Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[NeedImprovement]

Sorry for any frustration with the link. It was clearly functional for me, but it looks like the OED does require a subscription for folks to see its most recent online edition. Sorry about that. If I had known the link wouldn’t have worked for you or others, I wouldn’t have posted it.

However, I found this link to an older (1989) edition, and it supports the point I was making (as does Karoleck’s research using the '58 edition confirming that “gay” was a term of disparagement for people thought to be dissolute) bl.uk/learning/resources/oed/50093144%282%29.htm .

…

Thank-you for the apology concerning the link.

Was someone clearly debating whether the term “gay” was used as a secondary reference to people engaged in *dissolute or immoral behaviour or living by prostitution *(which comprises much more than just homosexual activity and does not necessarily imply it) ? That may have been one point you were making, but I didn’t perceive it as your main point. In your reference to the OED I thought your main point was expressed more this way – (highlights mine) [post # 157 ]
Deo Volente:

…As a direct, explicit reference to homosexuality, it can be seen as early as the 1920’s–i.e., before any such thing as “the gay lobby” or any other politically active homosexual conspiracy group could be said to have been in operation

…It’s very informative, and should lay to rest any claim that a bunch of gay folks in the '60’s or '70’s decided to “ruin” a perfectly good word by using it to refer to themselves, as if they were drawing possible identifiers out of a hat and decided on “gay” as opposed to “fabulous” or some other otherwise innocuous word. It’s clear that the word had assumed the meaning and homosexuals merely accepted it.

(As you are aware, I cannot access that previous link but here are several observations based on the second link you gave):

Where the logic (of the highlighted quote above) is flawed , is that it fails to consider and/or specify any percentile of the population at all who may have been using that particular connotation of the word. Said percentile would appear to have been minimal since ,we would assume, that, in a Dictionary, the various meanings of a single word in particular would be listed separately beginning with the most significant meaning and ending with the least significant connotation.

My OED and karoleck’s OED, tend to support what your linked 1987 Second Edition of the OED online says : The primary definitions of the word “gay” (all seven from 1.a to 1.f ) don’t refer to homosexuality at all . The secondary definition which refers to homosexuality is listed 3rd (2.c) ; and I note that this connotation is ranked inferior to both of these connotations.
OED online 1987;2nd Ed.:

• 2 a). Addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose or immoral life. Esp. in gay dog , a man given to revelling or self-indulgence; gay Lothario : see LOTHARIO
• 2 b). Hence, in slang use, of a woman: Leading an immoral life, living by prostitution

Again its (linked 1987 OED) primary definition of the word “gay” is
OED online 1987;2nd Ed.:

1. a. Of persons, their attributes and actions: Full of or disposed to joy and mirth; manifesting or characterized by joyous mirth; light-hearted, exuberantly cheerful, sportive, merry.

I don’t have the $ 295.00 it costs for an annual subscription just to look up the word “gay” for that overpriced contemporary definition.

However according to these free online dictionaries, the contemporary primary definition of “gay” as both an adjective and a noun is : “homosexual”.
Oxford Advanced American Dictionary:

oaadonline.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/gay

1.) (OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY MEN) sexually attracted to people of the same sex
Synonym : HOMOSEXUAL

2.) [ONLY BEFORE NOUN] connected with people who are gay

The online Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary will render the same definitions.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online puts it much more concisely ; It defines gay in one word.
Cambridge Dictionaries Online:

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/gay_1?q=gay

gay (adjective) : homosexual

This definition they render is identical for both British English and American English .

While your argument may have quoted some sources , it failed to take into consideration the prevalent thought in the 1950’s and early 1960’s .The word gay was not commonly used to denote homosexuals in that era . To assert otherwise is to argue against the definitions contained in the Oxford Dictionaries at that time … which is absolutely pointless .

Prevalent thought is what dictionaries define – and no one does it more accurately than Oxford.

I’m not sure what your post # 157 is supposed to be refuting, because it doesn’t quote or refer to any other particular post in its argument . I can tell you it doesn’t change one iota of the truth contained in Cardinal Pell’s statement :
Cardinal George Pell:

“…I avoid the word ‘gay,’ because it’s a word that has been colonized by one group …”

At best, the references in post 157 say perhaps there were a few homosexual settlers around the word gay in the 1920’s , but ***it still wasn’t the prevalent thought of that time ***.

