Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[Elizabeth502]

I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t follow it. You see, what bothers me isn’t being associated with a culture.

I honestly don’t mind being associated with a group of people that others don’t like or find disgusting.

I have tremendous empathy and love for those in the gay culture.

Then why are you complaining about assumptions? You freely associate and identify with a culture – not just an orientation – (You just said it here) – that celebrates actively gay sexuality. Now, if I did not want others to assume that I approve of that, I would run like hell in the other direction from any group title which would link me to those assumptions.

though I know it probably wasn’t your intent, I’ll never call myself SSA again.

I wonder if you imagine that you’re “punishing” me. The remark above strikes me as immature. Why should I care what you call yourself? You’re the one who wants to make a federal case here about why you are free to call yourself a name, and to embrace affectionately a culture, which the rest of the public can reasonably assume approves of homosexual acivity, and yet have people make no assumptions about what you do and do not attach to. When you’ve just reaffirmed your support of their culture of active sexuality.

Call yourself gay, and then stop being surprised when people wonder where your spiritual heart lies. If I hung out with virulently pro-choice women, just because possibly they also were associated with some good activities which I “loved,” felt sentimental about, or even admired, I should not be surprised if people wondered where I stood in terms of Catholic moral theology.

We make our beds, we lie in them.

 

[John21652]

I’m glad you posted that because it really made me stop and think. While I appreciate the advice, Elizabeth, I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t follow it. You see, what bothers me isn’t being associated with a culture. What bothers me is when people assume things they cannot know, especially when their assumptions could be wrong. And they know it could be wrong. That’s what bothers me.

I honestly don’t mind being associated with a group of people that others don’t like or find disgusting. That’s why I’ve said a few times that if people make an assumption about me, so be it. It’s their problem, not mine. I just think they should stop doing it because it is, quite frankly, stupid and unfair. I do my best to look for the goodness in people because all people deserve that. There are a lot of really beautiful people in the gay culture that so many will do anything to avoid and distance themselves from. Why would I choose a new name for my “group of like-mindeds” in order to distance myself from the very people who I just might be able to help? I’ve always believed that a gay man who lives Catholic teaching, and isn’t afraid to admit to either, could be an example to folks out there who may be right on the edge, waiting for someone they can identify with. I still believe that.

I am a Catholic man who just happens to be gay. I am ashamed of neither of those, and I have tremendous empathy and love for those in the gay culture. People here are free to do as they wish, and from the looks of this discussion, many will go on making assumptions about people they shouldn’t make. So be it. I give up on trying to change that.

Thank you again for your post, it really made me think. And though I know it probably wasn’t your intent, I’ll never call myself SSA again. What good would that do for the people who really need it, the ones I should be reaching out to and not running from?

You either want your cake and eat it too, or you are cluless about how people identify themselves and others by signifying that they belong to groups.

Let’s get to some basics about identity.
A person asks where you are from and you say such and such a town. The conversation goes along a little further and you identify as coming from a certain state, a certain nation and ou may even go on to state what religion you belong to. The entire time, the other person is forming a mental picture of you, complete with stereotypical visions of what and who you are. Now you, not caring about what other people think, supposedly, add in the aphorism “gay”. Now what on Earth do you think the average, normal human person is going to do with that information? Why, he’s going to include it in his mental image of who and what you are. That, my friend, is exactly how human beings communicate. You may not like it, but that’s just too bad, because that is exactly how hujman beings get to know one another. Most of our communication is through symbols and you have the added symbolism of being “gay” as part of your description about yourself.

Now, thanks to your ‘gay’ brothers and sisters, who like to flaunt their sexuality and their lifestyles, and who in the process paint for the rest of us a stereotype, you are cornered. Despite your protestations, once you adopt the term “gay” as part of your self description, you willingly and willfully become a part of the stereotype. And worse, your adoption of it is tacit agreement and acceptance of that stereotypical lifestyle. Either live with it, or dump the aphorism.

 

[Kolbe300]

Then why are you complaining about assumptions?

Because we shouldn’t make them.

You freely associate and identify with a culture – not just an orientation – (You just said it here) – that celebrates actively gay sexuality.

Did you even read my post? We were talking about assumptions, were we not? If people assume I “freely associate” and “identify” with a culture, so be it. I don’t mind being associated with a group of people in a culture. How does that mean I embrace the culture? I have empathy and love for the people in that culture. It’s about the people, not the culture.

