Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[John21652]

One iddy, biddy comment before I really do bow out. (Unfortunately, I’m suffering from a horrible inability to quit this thread.) That being said, here’s my comment:

Myself and a few others have argued that the word “gay” often times doesn’t necessarily mean all the vastly different things the “gay lobby” wants it to mean. For example, if I say “I happen to be gay,” that simply means, “I happen to be same sex attracted.” Since I believe “same sex attracted” is actually more confusing than the word gay out in the real world, I choose not to use it. People disagree with that, and that’s okay.

What I cannot wrap my head around is how those of us who argue that “gay” often doesn’t mean everything the “gay lobby” wants it to mean are the ones supposedly swallowing “hook, line, and sinker” what the gay lobby espouses! If one believes “gay” always means this vast gay lobby definition of the word and that we should run for our lives away from it, are they not the one’s swallowing the hook?

Okay, that wasn’t all that iddy biddy, but I tried. Now I shall really bow out. Or at least try to. I hope. Maybe.

Peace everyone!

Kolbe, you are right. The word ‘gay’ doesn’t necessarily mean all the things the gay lobby want it to mean. However, that is precisely what I was getting at when I first wrote that stereotypes are there to be verified, or falsified. let’s face it, the gay lobby have really pushed very hard an entire agenda and it really is vociferous; loud, demanding and in your face. We know that a lot of gays are not like that and don’t share the same extremism. However, the gay lobby is using the term gay because it is generically descriptive. They want others to ‘come out’ and announce their ‘gayness’. It is more ammunition for them and their agenda. So, you use the word ‘gay’ to describe yourself and you immediately have attached to your label all the meaning that has been given to it by the vociferous gay lobby. The same can be said of the term ‘greeny’, which I gave earlier. Once upon a time being a ‘greeny’ was a pretty good thing! It meant you were environmentally conscious. Today, to be labelled a ‘greeny’ is to be burdened with stereotypical connotations far in excess of simple environmental awareness. It is how the human race classifies people and the human race does it for things and places as well as people. The mass media utilise it too, I might add and yes, because of that fact, we have all swallowed the hook!

For you to use “same sex attracted” does not mean you are confusing anyone. The phrase is fairly self explanatory, is it not? It’s a three word phrase that is far more explicit than the generic term ‘gay’ and it doesn’t carry the connotations of ‘gayness’ that the gay lobby have burdened it with. From what you have told us, I would imagine that once a conversation has become relaxed enough for you to mention being ‘gay’, it is relaxed enough for you to use the phrase “same sex attracted” and in doing so you leave behind all the connotations the gay lobby would love to heap on you. I would also imagine that the use of the phrase “same sex attraction” would immediately make your partner in conversation aware of what it is you are talking about, because it is so much more precise in its meaning and doesn’t burden your conversational partner with a whole lot of unanswered questions that, judging from what you tell us, don’t need answering anyway.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

For you to use “same sex attracted” does not mean you are confusing anyone. The phrase is fairly self explanatory, is it not? It’s a three word phrase that is far more explicit than the generic term ‘gay’ and it doesn’t carry the connotations of ‘gayness’ that the gay lobby have burdened it with. From what you have told us, I would imagine that once a conversation has become relaxed enough for you to mention being ‘gay’, it is relaxed enough for you to use the phrase “same sex attracted” and in doing so you leave behind all the connotations the gay lobby would love to heap on you. I would also imagine that the use of the phrase “same sex attraction” would immediately make your partner in conversation aware of what it is you are talking about, because it is so much more precise in its meaning and doesn’t burden your conversational partner with a whole lot of unanswered questions that, judging from what you tell us, don’t need answering anyway.

I don’t want to get between you and Kolbe in your discussion, John. But as you know, there’s a lot more being discussed here than just what’s the simplest most accurate term. Both “gay” and “SSA” can have political or ideological dimensions, some of which a person may agree with, some of which they may find repugnant.

Personally, “gay,” to me, just means homosexual, and it seems that in most contemporary discourse, it simply denotes the fact of a homosexual orientation. I understand that others here understand it to mean “homosexual with an agenda.” But I don’t think the majority of folks who use the term understand that to be the case.

My exposure to the term SSA was on these forums, and in contexts which led me to be believe that people who so identified were uncomfortable with their homosexual orientation (as in, “I have SSA” as one has a disease or “I suffer with or from SSA”). Either that, or SSA was shorthand for people who don’t like the term gay because, to them, it bore a lot of associations (most of them negative) that I don’t automatically associate with the word, making it not a neutral term, as some would suggest, but a term with a political charge equal to their perception of the political charge of the term “gay.” Eventually, SSA has come to mean, to me: “I have a homosexual orientation, but I’m not gay, because gay people are bad because they like being gay, but I’m not bad because I don’t like being gay, and anyway I’m not gay, I’m afflicted with a homosexual orientation.”