What Cardinal Pell confirms is what the pathology according to the relevant editions of the Oxford English Dictionary confirm concerning the prevalent thought throughout the 20th century – and up to present :

Today, there is full blown colonization of the word gay by homosexuals . They occupy the word ; they subjugate the word. That’s reality.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Just in case some people aren’t convinced yet that there was a power play by the homosexuals to own the word “gay” occuring, a push we might say ,starting somewhere in the 1960’s , let’s take another look at the Oxford English Dictionary.

First, for context , examine this commentary.
Deo Volente:

…As a direct, explicit reference to homosexuality, it can be seen as early as the 1920’s–i.e., before any such thing as “the gay lobby” or any other politically active homosexual conspiracy group could be said to have been in operation

…It’s very informative, and should lay to rest any claim that a bunch of gay folks in the '60’s or '70’s decided to “ruin” a perfectly good word by using it to refer to themselves, as if they were drawing possible identifiers out of a hat and decided on “gay” as opposed to “fabulous” or some other otherwise innocuous word. It’s clear that the word had assumed the meaning and homosexuals merely accepted it.

Although it certainly demonstrates an active imagination on the part of its author ,what it surmises, doesn’t really appear to be in perfect harmony with the evidence provided by the Oxford English Dictionary .

I don’t wish to do everyone’s homework for them on this next part. It’s better if they can perceive this themselves. So try looking beyond the allegorical and generalized, figurative style of the argumentation’s wording quoted above – to see what it’s really saying, and you’ll find that, the argument itself, doesn’t really align with this ensuing qualifier (green highlights - mine) which was included with the following linked Oxford English Dictionary source’s contemporary definition of the word “gay”.

the link is HERE .
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARIES;Oxford University Press; historic context adjunct to definition of the word "gay":

Gay meaning ‘homosexual’ became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy’ have more or less dropped out of natural use. The word gay cannot be readily used today in these older senses without arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive.Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men (lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women) but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Just to clarify, when referring to those who colonize or subjugate the word “gay” and those who initiated the power play for the word in the 1960’s in the two previous posts, I meant to specify the homosexual militants and the activists - not any others who might not subscribe to or approve of their agenda …

I apologize if I didn’t make that clear enough - it was too late to edit the actual posts.

 

[Kolbe300]

From the Reedeeming The Rainbow,I think that his ten debating rules might be a good reply to your postings – I suggest that you reflect on them.
TEN RULES FOR DEBATING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY…

Like I said, he wasn’t looking for a debate, he was looking for help.

 

[michelleds]

Like I said, he wasn’t looking for a debate, he was looking for help.

stop harping, Kolbe. the forum, like real life conversations, has a way of moving on. that’s what dialogue and conversations do. there were several answers to the OP in the first couple of pages; the fact that the debate moved on is not evidence that the poor OP was abandoned.

 

[Kolbe300]

stop harping, Kolbe.

Stop harping? I’m not sure what kind of response you were expecting there. Yes ma’am?

the fact that the debate moved on is not evidence that the poor OP was abandoned.

The debate? I guess I just failed to see, even remotely, that the OP was looking for a debate.

 

[michelleds]

Stop harping? I’m not sure what kind of response you were expecting there. Yes ma’am?

Perfect response.

The debate? I guess I just failed to see, even remotely, that the OP was looking for a debate.

My point, and I did have one, was that their was a conversation, started by the OP. as in real life, the conversation moved beyond the original question (which was answered in the first couple of pages). the fact that the conversation moved on doesn’t mean that the OP was neglected or abandoned.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Perfect response.

My point, and I did have one, was that their was a conversation, started by the OP. as in real life, the conversation moved beyond the original question (which was answered in the first couple of pages). the fact that the conversation moved on doesn’t mean that the OP was neglected or abandoned.