Now, if I did not want others to assume that I approve of that, I would run like hell in the other direction from any group title which would link me to those assumptions.

I have no doubt you would. I choose not to run from other people’s assumptions.

I wonder if you imagine that you’re “punishing” me.

What? Seriously, WHAT?

The remark above strikes me as immature.

Yours are striking me as very angry.

Why should I care what you call yourself?

You really shouldn’t.

You’re the one who wants to make a federal case here about why you are free to call yourself a name, and to embrace affectionately a culture, which the rest of the public can reasonably assume approves of homosexual acivity…

Can you use the quote feauture and point out where I said I want to affectionately embrace the gay culture? Seriously, Elizabeth, this is getting ridiculous. If someone assumes I am associated with the people of the gay culture and therefore the culture itself, I don’t care. How does that mean I embrace the culture? That culture is filled with people, and they are who I choose to see. I can look past the culture and actually see the people.

…and yet have people make no assumptions about what you do and do not attach to. When you’ve just reaffirmed your support of their culture of active sexuality.

Where did I say I support their culture of active sexuality? Because I don’t care if someone assumes I’m one of them? That makes me support their sexual activity? If I reach out to the people in that culture I must support their sexual activity? If that’s the case, Elizabeth, it would be impossible for us to evangelize.

Call yourself gay, and then stop being surprised when people wonder where your spiritual heart lies.

Oh trust me, I’m not surprised. (Thank you CAF).

We make our beds, we lie in them.

If that isn’t true, nothing is. Elizabeth, I really like you but you seem really angry in that last post. I apologize if what I said made you angry. But I’ve got to stand by what I said. Your previous post seriously helped me. I tried to get that across but it obviously didn’t work. Either way, I wish you the best.

 

[Kolbe300]

Now what on Earth do you think the average, normal human person is going to do with that information? Why, he’s going to include it in his mental image of who and what you are. That, my friend, is exactly how human beings communicate.

Well that actually works out pretty well. I can show him that not all gay people support the gay culture and flaunt their sexualities in people’s faces. Maybe I can help break down some of the stereotypes you speak of!

Most of our communication is through symbols and you have the added symbolism of being “gay” as part of your description about yourself.

Right. And if that symbol is interpreted incorrectly, I can show them how they’re wrong.

Now, thanks to your ‘gay’ brothers and sisters, who like to flaunt their sexuality and their lifestyles, and who in the process paint for the rest of us a stereotype, you are cornered.

But who cornered me? The very person who now has the opportunity to quit stereotyping people. And I can actually help them with that.

Despite your protestations, once you adopt the term “gay” as part of your self description, you willingly and willfully become a part of the stereotype.

That could be true. But we don’t usually blame the people being Stereotyped. “Stereotyping” is usually seen as a bad thing. And the problem usually lies with those doing the stereotyping.

And worse, your adoption of it is tacit agreement and acceptance of that stereotypical lifestyle. Either live with it, or dump the aphorism.

Tacit agreement by who? The one being stereotyped or the one doing the stereotyping?

 

[Kolbe300]

People who are SSA / Gay are obliviously a very diverse group. Some are leading their lives in harmony with Church teachings and have found peace. Some are hanging on simply by God’s grace, still others have embraced the gay lifestyle and everything it offers.

Exactly.

 

[GreatestOfThese]

Sorry it took so long to respond. I see the conversation has moved on a bit, so I had to go back and find your post.

They’re not paying you enough. And it shows!

Not the kindest thing anyone’s ever said to me…

As this is your first post, I’ll go easy on you. You need to read the previous post more carefully. The question you are supposed to be answering here is not what the Catechism says, but my question about what happens to the intrinsic dignity of a person. You answered “nothing” because it is intrinsic. Scoose me, but that’s rather circular, don’t you think? Then off you went on a tangent about the Catechism.

I clarify: nothing happens to that dignity because it is inherent, God-given, immutable, and absolute. I bring up the Catechism because the very idea that that inherent dignity can be decreased is itself an affront to that dignity - is itself disrespectful. We enter dangerous waters when we begin to see others as less deserving of respect. They may be more sinful, they may be further from God, but their inherent dignity is still there, and it has not lessened. Besides, was it not you who was up in arms about any line of thinking that differed from the Catechism? I was simply appealing to your sense of right and wrong. Evidently, that failed.

