Institutionalizing Sexually Disordered Relationships as Good?

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

I’m not obsessed with any of those

Society needs to stop stereotyping effeminate males as gay, it’s seriously annoying.

It doesn’t say that gays have female brains and that lesbians have male brains, the study suggests that certain parts of the brain are feminine or masculine in them for example the amygdala in gays is extremely similar to a woman’s amygdala.

(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.

snip

lolwut? You are making unwarranted assumptions. Every one is different, stop worrying about being different. You aren’t a freak, we each have our own crosses. Celibacy is superior to marriage, look at it this way since you aren’t focused on getting a wife and children you will more fully be able to devote yourself to God, how does that prevent you from fulfilling your potential?

(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.

snip

Using the phrase “I’m an ex-gay” provokes some people to start frothing at the mouth

snip

You should pick up Alan Bray’s book The Friend if you haven’t already, I think you’d love it considering the topic

 

[joshrp]

I kind of wish I had never posted this thread, and have considered asking the moderators to delete it, because I don’t like any of the things I said here much at all now.

But I want to ask about affection. It is obviously okay to show affection in certain ways to certain people, like hugs or perhaps kisses. But what constitutes sexual affection, or erotic affection? Or perhaps another word is sexual intimacy? What did God create this for? Why did he make us so that we would be sexually attracted to certain people and not other people? Why would someone want to have sexually intimacy with one person and not another person instead? The question is whether the reason we want to have sexual intimacy with a certain person is in line with God’s plan for us. As far as I can tell, God did not create us to have sexual intimacy with someone whom he did not create our body for.

I am trying to figure out and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten me right now. I could babble on about a lot of things, but I am trying to listen to God for what is really important. What is really at issue? I spewed a lot of rhetoric in my original post, but it was really just useless mostly. It didn’t really shed any light on anything. It didn’t really solve anything or help anyone.

This is not something we are going to understand and know how to approach by reading studies and statistics. I’ve personally never had a conversation with someone who identifies themselves as gay or feels gay or thinks they might be gay or bisexual or whatnot about these subjects. I can’t claim that I understand really. But I doubt anyone can claim that they really understand right now, even those who are homosexual or something other than heterosexual. I have a lot of questions about so called intersexual or hermaphrodite people, who I guess have both male and female sexual organs.

The point is that these are real people with real minds and real souls and real hearts and real bodies. Do we know this truly? Today while I was at prayer, the thought came to me “A sin is anything that is done without love.” While this is only the germ of an idea, and needs to be elaborated on, it is a good rule of thumb. We need to educate ourselves in what true love is. Sometimes our arguments are not strategic. Inductive and deductive arguments aren’t always going to be useful. Maybe they are spot on tautologically, but do they really communicate anything to other people?

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

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.

Your wish is my command (concerning this, anyway ).

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

Clear? Really? Lets start with the definition of homosexuality. Homosexuality, according to their definition is the sexual act being played out between members of the same sex…wait, no?? Not members of the same sex, but “between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” (which is a whole 'nother can of worms). How is it that in the same breath, the Church gives a calling to “homosexual persons” to lead a chaste, faithful life? Who are “homosexual persons”? This issue also comes up in the Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. The letter itself towards the end basically says that homosexual persons shouldn’t identify as homosexual, but for the sake of coming up with a name for us, every document that discusses us uses the noun “homosexual persons”. Doctor, my head.

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). **

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Part 2

I am not implying that the Church has 2 separate teachings.

Well, that’s good.

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.

I simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equals. I’m saying that homosexuality is a disordering of our common sexuality. Do you even know what disordered means when the Church uses it? How am I reading parts of the catechism on heterosexuality into homosexuality? I think you’re misunderstanding my thoughts and are therefore talking past me when you make such presumptions.

Are you saying that homosexuality is a gift from God?

No.

I maintain, however, that every human being’s sexuality by virtue of their human nature is a gift from God no matter how defected it may be from the fall (this includes heterosexuals who struggle with sexual disorders, some of which are commonly ascribed to homosexuals almost as a rule (which it isn’t), like promiscuity, immaturity, etc.). What you’re trying to tell me that I’m saying is that I believe that God makes people gay, which I do not maintain nor have I ever stated or even implied. I’m really becoming weary of these straw men you keep presenting.

**

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Part 3

How is it more dangerous? Why?

