Is promoting homosexuality "social justice"?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You have not been to San Francisco…

I’m from San Francisco and most has been quite tame for a while.

I have actually been to San Francisco. If you’re thinking of the Fulsom Street Fair, that’s not even an LGBT event. That’s an S&M event specifically .

I suggest you actively seek out LGBT groups or festivals to meet LGBT people firsthand. You seem to have all sorts of negative stereotypes about them.

Despite the fact that a ton pronounce it like “Fulsom” it is in fact “Folsom”

Oh, well let me rephrase that.

Homosexuality leads to 'homosexual actsthat are intrinsically disordered.

How’s that?

No, homosexuality is an inclination towards homosexual acts, which is not the same as “leads to homosexual acts”

No I’m talking bout THE Gay Pride Day parade and the very prominent North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) float that I have seen twice.

What century was that in?

I tried to get a few shots but the Dykes on Bikes were in the way…

What was the year?

I’ll take it back if it offends you in any way…but

If homosexual people engaged in any other kind of sexual acts…then they wouldn’t be homosexuals…right?

No, it’s based on attractions, just like a guy who is only attracted to women, but banged dudes in prison is still heterosexual.

Most definitely celibate, at least for now. Either way, I won’t be dating any girls again, don’t worry. I’m an orthodox Catholic. I’m just pointing out that many orthodox Catholics still identify as LGBT, since it’s based on one’s attractions.

LGB, T doesn’t really have to do with attractions.

 

[andrewstx]

Promote - in a US context - clearly means more than advocating for freedom from prosecution, since I believe that is already the case in the entire, or at least the vast majority of, the US.

To promote that homosexuals be free from unjust discrimination is a social justice cause, and it is good and proper. To promote that various other legal accommodations for homosexual couples be available may constitute a social justice cause, but to assess that, one would need to know the specifics.

I am somewhat mystified as to why you mention your affiliation to a US political party.

Because I associate the term “promote” with the propaganda of the far political right and I have no desire to be identified with them.

 

[Rau]

Because I associate the term “promote” with the propaganda of the far political right and I have no desire to be identified with them.

I would not so easily allow others to take control of the language! It is an everyday verb!

 

[jaimeleglise]

It would be a grave social injustice to use your status as a professor to promote any sinful behavior including homosexual acts and the legalization of homosexual marriage. That would be scandalous. At the same time, as mentioned before, homosexuals must be treated with dignity.

 

[edwest2]

I am an (older) student at an allegedly Catholic university, and I am totally disgusted. I know that most “Catholic” universities aren’t very Catholic any more, but I can’t believe how far they have fallen. The worst I’ve had to deal with this semester is a professor who keeps bringing up homosexuality in my Interpersonal Communications class and keeps referring to it in the concept of “social justice.” For this class, we had to read “The Four Loves” by C.S. Lewis, and she stated that Lewis didn’t discuss homosexual love, but that was probably because he was writing in the early 1960s, and that just wasn’t talked about then.

This is my last semester at this university. I am transferring to the large state university here to complete my degree. I figure it can’t be any worse.

You are right to be concerned but there are those people who falsely believe homosexual behavior, especially what they call ‘gay marriage,’ is OK. Read what the Church teaches. I was there in the early 1960s and knew there were homosexual persons.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

And it’s not a civil right either or just a concern for Christians:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

The whole situation got a push from the American Psychiatric Association when they were under pressure from gay radicals outside the APA and closeted gays inside the APA, decided by vote, not science, to have it removed as a disorder. Years of research was thrown out the window.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Peace,
Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Most definitely celibate, at least for now. Either way, I won’t be dating any girls again, don’t worry. I’m an orthodox Catholic. I’m just pointing out that many orthodox Catholics still identify as LGBT, since it’s based on one’s attractions.

So based on “attraction”…does that make me a lesbian trapped in a man’s body?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Sometimes, but not all the time. There are chaste homosexuals and lesbians that exist.

Yes, I know. I just met SMGS127.

