsy? Gentle? Etc.?

1. First off, throughout history (particularly western history), the greatest minds tended to be male. The greatness of their intellect relied on a great deal of creativity. Even the people whose minds we don’t often associate with lofty cognition were extremely creative in the way that they subdued the earth and created a prototype for just about all that we use and know now, and most of those minds happened to be male. How is creativity feminine?
2. Men of aristocracy, royalty, etc. throughout the ages used clothing to show their station and their role in society. Even today, the suit makes a statement that no other article of male clothing makes. There are tons of different ways that creative men (while maintaining a fair amount of masculinity) dress well. How is dressing well feminine?
3. Just about every iota of male aggression comes from male sensitivity. Men want respect, they’re territorial and protective, and no good man will ever stand for molestation (the archaic sense, you guys). Even when a man has a cool, controlled exterior, deep down, he is bothered when he or something/someone he loves is threatened. How is sensitivity feminine?
4. There is no amount of masculinity that can ever completely assuage the proclivity in men of high standard to be cultured and learned in the ways of artist endeavor. Would you mind explaining to me how ‘artsiness’ can at all be inherently feminine?
5. Do you have children? Do you know a man who does? Have you ever seen him with his child(ren) at a time when he wants to show love? Tenderness? How can a man’s heart not melt when his child looks up at him and smiles? He’s their role model. He’s their protector. He’s their provider. He’s their #1 fan. Any good father shows this by not only showing his children the right way to live, which can at times include discipline, but by showing them love through his gentleness. Can you explain how the h-e-double hockey sticks gentleness is feminine? IT’S A FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT for crying out loud. Are you seriously going to tell me that men are not inherently wired to be gentle?

sigh

What I’ve demonstrated is that while you think of masculinity and femininity in terms of strict adjectives, I think of masculinity and femininity in terms of how adjectives (which can apply to just about every human being) are typically expressed in different ways between men and women. There’s nothing inherently masculine or feminine about any of the things I originally mentioned in my post.

1. Feminine; adjective; 1. pertaining to a woman or girl: feminine beauty; feminine dress. 2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness. 3. effeminate; womanish: a man with a feminine walk. 4. belonging to the female sex; female: feminine staff members.

Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.
…
Until now, the brain regions that scientists have come to believe play a role in sexual orientation have been related to either reproduction or sexuality. The Swedish study, however, is the first to find differences in parts of the brain not normally involved in reproduction — the denser network of nerve connections, for example, was found in the amygdala, known as the emotional center of the brain. “The big question has always been, if the brains of gay men are different, or feminized, as earlier research suggests,” says Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics at University of California Los Angeles, “then is it just limited to sexual preference or are there other regions that are gender atypical in gay males? For the first time, in this study it looks like there are regions of the brain not directly involved in sexuality that seem to be feminized in gay males.”

Vilain, who studies the genetic factors behind sexuality and sexual orientation, notes that it may turn out that the brains of gay men possess only some ‘feminized’ structures, while retaining some masculine ones, and this is reflected in how they act on their sexuality.
source

a) we are talking about two different kinds of creative, you’re talking about the engineering and mechanical creativity whereas I’m not.

b) And a lot of good dressing men were guided in their decisions by other people

c) male sensitivity and female sensitivity are two fairly different things.

d) Academia and the arts don’t exactly make men or masculine…

e) no. yes. That is partially the result of the fact that raising children makes testosterone levels in men drop like a rock

please note, I have used masculinity and femininity according to the American definitions which are inherently anti-intellectual by them viewing academia is inherently effeminate.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Except of course the purpose of a marriage has been to facilitate raising children advantages such as paternity leave, tax breaks etc.are designed to assist that (especially the tax breaks, they really only exist if there is a substantial disparity in incomes such as one is a stay at home parent).

The government has other ways of facilitating child rearing, most notably the ability to claim a child as a dependent. Most monetary benefits of marriage are unrelated to child rearing, for example married couples may file jointly, can give each other property tax free and are treated as next of kin for inheritance purposes. The tax breaks that are related to rearing children come in the form of larger deductions in some cases.