Very few folks out in the world beyond these forums would call me “gay” and understand by it that I’m a homosexual with an agenda. I’m not a big fan of most elements of what passes for gay “culture”–and much of what I don’t care for in it revolves around it’s tendency to define people by their sexual desire, making of it a kind of desperate fatalism (the bondage of an ethos that says “we have to have as much sex with as many people as possible in order to realize our freedom as human beings!”). That’s just sad and unattractive at best. If I want “gay culture,” I’ll read E.M. Forrester or listen to Bernstein or Britten or watch something by Williams or Albee or Cocteau or (perhaps controversially?) read some Marlowe or look at a Michelangelo or a Caravaggio. I don’t think karaoke with a lot of drunk and confused fratboys or sloshed and frustrated businessmen cruising each other at a bar while ignoring the drag act amounts to much of a culture (though I realize some would differ), and I’m generally just not interested in that scene. But if I have to choose, on these forums, between people thinking that I have an agenda by using the term “gay,” or leading them to believe that I view my sexual orientation and the orientation of others like me as an affliction by using the term “SSA,” I would rather choose the former.

Which is to say, I would rather others misunderstand me against my intentions than that I should actively mislead them by using a label with which I cannot, given my understanding of it, agree. And, truth be told, I begin to resent ever so slightly the suggestion that people who understand themselves as gay and agenda-less should adopt the label SSA, as if the term SSA does not also have an agenda (and plenty of ideological baggage) attached to it. Moreover, those who so insist, while usually well-meaning, often simply come across as saying, in effect, “Don’t you tell me who you are, I’ll tell you who you are. You must understand yourself according to my terms and my understanding of them. You’d be so much happier if only you did.”

I mean. Maybe. But. Also. Maybe not.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[John21652]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t want to get between you and Kolbe in your discussion, John.

Then why did you?

But as you know, there’s a lot more being discussed here than just what’s the simplest most accurate term.

yes I do know, having been involved in a goodly proportion of this thread.

Both “gay” and “SSA” can have political or ideological dimensions, some of which a person may agree with, some of which they may find repugnant.

Which is exactly what I (and others) was covering in earlier posts. No need for you to go over old ground, thanks.

Personally, “gay,” to me,

Yeah, yeah, we have got past ‘personal’ interpretations. Nothing new here; time to move on.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

I dunno who is handing out all these two cents, but gee, they don’t even keep up with the inflation rate.

Or maybe that is the inflation rate?!

 

[GreatestOfThese]

I don’t want to get between you and Kolbe in your discussion, John.

Then why did you?

John, I hope you’ll pardon the surmising, but I’m pretty sure that was just a way of politely interrupting. Have we not all been contributing to this thread, regardless of whether or not arguments were made directly to us?

Why must you be so hostile? I came to this website and this thread looking for discussion and for answers, as I’m sure most of us did. As Christians, are we not supposed to be encouraging? If history has shown us anything, it is that beating people over the head with ideas is not the way to go. Little is more deterrent than hostility. If you have ideas to share, please, share them. But please don’t treat people like they’re your intellectual inferiors. We’re all just trying to make it to heaven, same as you.

I’m going to leave the whole “human dignity” debate alone, by the way. We might as well be talking angelology. Or Greek.

Also, this:

My exposure to the term SSA was on these forums, and in contexts which led me to be believe that people who so identified were uncomfortable with their homosexual orientation (as in, “I have SSA” as one has a disease or “I suffer with or from SSA”). Either that, or SSA was shorthand for people who don’t like the term gay because, to them, it bore a lot of associations (most of them negative) that I don’t automatically associate with the word, making it not a neutral term, as some would suggest, but a term with a political charge equal to their perception of the political charge of the term “gay.” Eventually, SSA has come to mean, to me: “I have a homosexual orientation, but I’m not gay, because gay people are bad because they like being gay, but I’m not bad because I don’t like being gay, and anyway I’m not gay, I’m afflicted with a homosexual orientation.”