Here is my dilemma:

We have celibate homosexuals who are Catholic or are associating with the Church in some way. Good people, no doubt. But, they insist on identifying as homosexuals. This I can’t understand.

Do they expect the Church to change it’s teaching on same sex marriage someday so they can marry, not remain celibate, and live happily ever after? (Ain’t gonna happen)

By identifying as homosexual are they attempting to gain acceptance of homosexuality and influence the Church to lighten it’s attitude about “intrinsically disordered”?

What is wrong with just being a “single person”???

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, homosexuality is an inclination towards homosexual acts, which is not the same as “leads to homosexual acts”

According to the Catechism. “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

It…** refers to the relations**…

Now “relations” can mean anything from a friendly cup of coffee to the act of sodomy.

But I will rephrase my statement…

Homosexuals are INCLINED to acts that are intrinsically disordered.

How’s that?

What century was that in?

The last century

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So based on “attraction”…does that make me a lesbian trapped in a man’s body?

No and honestly that’s kind of insulting.

According to the Catechism. “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

It…** refers to the relations**…

Now “relations” can mean anything from a friendly cup of coffee to the act of sodomy.

But I will rephrase my statement…

Homosexuals are INCLINED to acts that are intrinsically disordered.

How’s that?

While that might work as a direct translation for homosexualitas with regards to the sentence it’s not so good. See “disinterested friendship” which is also a less than stellar translation into modern vernacular English despite it being technically a valid translation for it’s Latin counterpart.

Yes which is still not the same. Homosexuality is objectively disordered insofar as it is attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered and is not disordered insofar as it is not attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered. Which is to say the part that is an inclination towards those intrinsically disordered actions, but the rest isn’t which makes it a complicated and delicate subject.

To appreciate the good and that which is beautiful in someone is a good thing even if it is a woman who is attracted to women appreciating the good and that which is beautiful in another woman. The issue is that in the modern Western milieu people have been taught to “appreciate” the good and that which is beautiful in someone in a sexual manner which can lead that woman to desiring the other woman carnally which is wrong and not good. What makes this situation even worse is that many poorly theologically educated right wingers will come and claim that not only is the carnal desire sinful, but that liking a woman (even if it is only the appreciation of that which is objectively good in that woman) is either sinful or a near occasion of sin necessitating that the first woman if she is to acquiesce to their demands put her heart in a box and lock it away.

Here’s the issue, to put your heart in a box and lock it away prevents someone from loving and feeling loved and there are dire consequences to the latter.
Pope Benedict:

1. Finally, I would like to speak of one last feature, not to be overlooked, of the spirituality of World Youth Days, namely joy. Where does it come from? How is it to be explained? Certainly, there are many factors at work here. But in my view, the crucial one is this certainty, based on faith: I am wanted; I have a task in history; I am accepted, I am loved. Josef Pieper, in his book on love,** has shown that man can only accept himself if he is accepted by another. He needs the other’s presence, saying to him, with more than words: it is good that you exist. Only from the You can the I come into itself. Only if it is accepted, can it accept itself. Those who are unloved cannot even love themselves.** This sense of being accepted comes in the first instance from other human beings. But all human acceptance is fragile. Ultimately we need a sense of being accepted unconditionally. Only if God accepts me, and I become convinced of this, do I know definitively: it is good that I exist. It is good to be a human being. If ever man’s sense of being accepted and loved by God is lost, then there is no longer any answer to the question whether to be a human being is good at all. Doubt concerning human existence becomes more and more insurmountable. Where doubt over God becomes prevalent, then doubt over humanity follows inevitably. We see today how widely this doubt is spreading. We see it in the joylessness, in the inner sadness, that can be read on so many human faces today. Only faith gives me the conviction: it is good that I exist. It is good to be a human being, even in hard times. Faith makes one happy from deep within. That is one of the wonderful experiences of World Youth Days.

source

The last century

What was the year?

 

[Rau]

Yes, I know. I just met SMGS127.

Here is my dilemma:

We have celibate homosexuals who are Catholic or are associating with the Church in some way. Good people, no doubt. But, they insist on identifying as homosexuals. This I can’t understand.