Paternity leave is determined by companies, not the US government; we are one of only 4 countries with no law mandating parental leave. The FMLA does grant some employees medical leave for spouses, but it does not cover all companies.

Besides, the government offers all the same benefits to infertile married couples, but I have heard very little complaint about that.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

1. Feminine; adjective; 1. pertaining to a woman or girl: feminine beauty; feminine dress. 2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness. 3. effeminate; womanish: a man with a feminine walk. 4. belonging to the female sex; female: feminine staff members.

It would help to know which dictionary you’re quoting from. It would clarify the tradition of which we’re speaking that ascribes sensitivity or gentleness inherently to women. coughwestern(particularlyVictorianEnglish)biascough

a) we are talking about two different kinds of creative, you’re talking about the engineering and mechanical creativity whereas I’m not.

Am I talking only about a certain type of creativity? Have gay men always had a monopoly on all things artistic or is this just want many are wont to believe?

b) And a lot of -]good/-] well dressing men were guided in their decisions by other people

Evidence? A lot of rugged dressing men were guided in their decisions by other people as well. Culture doesn’t exist universally apart from influences of particular environment and subjective thought.

c) male sensitivity and female sensitivity are two fairly different things.

I think I made that clear. What you purported is that sensitivity is feminine. Are you changing your tune?

d) Academia and the arts don’t exactly make men or masculine…

And they don’t make them feminine either. They just make men smarter, and there’s nothing feminine about that, considering how quick men with sexist proclivities are to talk your ear off about why men are somehow smarter than women.

e) no. yes. That is partially the result of the fact that raising children makes testosterone levels in men drop like a rock

Does it make estrogen levels rise? Does science tell us that the level of testosterone is always proportional to the level of estrogen in any given human being? All that could possibly prove (if anything) is that raising children makes me less masculine, not necessarily more feminine (as if masculinity and femininity were quantifiable entities based primarily on hormone levels).

please note, I have used masculinity and femininity according to the American definitions which are inherently anti-intellectual by them viewing academia is inherently effeminate.

Duly noted.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.
…
Until now, the brain regions that scientists have come to believe play a role in sexual orientation have been related to either reproduction or sexuality. The Swedish study, however, is the first to find differences in parts of the brain not normally involved in reproduction — the denser network of nerve connections, for example, was found in the amygdala, known as the emotional center of the brain. “The big question has always been, if the brains of gay men are different, or feminized, as earlier research suggests,” says Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics at University of California Los Angeles, “then is it just limited to sexual preference or are there other regions that are gender atypical in gay males? For the first time, in this study it looks like there are regions of the brain not directly involved in sexuality that seem to be feminized in gay males.”

Vilain, who studies the genetic factors behind sexuality and sexual orientation, notes that it may turn out that the brains of gay men possess only some ‘feminized’ structures, while retaining some masculine ones, and this is reflected in how they act on their sexuality.
source

Okay. Very interesting. Say, does the study have anything to say about gay men who you would never even know were gay because absolutely nothing about them is “feminized”? There are plenty of gay men who aren’t obsessed with 1. personal appearance 2. hygiene 3. fashion 4. arts or anything else you would like to label as inherently feminine. Would you be willing to bet that their brains are symmetrical like a woman’s as well? What about straight men who are constantly mistaken for gay men? Would you be willing to bet that their brains are asymmetrical simply because they’re straight? These are just a couple important questions that this study doesn’t answer. The study is also inconclusive on the concepts of masculinity vs. femininity. It’s just basically saying gay men have female brains and gay women have male brains. A lot of hype for a simple discovery if you ask me.