Further, it is probable that even if the OP was not looking for a debate, he does not care if a debate ensued. He said he was concerned about a friend who was having homosexual attraction in his first and only post in the thread. He may really be referring to his friend and not about himself. Another thing is that a quick look at his record of posts, which is not that many (it takes no more than 10 minutes to check using the forum features), indicates 40 posts at this time, 21 of which he started with not much participation. Chances are he stopped following the thread after the first few pages, and so you are likely right.

The important thing is that the debate has value to other readers who may not even be participating. Kolbe and some others maintain that it is not a big deal if celibate homosexuals identify as ‘gay.’ A number of us weighed in and say that it does – the word has baggage, a double entendre, and is not appropriate in that case. Numerous posts have been submitted with articulation.

Young Catholics struggling with homosexual attraction or tendencies can read both sides of the argument and reach an understanding and position for themselves. They can choose their own identification, to be understood by others without the need for prefacing or disclaiming all the time, or use one or the other term in certain situations only as they deem appropriate.
,

 

[Kolbe300]

Perfect response.

LOL! I kinda figured.

Further, it is probable that even if the OP was not looking for a debate, he does not care if a debate ensued. He said he was concerned about a friend who was having homosexual attraction in his first and only post in the thread.

ISoG, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thread. The one I’m speaking of was moved to “Spirituality,” and the OP didn’t mention anything about a friend. You can look it up. I believe it’s “Gay, Catholic, and Struggling,” something like that.

Young Catholics struggling with homosexual attraction or tendencies can read both sides of the argument and reach an understanding and position for themselves. They can choose their own identification…

Not here they can’t. The OP in the thread I’m speaking of clearly stated what he meant by “gay,” then went on to explain his struggles with spiritual darkness. If he was looking for a debate, he sure didn’t debate much. I think that could be the first clue that he was seeking some help and not a debate.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
ISoG, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thread. The one I’m speaking of was moved to “Spirituality,” and the OP didn’t mention anything about a friend. You can look it up. I believe it’s “Gay, Catholic, and Struggling,” something like that.

Ok, I looked it up. Here is the opening post on this thread:

I have a friend who is kinda paranoid about himself. He said he’s a heterosexual, but has this inside feeling toward another guy. He thinks it might be romance; he claims that he has a special love and care for him. He’s not “turned on” by the other guy (there’s nothing sexual), but still has this breath-taking affection toward him.

You know what I mean. He’s not lusting, however, and he wouldn’t want a relationship nor would he even want a kiss or holding-hands session.

Not here they can’t. The OP in the thread I’m speaking of clearly stated what he meant by “gay,” then went on to explain his struggles with spiritual darkness. If he was looking for a debate, he sure didn’t debate much. I think that could be the first clue that he was seeking some help and not a debate.

Who is ?
,

 

[karoleck]

I have backtracked to Michelle’s post, all the way from a recent one, just above here, by Kolbe. Michelle asks about 'gay’being an experiential thing.

In terms of the older population, ‘gay’ has always carried with it a connotation of rebellion. After all, the start of the ‘gay’ demands for non-discrimination and then equality was breaking new ground. So, for most of society, it was a rule changing demand. It was morally and socially confronting and it still is. For those caught up in the movement, it was perhaps liberating, but it was also an exercise in being ‘branded’. That’s also another term for being stereotyped, as I’ve mentioned in other posts. The gay lobby have made sure that a stereotype has been put firmly into the consciousness of the general population and that stereotype has included using the in-your-face gay parades, a public display of contempt for public standards of dignity, a blatant flaunting of the gay sexuality as ‘different’ in terms of dress, manners and public behaviour, the promulgation of ‘gay literature’, the development of ‘queer theory’ and an intellectualisation of the reasons for and of the lifestyle that ‘gays’ are supposed to conform to and even passing of blame to the majority for the supposed ills that beset homosexuals in straight society… In fact, the gay lobby has stereotyped itself by actively promoting an acceptance of homosexuality as being ‘normal’, yet all the while using the ‘difference’ as a selling point! .