Do they expect the Church to change it’s teaching on same sex marriage someday so they can marry, not remain celibate, and live happily ever after? (Ain’t gonna happen)

By identifying as homosexual are they attempting to gain acceptance of homosexuality and influence the Church to lighten it’s attitude about “intrinsically disordered”?

What is wrong with just being a “single person”???

I think you are asking why do they tell us they are homosexual if they plan to be chaste anyway? I imagine there are events in their life that cause a need to explain to someone. The lack of dating perhaps. An incident prior to the intention to be chaste being expressed. Or perhaps they are seeking to show solidarity with other similarly afflicted persons. Or to fight against unjust discrimination affecting others who have been less discrete.

I suspect not too many of the celibate good people you refer to “insist on identifying as homosexual”, but some do.

 

[JimG]

Maybe we should just promote Catholic moral standards, the observance of which is good for everyone, and promote the moral virtues, while refraining from identifying ourselves with our attractions, temptations, or inclinations.

 

[SMGS127]

So based on “attraction”…does that make me a lesbian trapped in a man’s body?

Are you a woman? No? Then no. “Lesbian,” unlike “gay,” actually presupposes the gender of the person described as well as their attractions. There is no such word for gay men (though I wish there was, to an extent. It would make life much easier in differentiating who you’re talking about).

Yes, I know. I just met SMGS127.

Here is my dilemma:

We have celibate homosexuals who are Catholic or are associating with the Church in some way. Good people, no doubt. But, they insist on identifying as homosexuals. This I can’t understand.

Maybe you can’t understand, as a heterosexual man. But there are all sorts of cultural things unique to gay people, and it is important for a fellow gay person to be the one evangelizing to them. Me sitting here and pronouncing myself as ‘too good to call myself a lesbian’ would just come across as snobbery, and would be decidedly counterintuitive in terms of evangelization. It’s also useful when providing anecdotal evidence online to bring it up, since a gay person most certainly knows actively gay people to a better degree than a straight person does. No matter how close a straight person gets to an actively gay person, you are very unlikely to be as close to them as their friends in the community, either because you don’t understand their attractions or you aren’t the same gender.

Do they expect the Church to change it’s teaching on same sex marriage someday so they can marry, not remain celibate, and live happily ever after? (Ain’t gonna happen)

No…? There are several out-as-LGB, practicing Catholics on this forum who defend to the death the Church’s teaching on the issue. That doesn’t mean our attractions don’t exist though.

By identifying as homosexual are they attempting to gain acceptance of homosexuality and influence the Church to lighten it’s attitude about “intrinsically disordered”?

What is wrong with just being a “single person”???

No? And because a single person implies multiple things about yourself. I’d much rather a guy (if I ever dated one again) know about my attractions going into a relationship. I’m not going to sit around obfuscating the issue, pretending like it doesn’t exist, to satisfy the needs of heterosexuals who want to tell me which parts of my being I’m allowed to identify with .

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No? And because a single person implies multiple things about yourself. I’d much rather a guy (if I ever dated one again) know about my attractions going into a relationship. I’m not going to sit around obfuscating the issue, pretending like it doesn’t exist, to satisfy the needs of heterosexuals who want to tell me which parts of my being I’m allowed to identify with .

Sounds like you could add a little more tolerance and understanding of the “needs of heterosexuals”

 

[SMGS127]

Sounds like you could add a little more tolerance and understanding of the “needs of heterosexuals”

I’m more than receptive to anyone’s needs, heterosexual or otherwise. But somehow, for some reason, gay people never seem to be the ones who attempt to mandate that gay people can’t identify themselves as gay when evangelizing .

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No and honestly that’s kind of insulting.

Actually I thought it was rather funny.

While that might work as a direct translation for homosexualitas with regards to the sentence it’s not so good. See “disinterested friendship” which is also a less than stellar translation into modern vernacular English despite it being technically a valid translation for it’s Latin counterpart.