 

[Nate13]

Okay. Very interesting. Say, does the study have anything to say about gay men who you would never even know were gay because absolutely nothing about them is “feminized”? There are plenty of gay men who aren’t obsessed with 1. personal appearance 2. hygiene 3. fashion 4. arts or anything else you would like to label as inherently feminine. Would you be willing to bet that their brains are symmetrical like a woman’s as well? What about straight men who are constantly mistaken for gay men? Would you be willing to bet that their brains are asymmetrical simply because they’re straight? These are just a couple important questions that this study doesn’t answer. The study is also inconclusive on the concepts of masculinity vs. femininity. It’s just basically saying gay men have female brains and gay women have male brains. A lot of hype for a simple discovery if you ask me.

The problem is how do you know the way the brain developed was inherent and genetic, and had nothing to do with how that person developed? You would need to do scans on younger kids to be able to get that point across.

 

[michelleds]

What continues to elude me is why these threads keep coming down to these “causation” debates? the Church says that the genesis is largely unknown. Science says there’s no “gay gene”. Social science says it’s some sort of mish-mash of genetics, hormones, early childhood experiences and environment. Some theologians would say that it’s in part due to demonic influences.

From a Catholic perspective, does it matter? I hold that it does not. Now, on a personal level, I can certainly understand and empathize with the desire to figure oneself out–where did this come from? Why do I have these feelings? That’s natural and human to quest for self-knowledge.

But from a spiritual, Christ-centered point of view, the genesis does not matter. What is important is our response to the temptation. Our response, in my humble opinion, should not be to embrace the temptation and make it an identity or to be proud of the identity or to feel an affinity with and indignation for others who are embracing the temptation and making it a lifestyle choice.

Our response should be to live with humble, prayerful dignity, seeking the Grace of God and holiness. the answer to the question, “how do you identify?” should be “as a child of God”.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

**(1)What continues to elude me is why these threads keep coming down to these “causation” debates? the Church says that the genesis is largely unknown. Science says there’s no “gay gene”. Social science says it’s some sort of mish-mash of genetics, hormones, early childhood experiences and environment. Some theologians would say that it’s in part due to demonic influences.

From a Catholic perspective, does it matter? I hold that it does not. Now, on a personal level, I can certainly understand and empathize with the desire to figure oneself out–where did this come from? Why do I have these feelings? That’s natural and human to quest for self-knowledge.**

But from a spiritual, Christ-centered point of view, the genesis does not matter. (2)What is important is our response to the temptation. Our response, in my humble opinion, should not be to embrace the temptation and make it an identity or to be proud of the identity or to feel an affinity with and indignation for others who are embracing the temptation and making it a lifestyle choice.

Our response should be to live with humble, prayerful dignity, seeking the Grace of God and holiness. the answer to the question, “how do you identify?” should be “as a child of God”.

(1) Your answer is as good as mine. It seems as though those who wish to get into deep discussions on causation of homosexuality want to “prove” something, almost the effect that homosexuality causes you to be messed-up, broken, deficient, feminine (or masculine) when you shouldn’t be, etc. It’s basically an attempt to point the finger and say “See how much of a freak of nature you are? How do you live with yourself?”. While I’ve managed to so far keep my cool and not get overly emotional about this, deep down, it is disturbing how so much focus is put on this as a sin or a sickness or something that somehow keeps me from fulfilling my whole potential as a human being (which I don’t think it does).

(2) On one level, I have to agree. We are all called to be children of God and to see ourselves (and each other) the way God sees us. On another, I have to disagree. First off, homosexuality is not reduced to mere temptation, as I’ve said before. Sexuality (no matter how flawed or defective) is something every human being possesses and encapsulates every interaction with another human being that we will ever have as men and women between other men and other women. Many heterosexuals don’t see sexuality in such an all-encompassing way because to them, sexuality is pretty much reduced to that which involves or includes sex, which is not what the Church teaches about sexuality. While sexuality is only a component of who we are, there is nothing inherently wrong with embracing a sub-identity or sub-concept of one’s self with respect to how they experience sexuality between their family, friends, acquaintances, etc.