Very few folks out in the world beyond these forums would call me “gay” and understand by it that I’m a homosexual with an agenda. I’m not a big fan of most elements of what passes for gay “culture”–and much of what I don’t care for in it revolves around it’s tendency to define people by their sexual desire, making of it a kind of desperate fatalism (the bondage of an ethos that says “we have to have as much sex with as many people as possible in order to realize our freedom as human beings!”). That’s just sad and unattractive at best. If I want “gay culture,” I’ll read E.M. Forrester or listen to Bernstein or Britten or watch something by Williams or Albee or Cocteau or (perhaps controversially?) read some Marlowe or look at a Michelangelo or a Caravaggio. I don’t think karaoke with a lot of drunk and confused fratboys or sloshed and frustrated businessmen cruising each other at a bar while ignoring the drag act amounts to much of a culture (though I realize some would differ), and I’m generally just not interested in that scene. But if I have to choose, on these forums, between people thinking that I have an agenda by using the term “gay,” or leading them to believe that I view my sexual orientation and the orientation of others like me as an affliction by using the term “SSA,” I would rather choose the former.

Which is to say, I would rather others misunderstand me against my intentions than that I should actively mislead them by using a label with which I cannot, given my understanding of it, agree. And, truth be told, I begin to resent ever so slightly the suggestion that people who understand themselves as gay and agenda-less should adopt the label SSA, as if the term SSA does not also have an agenda (and plenty of ideological baggage) attached to it. Moreover, those who so insist, while usually well-meaning, often simply come across as saying, in effect, “Don’t you tell me who you are, I’ll tell you who you are. You must understand yourself according to my terms and my understanding of them. You’d be so much happier if only you did.”

Ever so much of this.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

John, you’re quite something. And I love you for it. Did we get off on the wrong foot somewhere? Keep it up, and I might begin to think that you rather dislike me…



Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

John, I hope you’ll pardon the surmising, …

This is also surmising on my part, perhaps a bit more than surmising … John and Deo Volente have been participants in quite a few threads in the past, and so have a handful of members including me who contributed to those threads and this one.

The dynamic of a conversation in a string of related conversations is sometimes hard to appreciate when one is a new member such as yourself, with a record of 5 posts and less than a month membership. On this particular topic, you probably identify more with what Deo Volente’s post, as do some others. There are a number of members, too, if you read all of the 158 posts, who are on John’s side in substance. I say substance because writing styles are different from poster to poster, and tempers fly on occasion when a point or points are not communicated in the best fashion. There can be a lot of teasing and use of sarcasm as well. Dialogue on the internet is tricky; the reader sometimes injects a more serious tone than what is there or intended. It is not uncommon that posters use PMs in the back to sort out misunderstandings.
…
As I’m posting this, I see Deo Volente has posted, so the conversation is still going …

 

[NeedImprovement]

Grace & Peace!

John, you’re quite something. And I love you for it. Did we get off on the wrong foot somewhere? Keep it up, and I might begin to think that you rather dislike me…



Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Okay guys, let’s keep it real .

Try to dispense with these cloaked character accusations . If someone thinks John doesn’t like what they’ve written, that’s one thing .

If you’re going to stop half an inch short of trying to imply John doesn’t like you personally … … :dts:

On that same note, I’m starting to strongly dislike this link that has been provided :

Grace & Peace!

Not to stir the pot too too much …You can find the OED entry here: oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/77207 …

First of all , it doesn’t take me right to the page at all, and apart from being able to peruse the site a little, I was only able to look at the sample definitions of about 6 words chosen and provided provided by the website.

I’ve spent (wasted) about 20 minutes now. Please tell me I’m living up to my user name and that this isn’t a link to a site which requires me to subscribe to the site to see the definition. Do me a favor here and paint me dumb :banghead:.

I’m not disagreeing with what is written in the post that much because I examined several accessible online etymological sources and they don’t appear that different from what is being said.

But I can’t access the word “gay” , or any others through that link so far. Anyone else want to try ?

An explanation would be nice.:tiphat:

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t want to get between you and Kolbe in your discussion, John. But as you know, there’s a lot more being discussed here than just what’s the simplest most accurate term. Both “gay” and “SSA” can have political or ideological dimensions, some of which a person may agree with, some of which they may find repugnant.

Personally, “gay,” to me, just means homosexual, and it seems that in most contemporary discourse, it simply denotes the fact of a homosexual orientation. I understand that others here understand it to mean “homosexual with an agenda.” But I don’t think the majority of folks who use the term understand that to be the case.

My exposure to the term SSA was on these forums, and in contexts which led me to be believe that people who so identified were uncomfortable with their homosexual orientation (as in, “I have SSA” as one has a disease or “I suffer with or from SSA”). Either that, or SSA was shorthand for people who don’t like the term gay because, to them, it bore a lot of associations (most of them negative) that I don’t automatically associate with the word, making it not a neutral term, as some would suggest, but a term with a political charge equal to their perception of the political charge of the term “gay.” Eventually, SSA has come to mean, to me: “I have a homosexual orientation, but I’m not gay, because gay people are bad because they like being gay, but I’m not bad because I don’t like being gay, and anyway I’m not gay, I’m afflicted with a homosexual orientation.”