Because it creates a false chain of logic. Is heterosexuality chalked up to the proclivity to have sex with someone of the opposite gender? No, it isn’t, and this is where you create a false dichotomy: you accept the Church’s teachings on sexual complementarity between members of the opposite sex, which is good because it’s true. When heterosexual complementarity is lived out in the sacrament of marriage, that is a good thing. When it comes to homosexuality, however, our drive for sex is no longer ordered to the end for which it was created by God, that is, to complement our sexual capacity with someone of the opposite sex. That, however is not the only thing affected by same sex attraction. As I said, sexual attraction is triggered by different things, most of which we can’t control. It is, however tied very closely into our aesthetic tastes (which every human, hetero and homosexual possesses with respect to both sexes) and the fulfillment of our need for affection (which every human, hetero and homosexual possesses with respect to both sexes). I have a female friend that I think is pretty and nice to look at. She also has a personality very much like mine so I feel understood by her and I feel that she cares for me. I could very well “fall in love with her” with all the trappings of a typical relationship. The only thing she doesn’t do for me is cause anything to stir down below. With respect to my loins, she’s sizzle and no steak. There are times when I’ve experienced the exact opposite with respect to another female. There are times when I’ve experienced both of these scenarios with members of my own sex. Your failure in logic is that you are reducing the complex construct of sexual orientation to be whether someone wants to boink someone else. It’s dangerous because when you reduce your sexuality to something and then label that something to be bad, you develop an unhealthy and non-objective view of your sexuality and ultimately of yourself. Perhaps you can stand to do that, but I tried and it drove me crazy. The new take I have on my sexuality is very much in line with Church teaching even if it isn’t in line with your scruples.

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?

Let me re-post something that you may have not looked over carefully:

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.

Reducing homosexuality to a sin or a proclivity to sin is incorrect, simply put. It is also incorrect to go too far in the other direction and say that it is some innate, God-given part of me that will always be there. Both what you’re proposing and what you’re convinced that *I’m * proposing are wrong. What I quoted above from a previous post of mine in this thread is what I do propose. Homosexuality is the imperfect condition, not just a symptom or a reaction. If you disagree with my take on this, then do so. Don’t create a straw man, call it my work, and then burn it. It’s disrespectful, it’s tantamount to talking past me, and it doesn’t prove anything that you’re saying.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I kind of wish I had never posted this thread, and have considered asking the moderators to delete it, because I don’t like any of the things I said here much at all now.

I personally don’t think that the moderators should delete this thread. At most, close it, but not delete it. This has borne an excellent discussion. Thank you for posting this. As you said, you can’t understand if you don’t stand up and ask (or even more daunting) say what you think and wait to be challenged so you can learn something.

But I want to ask about affection. It is obviously okay to show affection in certain ways to certain people, like hugs or perhaps kisses. But what constitutes sexual affection, or erotic affection? Or perhaps another word is sexual intimacy? What did God create this for? Why did he make us so that we would be sexually attracted to certain people and not other people? Why would someone want to have sexually intimacy with one person and not another person instead? The question is whether the reason we want to have sexual intimacy with a certain person is in line with God’s plan for us. As far as I can tell, God did not create us to have sexual intimacy with someone whom he did not create our body for.

Are you asking about sexual attraction or sexual intimacy? Sexual intimacy is something that’s rather objective and varies from couple to couple, let alone from heterosexuals and homosexuals. Sexual attraction is something a bit more objective, and it really is what it is. As for your other questions, I invite you to look through the thread and come up with some ideas yourself.

I am trying to figure out and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten me right now. I could babble on about a lot of things, but I am trying to listen to God for what is really important. What is really at issue? I spewed a lot of rhetoric in my original post, but it was really just useless mostly. It didn’t really shed any light on anything. It didn’t really solve anything or help anyone.

This is not something we are going to understand and know how to approach by reading studies and statistics. I’ve personally never had a conversation with someone who identifies themselves as gay or feels gay or thinks they might be gay or bisexual or whatnot about these subjects. I can’t claim that I understand really. But I doubt anyone can claim that they really understand right now, even those who are homosexual or something other than heterosexual. I have a lot of questions about so called intersexual or hermaphrodite people, who I guess have both male and female sexual organs.

I admire your humility. As Catholic Christians in a world where everything is questioned, it’s easy to want to have an answer for everything. It’s a very hard thing to admit when we don’t have an answer. I tend to respond with an answer to a lot of the questions and comments posed because of experience, much thought, and having bounced ideas off of those with whom I agree and with those with whom I disagree on a number of topics. One thing that I can say that I’m not afraid of is being wrong. If I find that what I believe just doesn’t stack up to what I know to be true, I’ll change my thinking. Learning what’s true, however, is a process, and you’re not going to get it by rote. If you continue to search and listen, I believe that God will guide you to what you want to find, which is truth. DISCLAIMER: For those who wish to create straw men of my words, I’m not advocating relativism, I’m simply stating that no one has everything figured out yet. Mother Church herself has not yet been led into all truth. She will, however, if she is to fulfill the words of Christ, her founder, which I believe is the truth.

The point is that these are real people with real minds and real souls and real hearts and real bodies. Do we know this truly? Today while I was at prayer, the thought came to me “A sin is anything that is done without love.” While this is only the germ of an idea, and needs to be elaborated on, it is a good rule of thumb. We need to educate ourselves in what true love is. Sometimes our arguments are not strategic. Inductive and deductive arguments aren’t always going to be useful. Maybe they are spot on tautologically, but do they really communicate anything to other people?

I LOVE this. So spot on. So much “truth” is spoken, but is all of it spoken in love? Is it spoken in concern for the other or is it spoken in haughty disdain for being right and for the other person not being right?

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I should state a correction. (I’m doing this because I can no longer edit my post).

Josh- in reference to my comment on sexual intimacy, where I used the word “objective”, I should have used “subjective”. My thought on sexual attraction was accurate expressed.