I’ll use this to illustrate. Say I have cancer (mind you, while cancer is a disease, I’m in no way equating it to homosexuality, which is not). While this cancer is, in reality, a lump of defective cells growing in my body, how I experience that reality is “Oh my gosh, I’m sick. I’m going to have to endure pain, fatigue, hair-loss, stress and worries from symptoms and treatments and side-effects of said treatments. I may even die”. That’s how I’m experiencing said reality, even though it’s only part of my full reality as a human being. I am a cancer patient. Does that mean I’m reducing my identity to the nature of an illness? No, I’m embracing something that makes me different from any other care-free (relatively speaking), healthy, normal human being. Even if I beat the illness and come out cancer free, from that moment on, I’m a cancer survivor. Why do I identify with someone that doesn’t even exist in me anymore? Because the experience of coming out on top in a battle with a deadly illness has changed my experience of life, that has changed me and made me into a person I simply would not be had I not had cancer in the first place. The same goes for homosexuality. I’m someone that I would not be had I just developed heterosexual attractions.

The question of identity goes much farther than some are taking it. I understand that you want to humanize the matter, but from a personal perspective, it just isn’t helpful to make distinctions like the one you’re making because it detracts from the life experience that I’m having that most people simply can’t understand.

 

[michelleds]

(2) On one level, I have to agree. We are all called to be children of God and to see ourselves (and each other) the way God sees us. On another, I have to disagree. First off, homosexuality is not reduced to mere temptation, as I’ve said before. Sexuality (no matter how flawed or defective) is something every human being possesses and encapsulates every interaction with another human being that we will ever have as men and women between other men and other women. Many heterosexuals don’t see sexuality in such an all-encompassing way because to them, sexuality is pretty much reduced to that which involves or includes sex, which is not what the Church teaches about sexuality. While sexuality is only a component of who we are, there is nothing inherently wrong with embracing a sub-identity or sub-concept of one’s self with respect to how they experience sexuality between their family, friends, acquaintances, etc.

I’ll use this to illustrate. Say I have cancer (mind you, while cancer is a disease, I’m in no way equating it to homosexuality, which is not). While this cancer is, in reality, a lump of defective cells growing in my body, how I experience that reality is “Oh my gosh, I’m sick. I’m going to have to endure pain, fatigue, hair-loss, stress and worries from symptoms and treatments and side-effects of said treatments. I may even die”. That’s how I’m experiencing said reality, even though it’s only part of my full reality as a human being. I am a cancer patient. Does that mean I’m reducing my identity to the nature of an illness? No, I’m embracing something that makes me different from any other care-free (relatively speaking), healthy, normal human being. Even if I beat the illness and come out cancer free, from that moment on, I’m a cancer survivor. Why do I identify with someone that doesn’t even exist in me anymore? Because the experience of coming out on top in a battle with a deadly illness has changed my experience of life, that has changed me and made me into a person I simply would not be had I not had cancer in the first place. The same goes for homosexuality. I’m someone that I would not be had I just developed heterosexual attractions.

The question of identity goes much farther than some are taking it. I understand that you want to humanize the matter, but from a personal perspective, it just isn’t helpful to make distinctions like the one you’re making because it detracts from the life experience that I’m having that most people simply can’t understand.

This might prove to be a very fruitful discussion between you and I. I hope that it will be helpful and illuminating for both of us as well as any lurkers.

So that the cards are all on the table for the ensuing discussion, I am a 43 year old woman who lived as an open active lesbian from the age of 18 to 41. I converted to Catholicism and embraced the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I have been chaste since making that decision. If a conversation occurs in which my former identify comes up or I’m having a conversation with someone about a gay brother, for instance, I say that “I used to be gay”. To me, this is an important distinction in the language. Now, mind you, I was also a raging feminist, very active politically (marching, writing op-eds, writing articles, LGBT speaker’s bureaus, etc etc) and I have an English degree and a law degree–language is very important to my life and the way I think.