Very few folks out in the world beyond these forums would call me “gay” and understand by it that I’m a homosexual with an agenda. I’m not a big fan of most elements of what passes for gay “culture”–and much of what I don’t care for in it revolves around it’s tendency to define people by their sexual desire, making of it a kind of desperate fatalism (the bondage of an ethos that says “we have to have as much sex with as many people as possible in order to realize our freedom as human beings!”). That’s just sad and unattractive at best. If I want “gay culture,” I’ll read E.M. Forrester or listen to Bernstein or Britten or watch something by Williams or Albee or Cocteau or (perhaps controversially?) read some Marlowe or look at a Michelangelo or a Caravaggio. I don’t think karaoke with a lot of drunk and confused fratboys or sloshed and frustrated businessmen cruising each other at a bar while ignoring the drag act amounts to much of a culture (though I realize some would differ), and I’m generally just not interested in that scene. But if I have to choose, on these forums, between people thinking that I have an agenda by using the term “gay,” or leading them to believe that I view my sexual orientation and the orientation of others like me as an affliction by using the term “SSA,” I would rather choose the former.

Which is to say, I would rather others misunderstand me against my intentions than that I should actively mislead them by using a label with which I cannot, given my understanding of it, agree. And, truth be told, I begin to resent ever so slightly the suggestion that people who understand themselves as gay and agenda-less should adopt the label SSA, as if the term SSA does not also have an agenda (and plenty of ideological baggage) attached to it. Moreover, those who so insist, while usually well-meaning, often simply come across as saying, in effect, “Don’t you tell me who you are, I’ll tell you who you are. You must understand yourself according to my terms and my understanding of them. You’d be so much happier if only you did.”

I mean. Maybe. But. Also. Maybe not.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Michelangelo is an excellent example of gay≠sodomite

Yes, Dakota. Contraceptives and abortion have gravely damaged the institution of marriage. Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae proved prophetic and the women that bore the under 30 crowd should have heeded his warning. There is a corollary there with Eve being enticed by the Serpent to eat the forbidden fruit. It was a woman (Margaret Sanger) who underwrote and funded the first research for a human birth control pill. But then it was a man (Frank Colton) who invented the pill and Wall Street (the pharmaceuticals) got terribly excited about the profits. So men and women should be collectively blamed, I agree.

I also agree that homosexual acts are the same, just as sinful as the sexual sins of heterosexuals. Why it gets much coverage can be blamed on the homosexual lobby. There is not a fornicators lobby, is there?

By the way, what is this LBTQA? An expansion to make for a bigger better force, in the interest of inclusiveness for a population demanding for non-discrimination? I have not done my research, except that the A at the end are for Allieds or Allies. Does it mean sympathizing heterosexuals flying the banner of gays?
,

Heterosexual fornicators don’t get beaten to death with baseball bats or sodomized with broomsticks

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Asexual. There are three major components to the gay agenda 1) stop brutality against LGBTQA people, 2) ram gay marriage down America’s throat balls deep, 3) steal the whole alphabet

 

[NeedImprovement]

…I’m going to stay out of this and I’m going to say a rosary for you all to gain wisdom and understanding with the Blessed Mother protecting and guiding you.

That would certainly have to be the best suggestion for all of us : One Rosary will go a whole lot further than most of our arguments will in seeing everyone of us get to Heaven . Our Blessed Mother can do that sort of thing.

There was another post which really stood out to me, and I think it would be a shame if it remained buried under a pile of several pages of don’t call me names, wait, call me this -but, don’t call me that mentality.

This post -

Regardless of the evil they do all people are still created in the image of God. The intrinsic dignity is in fact part of the person’s soul, as much as people try the soul can not be destroyed.

The intrinsic dignity is what allows anyone to do a good action no matter how terrible they were.

What I like most about it is this part -

…
The intrinsic dignity is what allows anyone to do a good action no matter how terrible they were.

It is reminding us that God our Father will always believe in us too. He’s even willing to “stack the deck” in our favour . If we are able to “do that good action” , it will almost invariably be in response to Him *stacking the deck *- in response to Him offering us a particular grace. In the parable of the prodigal son , it could be likened to that moment where - [Luke 15:17-18 ; NAB]

"Coming to his senses he thought, 'How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.

I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.”