Surmising is guessing, regardless of the subject.

I really don’t understand what you mean to say here, so I reiterate: it was appropriate for CorpusChristi to ‘surmise’, as you say, because the kind of dignity you were referring to is of the sociological kind. As a social science, sociology is full of “guessing” and, though it aims for objectivity, is still largely subjective. That kind of secular dignity is different from our God-given dignity.

Mortal and venial classifications prove that “… there are indeed degrees of sin, and wrongness, and culpability.” as I wrote in response to Corpus Christi. You are attempting to obfuscate the debate by asking for comparisons of one classification of sins. That attempt doesn’t alter the fact that there are degrees of sin and wrongness and culpability. You need to do better than this.

I’m not disagreeing with you! Of course there are degrees of sin and wrongness and culpability. I only ask for comparisons to show that there is indeed relativity to sin - even beyond the classification into Mortal and Venial. I am not downplaying the seriousness of sin; I am pointing out that relativity. Essentially, CorpusChristi was telling you to CALM DOWN. A grave depravity may be a grave depravity, but you’re acting as though an otherwise perfect angel must burn forever in hellfire over one, small slip-up. Sexual deviancy is not the greatest evil out there.

If you’d read the posts properly you would see that he is at odds with the Catechism. Your attempt at introducing a red herring is just so ametuerish. Really, two cents you say?

I’m sorry, but no, he is not at odds with the Catechism. He quotes the homosexual act as being one of “grave depravity”, but where does he contradict that? I reiterate: saying that an act of sexual deviancy is “relatively tame” when compared to serial murder does not make it less grave. It is not a contradiction.

You look rather silly when you suggest that I am quoting God when I wrote, for all to see that "…His answer must, logically, be something along the lines of… . Rather obviously he hasn’t said it yet, so how could you possibly remember Him as having said it?!!

I think the temporal nature of God is a discussion for another time. It really doesn’t matter whether you think God has said, is saying, or will one day say that the dignity of a person is no longer in existence. My assertion is that that is something a loving God would not do. If a person is in Hell, it is not because God or anyone else has disrespected their dignity; it is because they have disrespected their own dignity and the dignity of others.

So mass murderers, child molesters, murderous dictators and all other evil dudes are in Hell with their dignity intact?

So far as it’s possible to surmise? Yes. Yes they are.

If homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” , then I don’t see how they can be compatible with intrinsic dignity of the human person. There will be a conflict between the two.

Yes, there is a conflict. That’s what makes it sinful. But the inherent dignity I’m referring to is intrinsic to the person, whereas the disordered nature of homosexual activity is intrinsic to the action. A sinful person may be sinful, but they are not any less a person.

Downplaying the seriousness of sin is a treacherous game to play , particularly as it pertains to formation of one’s conscience. In my opinion , it indicates a lack of acknowledgement of the consequences our personal sins have on the entire Church and the whole of society. Personally , I would much rather err on the side of caution when judging my own acts.

Diluting the seriousness of sins in the sexual order through moral relativity or by any other means, goes against Church teaching.

I agree completely. Erring on the side of caution is the way to go. But again, I don’t mean to downplay or dilute the seriousness of sin - grave depravity is still grave depravity. I am simply pointing out that this is the 21st century and we don’t stone people anymore… at least not where I’m from.

 

[GreatestOfThese]

Well, there it is in all its glory! Can you see anything in that post that even suggests that I think there is no intrinsic dignity in a person? I actually ask if certain behaviour “…attack and erodes the intrinsic dignity of the individual.” Something can’t be “attacked and eroded” if it doesn’t exist.

I can’t speak for Eugenius, but what I’m trying to say is that the intrinsic dignity of a person can indeed be attacked, but it cannot be erroded. It cannot be lessened.

How many times must gay Catholics say, “just because I use the word gay doesn’t mean I support the ‘gay culture’ or ‘agenda’” before people will believe that? Here is a FACT: lots of people who identify as gay do not support gay culture or participate in homosexual activity. That is a FACT.

Based on that fact, isn’t it up to us not to make assumptions? And how hard is it to just ask someone what they do or do not support? It’s like blaming someone else for the assumptions we make. I don’t get that. Think about it the next time someone assumes you worship statues because you said you’re Catholic. Is that assumption your fault, or theirs?

Thank you for this. I have a friend who’s gay and Catholic, and it’s so many fewer syllables than “homosexual” or “same-sex attraction”.