I do not personally care for the term “ex-gay” primarily because of the baggage that term carries. using that term is almost like using a “fighting word”, guaranteed to rile someone right into irrationality.

Now as to the part of your post where you said:

Sexuality (no matter how flawed or defective) is something every human being possesses and encapsulates every interaction with another human being that we will ever have as men and women between other men and other women. Many heterosexuals don’t see sexuality in such an all-encompassing way because to them, sexuality is pretty much reduced to that which involves or includes sex, which is not what the Church teaches about sexuality

I have seen this argument more frequently here on CAF and I’ve given it some thought. Here’s my theory: The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality is solely concerned with ordered sexuality (heterosexuality) and not disordered sexuality (homosexuality). Once one steps outside of the ordered sexuality milieu, one cannot then claim the teachings.

I do not believe that disordered sexuality encapsulates every interaction with other human beings. Ordered sexuality, yes; but not disordered. Unless one is embracing the disordered identity and allowing it to permeate one’s existence, then yes, it will color every interaction.

homosexuality is not reduced to mere temptation

this is dangerous thinking, my friend. you are allowing the homosexuality messages to get into your head and psyche you out. yes, homosexuality is a temptation. a strong one, absolutely. powerful, seductive and enticing–but still a temptation. fornication is a temptation, not an identity. adultery is a temptation, not an identity. masturbation is a temptation, not an identity. trying to make homosexuality to be more than a temptation is giving in to the idea that homosexual persons or persons suffering homosexual feelings/attractions are somehow uber special and unique.

In Christ,
michelle

 

[Nate13]

(1) Your answer is as good as mine. It seems as though those who wish to get into deep discussions on causation of homosexuality want to “prove” something, almost the effect that homosexuality causes you to be messed-up, broken, deficient, feminine (or masculine) when you shouldn’t be, etc. It’s basically an attempt to point the finger and say “See how much of a freak of nature you are? How do you live with yourself?”. While I’ve managed to so far keep my cool and not get overly emotional about this, deep down, it is disturbing how so much focus is put on this as a sin or a sickness or something that somehow keeps me from fulfilling my whole potential as a human being (which I don’t think it does).

I have a problem with it when people favorable to the homosexual cause defend same-sex sexual actions based on the belief that their attraction is unchangeable. If it is unchangeable because its an inherent trait they have no control over and homosexual actions are not damaging to themselves or others, then it would be wrong to criticize them. I completely agree that same-sex attraction does in no way prevent a person from fulfillingly their whole potential as a human being though. If I said anything that would make you think I meant otherwise I am sorry.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(1)I converted to Catholicism and embraced the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.(2)If a conversation occurs in which my former identify comes up or I’m having a conversation with someone about a gay brother, for instance, I say that “I used to be gay”.

I do not personally care for the term “ex-gay” primarily because of the baggage that term carries. using that term is almost like using a “fighting word”, guaranteed to rile someone right into irrationality.

(3)I have seen this argument more frequently here on CAF and I’ve given it some thought. Here’s my theory: The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality is solely concerned with ordered sexuality (heterosexuality) and not disordered sexuality (homosexuality). Once one steps outside of the ordered sexuality milieu, one cannot then claim the teachings.

(4)I do not believe that disordered sexuality encapsulates every interaction with other human beings. Ordered sexuality, yes; but not disordered. Unless one is embracing the disordered identity and allowing it to permeate one’s existence, then yes, it will color every interaction.

(5)this is dangerous thinking, my friend. you are allowing the homosexuality messages to get into your head and psyche you out. yes, homosexuality is a temptation. a strong one, absolutely. powerful, seductive and enticing–but still a temptation. fornication is a temptation, not an identity. adultery is a temptation, not an identity. masturbation is a temptation, not an identity. trying to make homosexuality to be more than a temptation is giving in to the idea that homosexual persons or persons suffering homosexual feelings/attractions are somehow uber special and unique.