Part of the “coming to his senses” was to recognize the gravity of his sin.

Unfortunately, grace can also be resisted. So in the complete eschatological sphere of things (as alluded to only by one or two members so far on the thread) , there has to be some finality.

To say that the dignity of a human person cannot be diminished, simply for the sake of argument, is a little misleading (I’m not referring at all to your post here Dakota Roberts). The dignity of the human person is ordered towards the beatific vision. For a soul who deliberately chooses Hell , that part of the dignity which exercises the soul’s free will may continue to glorify God by its choice - even in Hell … indicating that the free will God gives us in our dignity is indeed free and absolute

But the great tragedy is that the soul becomes the entire antithesis of the purpose for which and by Whom it was created. According to St Faustina’s Diary , the loss of souls plunges our Blessed Lord into grief - Meditation taken from St. Faustina’s Diary and used for the First Day of the Novena to The Divine Mercy :

“Today bring to Me all mankind, especially all sinners, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. In this way you will console Me in the bitter grief into which the loss of souls plunges Me.”

In Hell, a human soul cannot even even bear one charitable thought. The free will continues to exist , but the image of God in that soul has been totally obscured - eternally. And in Hell, nobody can do a good action

Accounts of visions of Hell received by some of the Saints and/or as recounted from approved apparitions, are, to say the least very sobering – to all of us:

SISTER LUCY OF FATIMA DESCRIBES THE VISION OF HELL

ST. FAUSTINA’S VISION OF HELL

 

[John21652]

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Asexual. There are three major components to the gay agenda 1) stop brutality against LGBTQA people, 2) ram gay marriage down America’s throat balls deep, 3) steal the whole alphabet

What about climate change?

 

[NeedImprovement]

What about climate change?

I think the climate just changed on the thread (… … maybe it was that Rosary)

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Heterosexual fornicators don’t get beaten to death with baseball bats or sodomized with broomsticks

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Asexual. There are three major components to the gay agenda 1) stop brutality against LGBTQA people, 2) ram gay marriage down America’s throat balls deep, 3) steal the whole alphabet

So we shift from non-criminal sexual sins to crime incidents.

It’s ugly and despicable. But I will have to correct you in that said crimes of which you speak is known to happen to straight prostitutes, as well, and to straight men in prison by other inmates, the perpetrators being men who have sex with men. Really sick. They may not get the headlines that gay victims get. In reports to the police, gay on gay domestic violence is also known to happen the same way it does in homes of straight couples. What is undeniable is that violence visits heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Could not tell if that was sarcasm or humor in your last sentence. But I like John’s response!
,

 

[Kolbe300]

Personally, “gay,” to me, just means homosexual, and it seems that in most contemporary discourse, it simply denotes the fact of a homosexual orientation. I understand that others here understand it to mean “homosexual with an agenda.” But I don’t think the majority of folks who use the term understand that to be the case.

My exposure to the term SSA was on these forums, and in contexts which led me to be believe that people who so identified were uncomfortable with their homosexual orientation (as in, “I have SSA” as one has a disease or “I suffer with or from SSA”). Either that, or SSA was shorthand for people who don’t like the term gay because, to them, it bore a lot of associations (most of them negative) that I don’t automatically associate with the word, making it not a neutral term, as some would suggest, but a term with a political charge equal to their perception of the political charge of the term “gay.” Eventually, SSA has come to mean, to me: “I have a homosexual orientation, but I’m not gay, because gay people are bad because they like being gay, but I’m not bad because I don’t like being gay, and anyway I’m not gay, I’m afflicted with a homosexual orientation.”

Very few folks out in the world beyond these forums would call me “gay” and understand by it that I’m a homosexual with an agenda. I’m not a big fan of most elements of what passes for gay “culture”–and much of what I don’t care for in it revolves around it’s tendency to define people by their sexual desire, making of it a kind of desperate fatalism (the bondage of an ethos that says “we have to have as much sex with as many people as possible in order to realize our freedom as human beings!”). That’s just sad and unattractive at best. If I want “gay culture,” I’ll read E.M. Forrester or listen to Bernstein or Britten or watch something by Williams or Albee or Cocteau or (perhaps controversially?) read some Marlowe or look at a Michelangelo or a Caravaggio. I don’t think karaoke with a lot of drunk and confused fratboys or sloshed and frustrated businessmen cruising each other at a bar while ignoring the drag act amounts to much of a culture (though I realize some would differ), and I’m generally just not interested in that scene. But if I have to choose, on these forums, between people thinking that I have an agenda by using the term “gay,” or leading them to believe that I view my sexual orientation and the orientation of others like me as an affliction by using the term “SSA,” I would rather choose the former.