So experientially, we have two perpsectives; that of those within and joining the gay social movement who pick up all the connotations associated with being gay as given by the gay lobby and then there is the experience of the bulk of society who have had to witness the rise of what is put in front of them as ‘being gay’. It’s all one big stereotype. Kolbe makes the point that the ‘person’ is lost in all this. To a large extent he’s right. All social movements swallow the individual. They must, because they demand a mass effort and a mass response.

How confusing it must be for all those very young ones who are discovering their sexuality! They have a stereotype they must choose, which is the ‘being gay’ idea that is in the public realm and is sold as being ‘normal’, yet it contains the message that ‘different’ is OK!!

A very noticeble thing is happening in society, at least in mine and, from what I’ve read, in others as well and that is how the word “gay” is being used by the very young as an epithet for weird, different, dithering, or weak behaviour. The comment “Oh, that’s sooo gay” comes out of the mouths of the very young all the time. I know, because I’ve got young kids and so I mix in the circle of the very young. A few years ago I worked with teenage kids and they, too, used the same language. I heard one fifteen year old describe a political decision as being “so gay”. That’s sad from two perspectives. Firstly, it comes out of the mouths of those of an age when they shouldn’t even be aware of the contrast between heterosexuals and homosexuals and, secondly, it labels, at a very young age, kids who are weird, different, or somehow percieved as being weak, or dithering. That means kids are being labelled. What are they being labelled with? Why, it’s the public stereotype promulgated by the gay lobby! Where will it put the young ones who may generally struggle with their sexuality as they enter their teens? And what will it mean for homosexuals in the not too distant future? I shudder to think, actually.

I thought that this post deserves a second reading.What I like is that not only is your observation spot on ;but you have gained creedence through your observation.
I came across this You Tube video by a Glennda Testone;it is a great example of what Catholics have to deal with,almost on a daily basis.

She treats God as if He did not exist or His Teachings on the Ten Commandments does not matter.She comes accross as caring,loving and concerned ;but that does not stop her from using her “high heels” to hit that school who stood up to an active lesbian “gay rights” student.!

youtube.com/watch?v=FP4jmHhUts4&feature=related

 

[karoleck]

Like I said, he wasn’t looking for a debate, he was looking for help.

Get over it !:slapfight:

Perhaps a pray or two might help the original poster’s friend.!

O Mary conceived without sin,pray for us who have recourse to Thee and for those who do not-- those who are actively involved in promoting and living out their same sex attraction and those who are struggling with a gender identity and holy purity.Amen.

 

[Kolbe300]

Get over it !:slapfight:

Geesh, you guys are getting bossy.

Perhaps a pray or two might help the original poster’s friend.!

His friend? We’re obviously talking about different threads.

Ok, I looked it up. Here is the opening post on this thread:

That’s not the thread. Here it is:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=624003

Anyways, my point is that I think we all need to be careful. We know eachother and we debate often, but not everyone is a part of our little " :slapfight: " circle. In the thread I am actually talking about, someone was seeking sincere help and got a debate over the word gay, instead. And in that thread it’s obvious I’m not the only one to notice it.

Peace!

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

karoleck,

Dr. Scott Lively’s advice on how to argue with gays is…um…problematic to say the least. It’s a good set of rules for instantly alienating all but the most sympathetic of audiences. It makes the assumption, very popular in conservative circles, that if you “illuminate the truth” in an unpalatable way, such that it is practically guaranteed to go in one ear and out the other, this is a form of charity. The problem is not that the people who use these tactics are actually filled with hate, the problem is that they uncharitably assume that their interlocutors are hard-hearted sophists. If the evangelists’s approach does not work, instead of self-critically modifying the approach, they blame the other person. This is often more than sufficient to create the impression of hatred, fear and bigotry, even where there is no actual ill-will.

Anyways, I’ve put together a list of my ten principles for talking to gays and lesbians – I won’t muddy this thread with it, but if you’re interested I’m opening a new thread on the subject.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi NeedImprovement.

Was someone clearly debating whether the term “gay” was used as a secondary reference to people engaged in *dissolute or immoral behaviour or living by prostitution *(which comprises much more than just homosexual activity and does not necessarily imply it) ? That may have been one point you were making, but I didn’t perceive it as your main point.