For brevity (too many characters) I’m dividing the post in two. I also omitted the text to which I did not respond, which is still visible in the original post by michelleds.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(1) I consider this to be a slight malapropism. If we’re speaking technically, the Church has no teaching per se on homosexuality. The only way to view anything the Church officially says about homosexuality is in light of the Church’s overall teaching on human sexuality. If I were to say the same thing (which, interestingly enough, applies to me as well), I would take the “homo” out of the word and simply say “sexuality”, since, as you have probably heard before, the Church holds us to the same virtue of chastity in terms of how we live with our sexuality.

(2) I understand that you have your own philosophy on the matter of word usage and I’m merely asking for clarification. How do you view the two highlighted things as being different? I’ll use this as an example (purely for the sake of argument): If I marry a woman and then we get a divorce, I am her ex-husband or I can say “I used to be married” (not really, but for the sake of argument, I’ll say yes). Let’s flip over to real life. I am attracted to the same sex. Generally, people call other people who are attracted to the same sex “gay”. Despite your use of the word (referring to actively living a lifestyle that can philosophically and practically be construed as gay), this is what most people think. It carries baggage. Let’s say I undergo some miracle reorientation therapy and I no long have attractions to the same sex. I can either say I’m an “ex-gay” or “I used to be gay”. Now, I understand that you have different meaning when you use the word gay that doesn’t apply to the concept most people have and therefore, this whole analogy seems a bit obsolete. It doesn’t seem that way to me, though, because the meaning you’re trying to convey by the word “gay” (regardless if it’s philosophically or theologically correct, which I don’t think it is since the Church doesn’t even officially adopt the word “gay” as part of her vocabulary) is immediately lost on someone when you say “I used to be gay”. Isn’t that just about synonymous with saying “I’m an ex-gay” and therefore “almost like using a “fighting word”, guaranteed to rile someone right into irrationality”? I’m unclear on what the difference between those two is.

(3) This is…well, simply not true. As I said before, the Church has one overall teaching or set of teachings on human sexuality, which you can find if you look in the Catechism. To infer that the Church has a teaching on heterosexuality and a teaching on homosexuality is to infer that the Church has two separate standards for heterosexuals and homosexuals, which she does not, and just about any Catholic will tell you this, so I’m curious as to why you think this way. It’s far more common for non-Catholics, even anti-Catholics to believe that the Church holds different standards for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

It turns out that there will be a three part post.

(4) As you have probably guessed, I maintain that every human being is given the gift of human sexuality with respect to their nature as a male or a female human being, made in the image and likeness of God. However that sexuality is defected by the fall and concupiscence doesn’t make it a different kind of sexuality, and it’s no less a gift from God. The trial is that we have to learn to live as children of God with a common gift that deviates from the norm. God gives us different means with which to do this: grace (sanctifying and actual), sacraments (or super grace), and family/friends (“it is not good that man should be alone”), with special emphasis on friends. Marriage is a theological, cultural, and practical necessity. Friendship, however, is what we all were created for. (Getting off topic, but I really feel the need to say this now), friendship is generally thrown to the wayside in terms of its theological, philosophical, and practical significance. It’s the deepest, most risking, yet trusting action one can make towards another person. Just because one isn’t having some mystical, feel-good experience in bed with their mate as married couples do, however, friendship is seen as sort of the next best thing. There have been marriages that were broken up, the cause of which were disagreements between spouses over, well…friends. You just don’t leave your friends. Your friends will be there for you because they want to. For those who truly believe in the life-long commitment of marriage, you can go through the motions all you want and still remain married, even if so reluctantly, but the true, life-giving, mutual exchange of profound friendship will not last if both/all parties aren’t putting their cards on the table. Anyway, this is a nice segue, because sexuality impacts friendship in a powerful way that I don’t think may think about. Why do we have the friends we do? We do for different reasons. Let’s begin with the most shallow (I think): aesthetics. We tend not to want to hang around someone we think is not physically appealing, and if we do feel like hanging around people we aren’t aesthetically drawn to, it’s probably because of another reason: affection. We like being around people who like us, care about us, and make us feel good. That’s just natural. Now, sexual orientation is a complex construct that involves different facets that relate and overlap. When we look at sexual orientation and abstract its components (there may be more as more thought is put into this idea of the construct), we find typically these four: aesthetic, affectionate, romantic, and sexual. Romantic attraction doesn’t necessarily equal sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is typically innate and can be triggered in ways that we don’t even understand (ie. fetishes, pornography, etc.). Romantic attraction is very much a joining and an addition to the first two (one may be romantically attracted to someone that doesn’t resemble their taste in a friend). Human sexuality encapsulates all of these facets of human the interactive experience. I’m not saying that these ideas are sanctioned by any theological body in the Church and I’m not saying that everyone has to agree, but I will say that to me (and to others with whom I’ve discussed this topic), it makes much more sense than oversimplifying the whole thing.