Which is to say, I would rather others misunderstand me against my intentions than that I should actively mislead them by using a label with which I cannot, given my understanding of it, agree. And, truth be told, I begin to resent ever so slightly the suggestion that people who understand themselves as gay and agenda-less should adopt the label SSA, as if the term SSA does not also have an agenda (and plenty of ideological baggage) attached to it. Moreover, those who so insist, while usually well-meaning, often simply come across as saying, in effect, “Don’t you tell me who you are, I’ll tell you who you are. You must understand yourself according to my terms and my understanding of them. You’d be so much happier if only you did.”

This is a* fantastic *post, Deo Volente. I, for one, certainly don’t mind you joining this conversation because all I have to do is say, “What he said.” Thank you.

Peace!

 

[Mustang1971]

Good post Mustang1971.

I get what you are saying.

However, the fact remains that people like you and even Kolbe, are having your personas built for you by the vociferous gay lobbiests who do indeed seek social change and seem to say “…to hell with the socialnconsequences as long as we get what we want”. Unfortunately, one of the “social consequences” is that good people like you, who are leading good lives, living your faith and bothering no-one are being badly tarnished by the vociferous few. And believe me they are indeed vociferous. They are noisy, unrestrained, ‘in-your-face’ shrill, ugly and loud. They seek to demean and denigrate the very foundations of the society that gives them the very freedoms they rely on to be vociferous. This forum carries testaments to how they abuse Christianity with an obvious intolerance that is merciless. Sadly, their polarising influences are causing intolerance to be an issue because they are stretching the tolerance levels of others.

Years ago it was not uncommon to have a kindly old aunt refer to her nephews as being ‘gay bachelors’; that is, someone who was just out and about enjoying life with no real responsibilities. Today, no-one wants to be called a gay bachelor because of the connotations associated with the word ‘gay’. Thank the vociferous gay lobby for that! If I was ‘gay’, I’d be inventing a whole new adjective for myself so I could disassociate myself from their stereotyping.

I gotta ask - 1971; that wasn’t a Shelby model, was it?

Hey John! The 1971 in my username is just my birth year. I wish I owned a 71 Mustang. A did a bit of looking and according to wikipedia in 1969 you could get seven different mustang models were available. In addition you had 9 different V8s to choose from. Those were the days to be into cars. I always found it amazing that years ago you could choose some many things about your car, now it is choose one of two or three trim levels and end up with a bunch of stuff you don’t want. Then of course you can only get a certain color interior with a particular body color. Funny how everything else is going to customization except one of our more expensive purchases!

I agree with you that the gay lobbyists are very load and very visible. That is what makes it so difficult to compete. I know I would have no desire to run around and announcing to everyone who I am attracted to. I know that most people really don’t want to know those details. I guess the best route for the rest of us is to simply live our lives and if someone happens to inquire why we are not married or dating, then it is chance to take a moment and explain our situations. I guess we could look at it as a potential chance to spread the faith if one is not Catholic and to also set the record straight about what the Church really teaches.

Our society is not very big on self-sacrifice anymore. I look at earlier generations and see how they sacrificed today for a better tomorrow. During the world wars people gave up many products because raw materials were diverted to the war effort. Today we are fed a steady diet that we need to be happy at every moment. So the gay rights group feels that in order for them to be happy they should be able to get married and adopt children. Like you said it does not matter what social consequences may happen. It is also funny that we are told to be tolerant and open minded, but it does seem that only works in one direction. I know it is a tactic designed to shutdown debate. If I call someone mean and hateful then there is a good chance that person will back down for fear of being labeled.

I am slowly finding peace with my cross. Every week at Mass I offer up all my pain and sufferings from the week to Jesus. I am coming to embrace my cross of homosexuality. If embracing this cross and offering up any suffering it can help save souls, then it is totally worth it!

God Bless

 

[John21652]

Hey John! The 1971 in my username is just my birth year. I wish I owned a 71 Mustang. A did a bit of looking and according to wikipedia in 1969 you could get seven different mustang models were available. In addition you had 9 different V8s to choose from. Those were the days to be into cars. I always found it amazing that years ago you could choose some many things about your car, now it is choose one of two or three trim levels and end up with a bunch of stuff you don’t want. Then of course you can only get a certain color interior with a particular body color. Funny how everything else is going to customization except one of our more expensive purchases!

