Is homosexuality just emptiness?

[Rau]

Here is the tension.

On the one hand, we have a received (traditional) understanding of sexuality maintained by the Christian tradition. This tradition, testified by scriptural passages and interpretations by the living church, says that God made man for woman and woman for man, so as to complement each other sexually and in others ways, as well as to bring forth children and so form a unit around these children. Okay.

But on the other hand, there exist real people with real same-sex attraction. Sometimes this attraction is so deep, so part of one’s personality, that it can truly be regarded as an “orientation.” People who have same-sex attraction or identify as gay will tell you that being homosexual defines or affects how one relates to people. How one behaves and acts. It’s not only about being tempted to perform certain sexual acts, which do appear to be outside “nature” in the sense of traditional Christian understanding of sex-for-procreation. Sometimes, sadly, it takes being gay (having SSA) to understand what this truly feels like. It’s irritating when people – often users of CAF – limit the discussion to gay sex. It’s unfortunate.

True, our desires don’t legitimize the ends or acts that we, in fact, desire. But the key here, if we as Christians are to make any progress in truly dialoguing with and caring for one another, is to understand how gay people experience what it means to “be gay.” I’m not talking about a cultural classification or political movement. I’m talking about deep feelings and inclinations. The desire to not be alone, the desire to have family, to form intimate relationships. The way the personality is truly different because one is gay/SSA. Everyone knows that sometimes there is a certain “something” about a gay person’s personality. It’s more than a temptation to a sexual act.

All of this is to say that the gay person does not simply “close ones ears and eyes to nature” (as you say). Traditional teaching and even observation may show sex is for procreation and that man-woman complement each other in a physical way. But the tension remains, for the gay person is also paying attention to their own selves. They are “listening” to their innermost wants and needs. That is why there is such a struggle to begin with. How they experience themselves simply does not mesh with how the church considers creation to be.

Therefore, you get people – even on these forums – who want to remain Christian by considering traditional sexual teaching to be wanting and instead adopting an affirming position. You also get people who, because they are gay, can testify that there is more to the story than just focusing on sexual acts, or this psychological study, or this STD, or this recent report on adopted children and gay parents.

We have to be willing to listen. Gay people cannot just be told NO! by the church. There has to be a YES paved by the church. As someone said, no one is called to a vocation of NO. But the church must better develop how gay people are to find a place in the church.

Almost all of what you write sits well with me. I do not reduce the “gay” orientation to merely the sexual inclination (though that is the only element which gives rise to moral concerns). My recent posts serve only to reject the specific idea (commonly expressed by those who approve of same sex sexual acts) that sex is appropriate in some general sense for purposes of “bonding”, and to express “love” and thus the gender of one’s sexual partner does not need to feature. My reference to “gametes” is NOT to claim that sex is for procreation ONLY (that was a straw man put up by Thor) but rather that this observation (re: gametes) is compelling evidence for the apropriate sexual partner for man. Sex DOES have multiple purposes, but they are bound together and find their home with the “appropriate” partner, which cannot be a person of the same sex. The only person, IMHO, who “closes eyes and ears” is the person who ignores or pretends not to see this “evidence of the body”. That is NOT every gay person, but it does include quite a few who are not gay.

I understand this is not the full picture nor the totality of challenge facing the gay person. But I believe it defines boundaries. When you say the church needs to “pave a yes”, I struggle to understand what you have in mind in light of those boundaries? How different a path can it be than that available to any single person?

 

[Peter_J]

It’s not only about being tempted to perform certain sexual acts, which do appear to be outside “nature” in the sense of traditional Christian understanding of sex-for-procreation. Sometimes, sadly, it takes being gay (having SSA) to understand what this truly feels like. It’s irritating when people – often users of CAF – limit the discussion to gay sex. It’s unfortunate.

Hi catholic1seeks. I don’t wish to defend those who do that, but to get a better perspective about what you’re saying let me ask … Don’t you think that liberals make it about sex at least as much as conservatives do?

 

[Rau]

If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t), then I will not reference Dr. Nicolosi again.

However, given the pro-gay position of the media, our education system, and our legislative and legal systems, if Dr. Nicolosi is correct, how would we ever know?

You may have the last word.

I doubt Nicolosi is much of a guiding light here, but your observation about society is right. It concerns me that our capacity to understand sexuality is being impeded.

 

[Peter_J]

The only person, IMHO, who “closes eyes and ears” is the person who ignores or pretends not to see this “evidence of the body”.