Yes which is still not the same. Homosexuality is objectively disordered insofar as it is attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered and is not disordered insofar as it is not attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered. Which is to say the part that is an inclination towards those intrinsically disordered actions, but the rest isn’t which makes it a complicated and delicate subject.

Wow…I have re-read this statement three times. The third time v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. I cannot make sense of it. Maybe because you use the word “acts” instead of “relations”.

I’m sorry Joie, but I’ll stick to my interpretation if you don’t mind.

To appreciate the good and that which is beautiful in someone is a good thing even if it is a woman who is attracted to women appreciating the good and that which is beautiful in another woman. The issue is that in the modern Western milieu people have been taught to “appreciate” the good and that which is beautiful in someone in a sexual manner which can lead that woman to desiring the other woman carnally which is wrong and not good. What makes this situation even worse is that many poorly theologically educated right wingers will come and claim that not only is the carnal desire sinful, but that liking a woman (even if it is only the appreciation of that which is objectively good in that woman) is either sinful or a near occasion of sin necessitating that the first woman if she is to acquiesce to their demands put her heart in a box and lock it away.

Here’s the issue, to put your heart in a box and lock it away prevents someone from loving and feeling loved and there are dire consequences to the latter.

source

What was the year?

Sometime in the late nineties…

By the way you never commented on my re-phrase…

“Homosexuals are INCLINED to acts that are intrinsically disordered.”

How’s that?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Maybe we should just promote Catholic moral standards, the observance of which is good for everyone, and promote the moral virtues, while refraining from identifying ourselves with our attractions, temptations, or inclinations.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Actually I thought it was rather funny.

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t insulting.

Wow…I have re-read this statement three times. The third time v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. I cannot make sense of it. Maybe because you use the word “acts” instead of “relations”.

I’m sorry Joie, but I’ll stick to my interpretation if you don’t mind.

What was unclear about it?

Sometime in the late nineties…

A lot has changed in 15 years.

By the way you never commented on my re-phrase…

“Homosexuals are INCLINED to acts that are intrinsically disordered.”

How’s that?

I did; homosexuality is objectively disordered insofar as it is attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered and is not disordered insofar as it is not attraction to acts which are intrinsically disordered.

Homosexuality is merely one form that concupiscence may express itself as (which is not to say that homosexuality is only concupiscence).

 

[Corki]

Homosexuality is merely one form that concupiscence may express itself as (which is not to say that homosexuality is only concupiscence).

It is not merely one form of concupiscence. It is a disordered form of concupiscence. Concupiscence is an inclination toward anything sinful whether it is disordered or not. It is certainly not the only disordered inclination but there are many occasions of concupiscence that are not disordered.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It is not merely one form of concupiscence. It is a disordered form of concupiscence. Concupiscence is an inclination toward anything sinful whether it is disordered or not. It is certainly not the only disordered inclination but there are many occasions of concupiscence that are not disordered.

That is such a good troll you had me going for a whole minute

There isn’t a thing such as ordered concupiscence, everything that is a moral evil e.g. a man engaging in sex with a woman who is not his wife (CCC1755) or lying (CCC1753) is intrinsically disordered. I doubt most Catholics realize that fornication is intrinsically disordered.

 

[Rau]

That is such a good troll you had me going for a whole minute

There isn’t a thing such as ordered concupiscence, everything that is a moral evil e.g. a man engaging in sex with a woman who is not his wife (CCC1755) or lying (CCC1753) is intrinsically disordered. I doubt most Catholics realize that fornication is intrinsically disordered.

The language of “disorder” is a bit messy. Fornication, lying, gay sex - are all described as “intrinsically disordered” - meaning “always wrong to choose”. In respect of homosexual acts, the Catechism might have been better to rest on the statement “under no circumstances can they be approved.” I understand that most contemporary theologians speak simply about “moral absolutes” or “exceptionless moral norms.” Homosexuality is the only area in which the language of disorder is maintained in popular writing.

Ref: spiritualfriendship.org/2013/08/04/intrinsically-disordered-how-not-to-talk-about-homosexuality/