(5) By now I feel as if I’m belaboring the point, but I will say this: it’s far more dangerous to reduce homosexuality to a proclivity to have sex with the same gender. I also think the sword cuts both ways in terms of messages getting to one’s head. I don’t really know what you’re talking about when you say that homosexuality messages getting to my head. Messages from the media? Messages from people I know? Messages from everywhere? How are they getting to me? What are these messages, exactly? What are they telling me? That my sexuality, though tainted in some ways (much like the sexuality of just about everyone I know, to be honest, just not in the same way) is still a gift and that it shouldn’t be a source of shame or disgust for me? Also, how is it that you believe that embracing the fact that my sexuality is imperfect because of the fall and concupiscence in some way is buying into the idea that I am better or more special than someone else (which it doesn’t; on the contrary, it makes me even more equal with everyone because it’s admitting that this condition in me is a mere imperfection or flaw due to a fallen world that only a small percentage of people experience, not a knee-jerk desire that most people experience, like say, wanting to masturbate, fornicate, or cheat on their spouse), yet at the same time, you are, by your own logic, asserting that the Church has two separate theological standards for heterosexuals and homosexuals when it comes to their sexuality (which you’re just not going to find anywhere), and that an “ordered identity” is perhaps okay to have (“Hi. My name is Bob and I am a heterosexual.”), but a disordered identity is a no-no? Your own thinking suggests that homosexuals are “uber special and unique”.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I have a problem with it when people favorable to the homosexual cause defend same-sex sexual actions based on the belief that their attraction is unchangeable. If it is unchangeable because its an inherent trait they have no control over and homosexual actions are not damaging to themselves or others, then it would be wrong to criticize them. I completely agree that same-sex attraction does in no way prevent a person from fulfillingly their whole potential as a human being though. If I said anything that would make you think I meant otherwise I am sorry.

First off, apology graciously accepted.

Second, I have not disclosed any thought that I have espoused on the nature of reorientation and its possibility. I didn’t think it was relevant to the discussion so I never touched on it.

Third, I guess I should reiterate (really, once and for all) that I am a faithful Catholic who subscribes to the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Science and philosophy aside (which is what we’re really discussing here, not theology), I do adhere to her.

 

[michelleds]

Part 1.

first off, Corpus Christi, please start using the quote post button in the traditional fashion! LOL I spent a lot of time fixing this so that people can continue to track.

michelleds:

(1)I converted to Catholicism and embraced the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

Corpus Cristi:

(1) I consider this to be a slight malapropism. If we’re speaking technically, the Church has no teaching per se on homosexuality. The only way to view anything the Church officially says about homosexuality is in light of the Church’s overall teaching on human sexuality. If I were to say the same thing (which, interestingly enough, applies to me as well), I would take the “homo” out of the word and simply say “sexuality”, since, as you have probably heard before, the Church holds us to the same virtue of chastity in terms of how we live with our sexuality.

I believe that the Catechism is blatantly clear in stating the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, to-wit:

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

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

michelleds:

(2)If a conversation occurs in which my former identify comes up or I’m having a conversation with someone about a gay brother, for instance, I say that “I used to be gay”.