 

[GreatestOfThese]

In Christian charity are we not required to assume the best about someone until the prove us otherwise. I would identify myself as gay, but use the term SSA here since a lot on this site know what that means. I find it a bit offensive that someone would immediately assume that I am a rainbow flag waving gay rights supporter who is looking to seduce every one I can, if I use the term gay. Wouldn’t it be equally uncharitable to assume that every heterosexual couple must be fornicating? Or that every married couple is using artificial birth control?

People who are SSA / Gay are obliviously a very diverse group. Some are leading their lives in harmony with Church teachings and have found peace. Some are hanging on simply by God’s grace, still others have embraced the gay lifestyle and everything it offers.

I have seen it written various times that we are more than our sexual orientation. I agree with this. I think we do have to admit our sexual orientations have a huge impact on our lives and are a big part of us. Saying that I am gay is only describing a part of me, a single attribute. Just as if I identify as white or black, etc. I might identify as a American, this does not mean that this defines me totally.

I think we should think about the origins of the word “gay”. Originally, it meant happy, almost effeminately giddy. Isn’t that why it was adopted? Calling oneself “gay” should not mean one supports any particular lifestyle. Being “gay” means being joyful and accepting of the Self that God has given (specifically, the effeminate self).

 

[karoleck]

I think we should think about the origins of the word “gay”. Originally, it meant happy, almost effeminately giddy. Isn’t that why it was adopted? Calling oneself “gay” should not mean one supports any particular lifestyle. Being “gay” means being joyful and accepting of the Self that God has given (specifically, the effeminate self).

I once had to enter a unite, whilst the owner was away(with the permission of the estate agent) and this guy wrote another version ,he wrote on his mirror “Heroin is not gay”!
This "gay"person had disposed his used vials & needles out of the window and into the garden below.
From what I have experienced of people who suffer from a same sex attraction ,“gay” is not the term that comes to my mind.A lot have turned to drugs,alcohol ,gambling and yes, sex(with multiple persons) somehow to cope with,using your terms being “joyful & accepting” but I would disagree about SSA being “God has given”.God does not creater suffering or sorrow–this has more to do with our fallen human nature.

I know why one of my relatives has this affliction.His father did not know how to give him unconditional love and in my view was rather cruel to him and his mother was over protective and over pampered, rather than mothered him.He was a product of a fractured,broken marriage.

Here is what **Bill Muehlenberg **writes,from his newly released book called Strained Relations:The Challenge of Homosexuality(Bill is not a catholic by the way)

"But all this seems to mean nothing to these two selfish lesbians who not only want to remake society into their own image, but remake their own son into their distorted and troubled image. This is really part of a war which has been declared by the radical activists against our society and our children.

They(The Homosexual Lobby-my insert) will not stop until they have destroyed the social order completely and done irredeemable damage to our young people. They are on a search-and-destroy mission, targeting our communities and our children, and it is high time that we wake up to the very real dangers associated with this militant activist group.

For the sake of our children, we better start speaking up, and real soon."

End of quote, from his greatly researched book Strained Relations:The Challenge of Homosexuality…

(Bill was commenting on the Californian lesbians(Pauline Moreno & Debra Lobel ) who wanted to put their son Tommy,an eleven year old boy on hormone blockers to delay his puberty–with the hope that this kid might want to become a girl!)

 

[Eugenius]

The thing is Kolbe, the ‘gay’ lobby has hijacked the word to become an aphorism for a much wider definition of homosexuality. We have gay nightclubs, gay parades, gay culture, gay literature and a whole lot of other ‘gay’ stuff. A lot of it is ‘in your face’ and annoying, if not grossly insulting. Now, when individuals describe themselves as ‘gay’, they are labelling themselves as something more than just someone who is attracted to the same sex. They are percieved as announcing themselves as being out and proud and a part of the ‘gay culture’, even if that’s not what they are intending. Blame the activists for it. People are generally sick of it too.

I don’t assume those things when people tell me they are gay. I also don’t assume that all Muslims are terrorists or that Jews eat their children, although there are people who would insist that I am wrong.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Did you even read my post? …Can you use the quote feauture and point out where I said I want to affectionately embrace the gay culture?