Speaking as a fellow conservative, I want to say that I can see how people might not react well to statements like that.

 

[Rau]

The issue with secular media is this: They assume that if something is genetic or congenital that means it must be okay. That itself is a faulty assumption.

But it’s not the thing that might be “genetic or congenital” that is debated, but rather the right to pursue something prompted by what might be “genetic or congenital”. The sanction given by society to that is based on thinking which is more messed up than your remark suggests. It’s thinking that confuses sex with love and elevates a wide range of desires to rights.

 

[Peter_J]

I doubt Nicolosi is much of a guiding light here, but your observation about society is right. It concerns me that our capacity to understand sexuality is being impeded.

Right on. We don’t need to choose between the extreme Right (ex-gay movement in this case) and Left.

Reminds me of the film “The Third Way”.

 

[Rau]

Speaking as a fellow conservative, I want to say that I can see how people might not react well to statements like that.

If one becomes a conservative by acknowledging what is plainly obvious, the bar is pretty low

People may not react well to the statement because its implications “threaten” things in their life they may hold dear, or strongly desire. I understand that. But by the same token, I do not react well to the position that sex is for multiple purposes & thus it has a place in the “bonding” of two men. And that two men desiring to form a family should be free to enlist a surrogate so that one of them may father a child that the two men will raise. And that is a perfectly proper course and our children’s primary school readers should of course present the full rage of “types” of families and so on and so on. I don’t feel obligated to simply listen to this because to respond might lead to persons not reacting well.

 

[at9009]

But it’s not the thing that might be “genetic or congenital” that is debated, but rather the right to pursue something prompted by what might be “genetic or congenital”. The sanction given by society to that is based on thinking which is more messed up than your remark suggests. It’s thinking that confuses sex with love and elevates a wide range of desires to rights.

Oh I did briefly mention the false perception that the only form of love is within a sexual romantic relationship and the fact that our society has made attaining that relationship into an idol which is often viewed as the only path to happiness and fulfillment. That has lead to a lot of rationalization that certain sinful behaviors are okay because the alternative is alone, sad, and without love (Like justifying divorce/remarriage when not qualified for an anullment and same sex sexual relationships as two examples). Addressing that discussion is an entirely different discussion and focus than the etiology of same sex attraction (and the implications of said etiology).

 

[Rau]

Oh I did briefly mention the false perception that the only form of love is within a sexual romantic relationship and the fact that our society has made attaining that relationship into an idol which is often viewed as the only path to happiness and fulfillment. That has lead to a lot of rationalization that certain sinful behaviors are okay because the alternative is alone, sad, and without love (Like justifying divorce/remarriage when not qualified for an anullment and same sex sexual relationships as two examples). Addressing that discussion is an entirely different discussion and focus than the etiology of same sex attraction (and the implications of said etiology).

Yes, the thread has not materially addressed etiology (not surprising since it is unknown) other than to suggest to the OP that his thesis certainly does not appear to be the whole story.

 

[rinnie]

Here is the tension.

On the one hand, we have a received (traditional) understanding of sexuality maintained by the Christian tradition. This tradition, testified by scriptural passages and interpretations by the living church, says that God made man for woman and woman for man, so as to complement each other sexually and in others ways, as well as to bring forth children and so form a unit around these children. Okay.

But on the other hand, there exist real people with real same-sex attraction. Sometimes this attraction is so deep, so part of one’s personality, that it can truly be regarded as an “orientation.” People who have same-sex attraction or identify as gay will tell you that being homosexual defines or affects how one relates to people. How one behaves and acts. It’s not only about being tempted to perform certain sexual acts, which do appear to be outside “nature” in the sense of traditional Christian understanding of sex-for-procreation. Sometimes, sadly, it takes being gay (having SSA) to understand what this truly feels like. It’s irritating when people – often users of CAF – limit the discussion to gay sex. It’s unfortunate.

True, our desires don’t legitimize the ends or acts that we, in fact, desire. But the key here, if we as Christians are to make any progress in truly dialoguing with and caring for one another, is to understand how gay people experience what it means to “be gay.” I’m not talking about a cultural classification or political movement. I’m talking about deep feelings and inclinations. The desire to not be alone, the desire to have family, to form intimate relationships. The way the personality is truly different because one is gay/SSA. Everyone knows that sometimes there is a certain “something” about a gay person’s personality. It’s more than a temptation to a sexual act.