I agree with you that the gay lobbyists are very load and very visible. That is what makes it so difficult to compete. I know I would have no desire to run around and announcing to everyone who I am attracted to. I know that most people really don’t want to know those details. I guess the best route for the rest of us is to simply live our lives and if someone happens to inquire why we are not married or dating, then it is chance to take a moment and explain our situations. I guess we could look at it as a potential chance to spread the faith if one is not Catholic and to also set the record straight about what the Church really teaches.

Our society is not very big on self-sacrifice anymore. I look at earlier generations and see how they sacrificed today for a better tomorrow. During the world wars people gave up many products because raw materials were diverted to the war effort. Today we are fed a steady diet that we need to be happy at every moment. So the gay rights group feels that in order for them to be happy they should be able to get married and adopt children. Like you said it does not matter what social consequences may happen. It is also funny that we are told to be tolerant and open minded, but it does seem that only works in one direction. I know it is a tactic designed to shutdown debate. If I call someone mean and hateful then there is a good chance that person will back down for fear of being labeled.

I am slowly finding peace with my cross. Every week at Mass I offer up all my pain and sufferings from the week to Jesus. I am coming to embrace my cross of homosexuality. If embracing this cross and offering up any suffering it can help save souls, then it is totally worth it!

God Bless

Another great post Mustang!

You have certainly got your head screwed on the right way.

Did you read about the Shelby Mustangs?
We even got them down here. They were super cool indeed.

I noticed you can still get a current model upgraded to 624 HP if you are willing to let the warranty go. That’s wicked!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That would certainly have to be the best suggestion for all of us : One Rosary will go a whole lot further than most of our arguments will in seeing everyone of us get to Heaven . Our Blessed Mother can do that sort of thing.

There was another post which really stood out to me, and I think it would be a shame if it remained buried under a pile of several pages of don’t call me names, wait, call me this -but, don’t call me that mentality.

This post -

What I like most about it is this part -

It is reminding us that God our Father will always believe in us too. He’s even willing to “stack the deck” in our favour . If we are able to “do that good action” , it will almost invariably be in response to Him *stacking the deck *- in response to Him offering us a particular grace. In the parable of the prodigal son , it could be likened to that moment where - [Luke 15:17-18 ; NAB]

"Coming to his senses he thought, 'How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.

I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.”

Part of the “coming to his senses” was to recognize the gravity of his sin.

Unfortunately, grace can also be resisted. So in the complete eschatological sphere of things (as alluded to only by one or two members so far on the thread) , there has to be some finality.

To say that the dignity of a human person cannot be diminished, simply for the sake of argument, is a little misleading (I’m not referring at all to your post here Dakota Roberts). The dignity of the human person is ordered towards the beatific vision. For a soul who deliberately chooses Hell , that part of the dignity which exercises the soul’s free will may continue to glorify God by its choice - even in Hell … indicating that the free will God gives us in our dignity is indeed free and absolute

But the great tragedy is that the soul becomes the entire antithesis of the purpose for which and by Whom it was created. According to St Faustina’s Diary , the loss of souls plunges our Blessed Lord into grief - Meditation taken from St. Faustina’s Diary and used for the First Day of the Novena to The Divine Mercy :

“Today bring to Me all mankind, especially all sinners, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. In this way you will console Me in the bitter grief into which the loss of souls plunges Me.”

In Hell, a human soul cannot even even bear one charitable thought. The free will continues to exist , but the image of God in that soul has been totally obscured - eternally. And in Hell, nobody can do a good action

Accounts of visions of Hell received by some of the Saints and/or as recounted from approved apparitions, are, to say the least very sobering – to all of us:

SISTER LUCY OF FATIMA DESCRIBES THE VISION OF HELL

ST. FAUSTINA’S VISION OF HELL

Ah yes, the parable of the prodigal child. The son even when dead was still the man’s son else why would he rejoice at his return to the living? So too does the Father wait for sinners with open arms.

Grace is a gift given unconditionally by God which He wishes us to joyously accept, but as a gift it can also be perniciously thrown away.

What about climate change?

I’m glad I made you laugh

Deadpan: Sorry, it didn’t come up in the planning meeting.

So we shift from non-criminal sexual sins to crime incidents.

It’s ugly and despicable. But I will have to correct you in that said crimes of which you speak is known to happen to straight prostitutes, as well, and to straight men in prison by other inmates, the perpetrators being men who have sex with men. Really sick. They may not get the headlines that gay victims get. In reports to the police, gay on gay domestic violence is also known to happen the same way it does in homes of straight couples. What is undeniable is that violence visits heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Could not tell if that was sarcasm or humor in your last sentence. But I like John’s response!
,

I’d actually classify prostitution separately from fornication because fornication is consensual (else it’s rape) whereas prostitutes are almost unfailingly victims forced into it by the iniquity of others.