Is something wrong with your computer screen? That was done in the first 3 quotes of you that I provided in post 101.

you seem really angry in that last post…

People are “angry” when they correct with your own words? No. Actually you are the one who responded like a petulant adolescent when you declared that because of my response in my previous post to 101, wherein I empathized with what appeared to be your dislike of being associated with secular gay culture, you then recanted and admitted you embrace gay culture, and will not forever refuse to use the term “SSA,” to --what-- “show” me?

I agree, this is “getting ridiculous,” but I’m not the one who wants to have my cake and eat it too. I actually do know people who are homosexual and want no part of having to differentiate themselves from what an entire culture of that has become in the modern western world (certainly).

So we all get what we ask for. I have lived in places which were “notorious” for this, that, or the other thing. I made sure to dissociate myself from public images of those locations when people met me. Yes, I suffered from the “assumptions” people had in their minds, but they were well-founded assumptions, based on the behavior of a vocal majority in some cases, and a vocal, ill-behaved, embarrassing minority of such residents, in other cases.

 

[Eugenius]

People are “angry” when they correct with your own words? No. Actually you are the one who responded like a petulant adolescent when you declared that because of my response in my previous post to 101, wherein I empathized with what appeared to be your dislike of being associated with secular gay culture, you then recanted and admitted you embrace gay culture, and will not forever refuse to use the term “SSA,” to --what-- “show” me?

I agree, this is “getting ridiculous,” but I’m not the one who wants to have my cake and eat it too. I actually do know people who are homosexual and want no part of having to differentiate themselves from what an entire culture of that has become in the modern western world (certainly).

So we all get what we ask for. I have lived in places which were “notorious” for this, that, or the other thing. I made sureV to dissociate myself from public images of those locations when people met me. Yes, I suffered from the “assumptions” people had in their minds, but they were well-founded assumptions, based on the behavior of a vocal majority in some cases, and a vocal, ill-behaved, embarrassing minority of such residents, in other cases.

Let’s not forget that even Christ associated with tax collectors and prostitutes, and was reprimanded for it by the religious leaders. Kolbe probably stands a better chance of testifying to the homosexual community and showing them that there is another way than some of the well-intentioned, but demeaning responses that are all too common on CAF.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Let’s not forget that even Christ associated with tax collectors and prostitutes, and was reprimanded for it by the religious leaders. Kolbe probably stands a better chance of testifying to the homosexual community and showing them that there is another way than some of the well-intentioned, but demeaning responses that are all too common on CAF.

We’re not talking about associating/influencing, etc. We’re talking a name, Eugenius: a name that many homosexuals refuse to use because they do not identify with the entire profile which that name has come to be associated with. That’s all. I also “had an opportunity to influence” the communities I referred obliquely to in my recent post, but that does not mean that I was not tarnished by the name; I was. Solution: differentiate yourself from people with whom you want no association. But if you “love the culture”/“love the community”/ “want to identify” with the community/culture, and choose not to disassociate from the public image of those groups, then do not be surprised if many people (I am not saying I would; I have NOT said or implied that) do make logical assumptions.

Do not put words in my mouth or attribute to me what I neither said nor implied.

 

[Eugenius]

Do not put words in my mouth or attribute to me what I neither said nor implied.

To quote you:

Is something wrong with your computer screen? That was done in the first 3 quotes of you that I provided in post 101.

Ok, I went back to post # 101 where you quoted Kolbe and the first two quotes talk about associating. Now you are saying:

We’re not talking about associating…

Your comments are quite confusing, Elizabeth.

 

[Kolbe300]

Is something wrong with your computer screen? That was done in the first 3 quotes of you that I provided in post 101.

Here’s what you quoted in post 101 from me:

“You see, what bothers me isn’t being associated with a culture.”

“I honestly don’t mind being associated with a group of people that others don’t like or find disgusting.”

“I have tremendous empathy and love for those in the gay culture”

I’m literally forced to ask this again: we were talking about assumptions, were we not? So, if I don’t care that someone incorrectly assumes I am associated with a culture that means I am somehow embracing that culture? Where did I say I embrace the culture? You might also notice in the second and third quote that I’m talking about people, not a culture.

People are “angry” when they correct with your own words? No. Actually you are the one who responded like a petulant adolescent…

The irony in that sentence is literally mind-blowing.

when you declared that because of my response in my previous post to 101, wherein I empathized with what appeared to be your dislike of being associated with secular gay culture, you then recanted and admitted you embrace gay culture, and will not forever refuse to use the term “SSA,” to --what-- “show” me?