I do not personally care for the term “ex-gay” primarily because of the baggage that term carries. using that term is almost like using a “fighting word”, guaranteed to rile someone right into irrationality.

Corpus Cristi:

(2) I understand that you have your own philosophy on the matter of word usage and I’m merely asking for clarification. How do you view the two highlighted things as being different?

I don’t view them as stating a different essence, I view them as two ways to say the same thing. I’m not sure what exactly you were getting at with my usage of the term “gay” but I will here state explicitly that I use “gay” and “homosexual” interchangeably. If I only mean the temptation or the attraction, I will append that word (same sex attraction, homosexual temptation, and so forth). **

 

[michelleds]

Part 2

michelleds:

(3)I have seen this argument more frequently here on CAF and I’ve given it some thought. Here’s my theory: The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality is solely concerned with ordered sexuality (heterosexuality) and not disordered sexuality (homosexuality). Once one steps outside of the ordered sexuality milieu, one cannot then claim the teachings.

Corpus Cristi:

(3) This is…well, simply not true. As I said before, the Church has one overall teaching or set of teachings on human sexuality, which you can find if you look in the Catechism. To infer that the Church has a teaching on heterosexuality and a teaching on homosexuality is to infer that the Church has two separate standards for heterosexuals and homosexuals, which she does not, and just about any Catholic will tell you this, so I’m curious as to why you think this way. It’s far more common for non-Catholics, even anti-Catholics to believe that the Church holds different standards for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I am not implying that the Church has 2 separate teachings. I’m stating that the Church has one teaching on sexuality which includes what I’ve quoted from the CCC above. And when you start reading the parts about heterosexuality and complementarity and applying it to homosexual temptations, you are in error. Homosexuality is not all-encompassing (your word) any more than any other temptation or inclination to sin.

michelleds:

(4)I do not believe that disordered sexuality encapsulates every interaction with other human beings. Ordered sexuality, yes; but not disordered. Unless one is embracing the disordered identity and allowing it to permeate one’s existence, then yes, it will color every interaction.

Corpus Cristi:

(4) As you have probably guessed, I maintain that every human being is given the gift of human sexuality with respect to their nature as a male or a female human being, made in the image and likeness of God. However that sexuality is defected by the fall and concupiscence doesn’t make it a different kind of sexuality, and it’s no less a gift from God. [snip]

Are you saying that homosexuality is a gift from God?

**

 

[michelleds]

Part 3

michelleds:

(5)this is dangerous thinking, my friend. you are allowing the homosexuality messages to get into your head and psyche you out. yes, homosexuality is a temptation. a strong one, absolutely. powerful, seductive and enticing–but still a temptation. fornication is a temptation, not an identity. adultery is a temptation, not an identity. masturbation is a temptation, not an identity. trying to make homosexuality to be more than a temptation is giving in to the idea that homosexual persons or persons suffering homosexual feelings/attractions are somehow uber special and unique.

Corpus Cristi’s posts heavily snipped in order for me to reply:
Corpus Cristi:

(5) By now I feel as if I’m belaboring the point, but I will say this: it’s far more dangerous to reduce homosexuality to a proclivity to have sex with the same gender.

How is it more dangerous? Why?
Corpus Cristi:

That my sexuality, though tainted in some ways . . . is still a gift and that it shouldn’t be a source of shame or disgust for me

You will perhaps answer this in my post above, but if not, you are saying that homosexuality is a gift?
Corpus Cristi:

Also, how is it that you believe that embracing the fact that my sexuality is imperfect because of the fall and concupiscence in some way is buying into the idea that I am better or more special than someone else

Your statement that caused me to respond as I did above was “homosexuality is not reduced to a mere temptation”. So unlike all other sins, homosexuality is somehow different? It encompasses your innate being-ness, it is part of your core, part of who you are as a person? Isn’t that what you’re saying?