Being anally penetrated and being sodomized with a broomstick are two very different things, in the former you have someone experiencing some discomfort as one is effectively being used as a masturbatory tool and possibly some minor internal damage whereas in the latter one is having extreme pain inflicted upon one intentionally with a large probability of intestinal tearing, organ dislocation/damage and large quantities of internal bleeding which left untreated are extremely likely to result in an excruciating death.

The first was dead serious, the second was gratuitously honest, the third in jest and yet serious.

 

[karoleck]

This thread does move with a fast pace,just like the Mustang(whose posts are impressive!)
I looked up my Oxford Dictionary (InSearchofGrace-thank for your kind comments) and here is my 1958’s Oxford definition of the word 'GAY"–“Full of or disposed to or indicating mirth,light-hearted,sportive;airy,off handed;cheeky,impertinent;(euphem.) dissolute,immoral,living by prostitution;showy,brilliant,bright-coloured,finely dressed,(with)Hence gaily.”

So yes, to a certain extent from this, could conclude that a “gay” person could be correct in being defined as dissolute,immoral and living by prostitution?.(when I grew up the term used to describe this disorder was “a poofter”. I am not saying that this was desirable or very charitable)

Another poster alluded to the fact that a lot of people with a same sex attraction do not approve of the strong “in your face” Gay Rights and “gay marriage”.Here is anoughter little quotation from the book by Bill Muehlenberg(the last–it is best to buy his book for further great insights into the Homosexual Lobby agenda)

"In my book I also quote from one noted lesbian and pro-abortion feminist, Tammy Bruce. She is also the former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organisation for Women, but she is greatly alarmed by homosexual activism. This is what she says about the issue of children and the homosexual agenda: “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.”

She continues: “The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you’re really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation?

“By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? Of course, the only way to get that idea accepted is to condition people into accepting nihilism that forbids morality and judgment.” (Strained Relations, pp.140-141).

Homosexual activists claim that same-sex marriage rights and adoption rights will harm no one, so we should just back off and allow them to do their thing. But, as I have just shown above (and in far greater detail in the rest of my book), this is simply one big lie. Such radical social changes affect everyone, and most importantly, children."

 

[Eugenius]

This string of comments has been interesting. Unfortunately what has emerged for me is that some Catholics care too much about what other people think and wish to project their fears on other people. Yes, there are valid concerns, but the story about the Good Samaritain is largely about caring too much what people think. In this day and age school children use anti-gay epithets all day long and it doesn’t matter if the target is gay or not. It has become a joke word. The culture has been desensitized not so much because some gay “lobby” is pushing it, but because lack of respect and the desire to be insulting is so prevalent that the word “gay” has lost its shock value from overuse.

 

[Eugenius]

Our society is not very big on self-sacrifice anymore. I look at earlier generations and see how they sacrificed today for a better tomorrow. During the world wars people gave up many products because raw materials were diverted to the war effort.

The self-sacrifice of that era had more to do with economic and social conditions than some golden-age of selflessness.

Today we are fed a steady diet that we need to be happy at every moment. So the gay rights group feels that in order for them to be happy they should be able to get married and adopt children. Like you said it does not matter what social consequences may happen.

You’ve lost me here, are you saying by comparison that heterosexuals don’t get married and adopt children with the belief that they will be happy, and that there aren’t social consequences when those marriages fail?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi NeedImprovement!

Okay guys, let’s keep it real .

Try to dispense with these cloaked character accusations . If someone thinks John doesn’t like what they’ve written, that’s one thing .

If you’re going to stop half an inch short of trying to imply John doesn’t like you personally … … :dts:

No cloaked character accusations here. John and I have butted heads on a couple other threads. He’s a lovely guy. When he has you in your sights, you should be prepared for a bit of a walloping, unless he’s in a particularly good mood! If he thinks you’ve gotten in the way and he finds you annoying, he’ll find a way to tell you in no uncertain terms (as he did here). That’s not an accusation. It’s just the way it is. I’ve learned that it’s better not to take his brusque style too too seriously and would much rather deal with it with a bit of humor.

On that same note, I’m starting to strongly dislike this link that has been provided :

First of all , it doesn’t take me right to the page at all, and apart from being able to peruse the site a little, I was only able to look at the sample definitions of about 6 words chosen and provided provided by the website.

I’ve spent (wasted) about 20 minutes now. Please tell me I’m living up to my user name and that this isn’t a link to a site which requires me to subscribe to the site to see the definition. Do me a favor here and paint me dumb :banghead:.

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 .

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!