I thought about asking, once again, for you to show where I admitted to embracing gay culture but what is the point?

I agree, this is “getting ridiculous,” but I’m not the one who wants to have my cake and eat it too.

It is, indeed, ridiculous. We would probably be best to leave it at that.

Yes, I suffered from the “assumptions” people had in their minds, but they were well-founded assumptions, based on the behavior of a vocal majority in some cases, and a vocal, ill-behaved, embarrassing minority of such residents, in other cases.

A well founded assumption is still an assumption. I simply think we should avoid making assumptions until we know better. That way people won’t suffer like you did.

Let’s not forget that even Christ associated with tax collectors and prostitutes, and was reprimanded for it by the religious leaders. Kolbe probably stands a better chance of testifying to the homosexual community and showing them that there is another way than some of the well-intentioned, but demeaning responses that are all too common on CAF.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Have a good day everyone!

 

[robbie20]

I wouldn’t say I associate with gay culture; or anything quite outlandish like that… But people do have a way of stereotyping ,me as part of that (when in fact the only connection I have to gay culture is that i identify as “gay”).

Of course it doesn’t help when all my clothes are preppy and expensive… Neither does it help when I walk swishing my hips or when I speak I have a pretty high pitch voice…

So even though I may be gay because of my effeminacy I am automatically stereotyped as part of gay culture and activism when in fact I avoid the two as much as I can…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

…

If I may interject here, Kolbe, I really miss the quality of your posts early in the year because they were upbeat and open, coming from a positive place. Since then and in the recent months, there have been new members who joined CAF admitting to having same sex attractions or being gay or having left the gay lifestyle with various degrees in catechesis and knowledge of Church teaching, from very little to average to above average. They have made their views known in the different homosexuality threads.

I don’t know if deep in your heart you really want to use the word ‘gay’ in identifying yourself and that you really don’t care what people would assume about you. If so, pardon me if I say with sadness that that adds a dimension that is not altogether helpful to a brother in Christ who is struggling with the issue. Please don’t take my saying this other than in the spirit of charity. Perhaps you think it is the easier option especially when you are with your friends in the gay culture and you just maintain the same thing with others in the social setting if such a discussion ever comes up and on CAF – whether it’s for the sake of uniformity and/or that you truly find nothing wrong with it.

I understand what Elizabeth is saying. I don’t want to repeat what she and John as well have related in substance about the downside of identifying as ‘gay.’ You did say you love the people of the gay culture, but did not say you embrace gay culture. Anyway, let me give you a short spiel and if you reject it, at least I tried. If Mustang1971 and Robbie20 are reading this post, I wish to address them here as well.

Accepting a gay identity has far-reaching implications because being ‘gay’ includes not only personal feelings, but also describes a social and political identity. As one associates with other gay people, finding a great deal of acceptance follows and fitting in is easy. Since gays often feel that the world has let them down or they feel rejected by the world, they turn to each other for support. Together they feel safe, comfortable, and at home.

Evangelizing your brothers living the lifestyle, if that is your objective, is commendable. The concern is that whatever insulation you place around you, it may prove to be permeable. Since you choose celibacy, a gay identity is just not a good call.

You are in my prayers, Kolbe.
,

 

[michelleds]

If I may interject here, Kolbe, I really miss the quality of your posts early in the year because they were upbeat and open, coming from a positive place. Since then and in the recent months, there have been new members who joined CAF admitting to having same sex attractions or being gay or having left the gay lifestyle with various degrees in catechesis and knowledge of Church teaching, from very little to average to above average. They have made their views known in the different homosexuality threads.

I don’t know if deep in your heart you really want to use the word ‘gay’ in identifying yourself and that you really don’t care what people would assume about you. If so, pardon me if I say with sadness that that adds a dimension that is not altogether helpful to a brother in Christ who is struggling with the issue. Please don’t take my saying this other than in the spirit of charity. Perhaps you think it is the easier option especially when you are with your friends in the gay culture and you just maintain the same thing with others in the social setting if such a discussion ever comes up and on CAF – whether it’s for the sake of uniformity and/or that you truly find nothing wrong with it.

I understand what Elizabeth is saying. I don’t want to repeat what she and John as well have related in substance about the downside of identifying as ‘gay.’ You did say you love the people of the gay culture, but did not say you embrace gay culture. Anyway, let me give you a short spiel and if you reject it, at least I tried. If Mustang1971 and Robbie20 are reading this post, I wish to address them here as well.