It’s not only one point, it’s a very important part of what I was trying to say. I’ll see if I can articulate my point a little clearer:

There is clear textual evidence that the word “gay” acquired a number of meanings through the centuries, all based in some way on the primary definition of the word relating to things bright and happy. As I understand it, the word moves through the following evolution: Bright–Ostentatious–Dissolute–Immoral–Homosexual. While the word evolves, it nonetheless retains, to a greater or lesser extent, it’s earlier meanings, social and/or literary context determining what meaning is in the ascendant at any one time. Given the evidence from the multiple editions of the OED consulted in this thread, the adoption of the word as label-of-choice by homosexuals was most likely accomplished on account of it being used to refer to them in a derogatory way (much like the word “queer” was similarly adopted after it’s use as a term of derision). Early 20th century usage of the term “gay” suggesting it’s association with homosexuality is certainly not mainstream usage, but largely subcultural–i.e., “gey cat” was a term used to describe a young hobo who traveled with (and slept with) an older hobo; “gay” was also used to describe homosexuals in prison. Given the subcultural nature of homosexuality in the early 20th century, it is unlikely that homosexuals banded together to choose the word to refer to themselves, but that they adopted the word based on usage within the various subcultures with which the homosexual subculture overlapped. (Indeed, if homosexuals had to choose the word that would describe them, it would likely be different–the term Edward Carpenter tried to introduce was “Uranian.”) That the word “gay” came, in the mainstream, to describe a homosexual in the '60’s and '70’s was not the result of a militant homosexual language terrorist cabal, but, riding hard on the heels of Women’s Lib, was the result of more homosexual people publically self-identifying as such…and using the term with which they were familiar to do so: gay.

It is clear that the word was not used, in the mainstream, to refer to homosexuals until the '60’s and '70’s. That’s a fact I never denied. But it is also clear that the word was nonetheless documented to have been used to refer to homosexuals in some circles in the early 20th century at the latest (see the literary references I cited from the OED in my earlier post). There was no homosexual conspiracy to hijack the word, no homosexual lobby at work. Given the development of the word’s meaning, it’s pretty clear that gay=homosexual came out of a general adoption of the word following its use as a derogatory term or insult (again, much like the word “queer”).

We can see a similar (though not absolutely identical) development in the word Gothic which refers to a barbarian European tribe, to a kind of architecture, to a literary mood (i.e., the Gothic novel), to a genre of depressing music. These days, if one were to say “I’m a Goth” to a bunch of kids, chances are they’d think you were a sad person who listened to a lot of Bauhaus or Sisters of Mercy or London After Midnight or whatever passes for goth music these days. It’s not likely that they would understand you to mean,“my heritage is found among the ancient Goth tribes of Europe.” Did a bunch of droopy depressive kids in the '80’s who were tired of punk and new wave and just wanted something slow and downbeat get together and form a political action group to select a term to describe the music they would like to listen to and the subculture to which they longed to belong? Doubtful. Did the genre and it’s devotees gain the name because of an insidious plot to desecrate the image of Gothic architecture by associating the word with pale makeup and black lipstick? Not likely. Was the label applied to them because the music and the culture had a resonance with the gloomy atmosphere of Gothic literature? I think we’re getting closer. Did a music critic or critics somewhere along the line introduce the term to describe some of proper Goth music’s progenitors (such as Joy Division, perhaps) and their followers? I think we’re getting warmer. The development of the term “gay” is analogous.

I don’t know how much more clearly I can spell out what I was trying to say, though. At this point, I think it best to throw up my hands and concentrate on more productive things. In the end, if people are determined to see a conspiracy, they’ll invent one if they need to. If people are determined to find ill in something, there’s no stopping them until they find it. If people are predisposed to thinking evil of something, there is little chance they’ll ever think good of it. And that’s just the way it goes, I guess.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Eugenius]

Stop harping? I’m not sure what kind of response you were expecting there. Yes ma’am?

The debate? I guess I just failed to see, even remotely, that the OP was looking for a debate.

Yes, according to their handbook there are no questions, everything is a “debate” and if you don’t like it you are “harping.” It is part of the formula for intimidating, attacking and winning a debate instead of guiding lost souls.