All of this is to say that the gay person does not simply “close ones ears and eyes to nature” (as you say). Traditional teaching and even observation may show sex is for procreation and that man-woman complement each other in a physical way. But the tension remains, for the gay person is also paying attention to their own selves. They are “listening” to their innermost wants and needs. That is why there is such a struggle to begin with. How they experience themselves simply does not mesh with how the church considers creation to be.

Therefore, you get people – even on these forums – who want to remain Christian by considering traditional sexual teaching to be wanting and instead adopting an affirming position. You also get people who, because they are gay, can testify that there is more to the story than just focusing on sexual acts, or this psychological study, or this STD, or this recent report on adopted children and gay parents.

We have to be willing to listen. Gay people cannot just be told NO! by the church. There has to be a YES paved by the church. As someone said, no one is called to a vocation of NO. But the church must better develop how gay people are to find a place in the church.

I get what you are saying I truly do. But what is the Yes, that you feel needs to be paved by the Church?

Now I am speaking of the RCC. And I am sure you know our teaching on Gay relationships, but are you saying we need to be more accepting to Gay People on like a social basis. Or Gay people in relationships (that do indeed engage in sex)? Or both and in your opinion what would you like to see the Church do? And of course the people in it.

My personal opinion of Gay people is this, I love then as much as my friends who are not gay. They know my feeling’s, but I can’t accept their relationship because of my faith. But it by no means ever changes my love for them personally. It a hard position to be in, I know for the Gay person, but trust me, its not picnic for the ones who love them either.

 

[Peter_J]

If one becomes a conservative by acknowledging what is plainly obvious, the bar is pretty low

Seriously, do you not want to revise your statement that

The only person, IMHO, who “closes eyes and ears” is the person who ignores or pretends not to see this “evidence of the body”.

?

 

[Rau]

Seriously, do you not want to revise your statement that

Seriously, in the context of the discussion, I’m ok with it.

 

[Qoeleth]

I have a new theory on homosexuality (specifically male homosexuality).

I believe people for sure are gay in that they are highly inclined toward liking other men. But are they born that way? I doubt it.

It seems a lot of gay men have had sort of broken or isolated childhoods and seem to turn to the gay scene as an easy form of love of acceptance and even validation which they haven’t really had before.

I also sort of object to the way the gay lifestyle is portayed in the media. Mostly the idea that they are happy and festive people, because the more I see of it (and based off several gay friends I have) it just strikes me as something to fill a massive hole in their lives/souls.

could this be true?

I believe homosexuals originate as ‘failed hetrosexuals’. Most of the homosexual people I’ve met are fat (or otherwise physically defective), effeminate, kind of pretentious, but actually poorly educated…In other words, it is not imaginable they could ever get any woman. Therefore, they become homosexuals…

As for ‘gay’ women, they are normally kind of ‘butch’… So they same thing applies, I suppose.

The exception is someone like Portia della Rossi (a ‘10’ by anyone’s thinking!), or Oscar Wilde (a true genius too)- but I doubt such people were really homosexuals, but just used it as a kind of publicity act, or engaged in it as an experiment.

But seriously, I think it is a diabolic influence in society. Real genetic ‘homosexuals’ (people with defective hormones and physiology) must be rare- like hermaphrodites (maybe 0.1%). Yet, they seem to be everywhere in the media.

 

[at9009]

I believe homosexuals originate as ‘failed hetrosexuals’. Most of the homosexual people I’ve met are fat (or otherwise physically defective), effeminate, kind of pretentious, but actually poorly educated…In other words, it is not imaginable they could ever get any woman. Therefore, they become homosexuals…

As for ‘gay’ women, they are normally kind of ‘butch’… So they same thing applies, I suppose.

The exception is someone like Portia della Rossi (a ‘10’ by anyone’s thinking!), or Oscar Wilde (a true genius too)- but I doubt such people were really homosexuals, but just used it as a kind of publicity act, or engaged in it as an experiment.

But seriously, I think it is a diabolic influence in society. Real genetic ‘homosexuals’ (people with defective hormones and physiology) must be rare- like hermaphrodites (maybe 0.1%). Yet, they seem to be everywhere in the media.

Wow that is rather uncharitable and really assuming about gay/ssa people. Could you please explain where you feel justified in making broad-sweeping generalizations like that? Also do you realize that perspective you are pushing is rather discouraging for gay/ssa people trying to live within a traditional sexual ethic and any gay/ssa person who is initially interested in faith will see that you view them as ‘fat or otherwise mentally defective, pretentious, and poorly education.’ You can believe what ever you want, but maybe think before you write.