Accepting a gay identity has far-reaching implications because being ‘gay’ includes not only personal feelings, but also describes a social and political identity. As one associates with other gay people, finding a great deal of acceptance follows and fitting in is easy. Since gays often feel that the world has let them down or they feel rejected by the world, they turn to each other for support. Together they feel safe, comfortable, and at home.

Evangelizing your brothers living the lifestyle, if that is your objective, is commendable. The concern is that whatever insulation you place around you, it may prove to be permeable. Since you choose celibacy, a gay identity is just not a good call.

You are in my prayers, Kolbe.
,

ISoG

Kolbe, I know I started this debate about the word “gay” and the identity that it implies. I did not intend for you to feel personally attacked and I’m afraid that you do. I do not believe that Elizabeth, John or myself intended to make you feel personally attacked. I hope that you will believe me when I say that these issues are near and dear to my heart and that I bring these issues up out of concern–for you and for our brothers and sisters.

I truly believe that embracing the identity of “gay” will be seen by most people as embracing or at least approving of homosexual acts. From what you’ve said above, it seems that you are not denying that, you are just saying that it’s wrong to do so because it’s making assumptions or using stereotypes. You are trying to fight battles on several fronts and I wonder why you are so enamored or attached to this one word that you are willing to throw energy into the “assumption” battle.

maybe it’s because you and I are in different places in our lives. I identified as gay/lesbian/outlaw for years; for me to continue doing so after my conversion would be disingenous, cowardly, and scandalous. I must make a distinction between pre-conversion and post-conversion. and for me, it’s not at all about how I think of myself or what my closest friends and family know; it’s about appearances to the outside world. to the people i work with, to the people in the building where i work. there are 100’s of people (maybe 1000’s) who know me or know about me and know that I’m now Catholic (because I work in a semi-public position). If I continued to identify as gay/lesbian, I would be giving the impression that either (a) I’m lying to the Church; or (b) the Church is accepting of homosexual activities; or even (c) my conversion isn’t real.

I too want to reach out to my brothers and sisters–heterosexual, homosexual, confused, hurting, whatever.

 

[NeedImprovement]

World Catholic Report:

"As for same-sex marriage—I avoid the word ‘gay,’ because it’s a word that has been colonized by one group and because homosexuals on the whole are as miserable as the rest of us—this is really a second-order issue. Most Australians believe in tolerance and the removal of discrimination, but would stop there as far as redefining the family goes.

The real task is finding ways to strengthen traditional marriage, to reduce divorce rates, which have begun climbing again,and to ensure more children grow up with a mother and a father living under the same roof."

 

[robbie20]

ISoG

Kolbe, I know I started this debate about the word “gay” and the identity that it implies. I did not intend for you to feel personally attacked and I’m afraid that you do. I do not believe that Elizabeth, John or myself intended to make you feel personally attacked. I hope that you will believe me when I say that these issues are near and dear to my heart and that I bring these issues up out of concern–for you and for our brothers and sisters.

I truly believe that embracing the identity of “gay” will be seen by most people as embracing or at least approving of homosexual acts. From what you’ve said above, it seems that you are not denying that, you are just saying that it’s wrong to do so because it’s making assumptions or using stereotypes. You are trying to fight battles on several fronts and I wonder why you are so enamored or attached to this one word that you are willing to throw energy into the “assumption” battle.

maybe it’s because you and I are in different places in our lives. I identified as gay/lesbian/outlaw for years; for me to continue doing so after my conversion would be disingenous, cowardly, and scandalous. I must make a distinction between pre-conversion and post-conversion. and for me, it’s not at all about how I think of myself or what my closest friends and family know; it’s about appearances to the outside world. to the people i work with, to the people in the building where i work. there are 100’s of people (maybe 1000’s) who know me or know about me and know that I’m now Catholic (because I work in a semi-public position). If I continued to identify as gay/lesbian, I would be giving the impression that either (a) I’m lying to the Church; or (b) the Church is accepting of homosexual activities; or even (c) my conversion isn’t real.

I too want to reach out to my brothers and sisters–heterosexual, homosexual, confused, hurting, whatever.

The Church doesn’t actually say you can’t idenify as gay or lesbian… I understand it is discouraged howevcer…