Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[michelleds]

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

awesome post, Mustang!

(on a separate note, Tammy Bruce, mentioned above, converted from liberal to conservative and is now a conservative talk show host and writer.)

 

[michelleds]

I’ve been pondering Dakota’s theory that this is an age-related debate and now I have a question, for those willing to respond. In looking on the internet for others who have similar stories to my own, I found quite a few like myself who were actively homosexual for some period of years and then converted or returned to Christ (most of these that i’ve found are Christian but not Catholic). Those people, like me, reject the word “gay” and for similar reasons.

but then I see the younger crowd, like some of you, using the word “gay” but it appears that most of them have either never been actively homosexual or only engaged in homosexual acts during high school or on rare occasion, as opposed to an all-out embracing of the sexual lifestyle.

I hope I’ve made that distinction between the two groups clear. Does this make sense to anyone else? it’s not really an age-related distinction so much as an experiential one?

Don’t know, still trying to work it out in my head. Seems important to figure out, especially since at least some of us here on this thread hope to offer testimony, hope, and/or ministering to others.

 

[NeedImprovement]

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."

I have a trusty Oxford Concise Dictionary here that once belonged to my dear Mum karoleck. The copyright on this version was 1964 : “© Oxford University Press” , but there were subsequent editions , reprinted - some with corrections . This particular version was from the third (“thrice”) reprint in 1969. The definition of “gay” that yours provided, doesn’t differ much from mine :
OXFORD CONCISE DICTIONARY © 1964 - 1969 edition ;3rd reprint:

gay , a ( ~er , ~est). Full or disposed to, or indicating mirth, light-hearted, sportive ; airy, offhand ; (sl.) cheeky, impertinent;(euphem) dissolute, immoral, living by prostitution ; showy, brilliant, bright coloured , finely dressed, (with).Hence gai `LY2 adv. [ME f. OF gai, of unkn. Orig.]

Regardless of whatever online etymological sources claim (particularly accessible online etymological sources) ; and regardless of who thinks they have “bragging rights” to the word gay, the clearest depiction of what the prevalent thought concerning the meaning of the word “gay” was, up until at least 1969 is defined and substantiated by your hard copy of the Oxford Dictionary and mine. Ours is the more accurate portrayal , because it is precise detailed concrete historical hard proof , which takes precedence over any conjecture devoid of vestigial tangibles .

Remember guys we’re looking at a pre-internet era here. The hard copy of the dictionary at that time is all there was…period.

I further note, that the interpretation you’re referring to of the word in your Oxford Dictionary karoleck , is specified in my 1969 version as being a “euphemism”.
Now between 1969 and present day , something surely palpable happened because today’s up-to-date version of the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines gay, first and foremost as

1. (of people, especially men) - sexually attracted to people of the same sex

 (Hey... wait a minute – isn’t that the same as SSA - :hmmm: )

… don’t need to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots – So I still like what Cardinal Pell says:
Cardinal George Pell:

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

Of course my 1969 version also defines marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman … but… I really couldn’t leave this other thing out either after reading it. My 1969 version of The Oxford Concise Dictionary also defines ***communal marriage ***as -

: “system by which all the men in small community are married to all the women.”

How’s that for a heterosexual moral disaster guys ? uch: (Hopefully a few other things have also changed since 1969)

 

[robbie20]

Michelangelo is an excellent example of gay≠sodomite

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

What’s wrong with stopping brutality against gays? Are we now advocating violence against the gays like me?

 

[Elizabeth502]

robbie, what is an “Independent Catholic?”

 

[robbie20]

robbie, what is an “Independent Catholic?”

Please see the non-catholic forum… I was baptized in the Roman Church that’s all you need to know…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please see the non-catholic forum… I was baptized in the Roman Church that’s all you need to know…

this is precisely what I thought:

robbie20:

An independent Catholic is someone who is in a group that is Catholic but not under Rome’s juristiction…

Robbie, only children and confined adults (in controlled institutions, in prisons) are ever told “that’s all you need to know.” (Well, that, plus people asking questions of the Central Intelligence Agency.) So I will be the judge of what I do and do not “need” to know, without your editing.

It’s quite germane, what religion anyone is, when having moral theology discussions on this discussion forum.

 

[robbie20]

Best response I’ve heard all night

 

[Mustang1971]

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!

John, Karoleck, Michelleds glad you all liked the posts. As far as having my head screwed on right, all credit goes to God. For a long time I was not really where I needed to be, but slowly God showed me the right path.

John, I know a little bit about the Shelby’s but have not really studied them. They are just beautiful cars!

That is cool that they got the mustang’s by you also! What was always nice about Mustangs, Camaros and the Trans Am is you could get a fun sports car for a decent price. It looks like the prices of the latest versions are getting up there though.

It is about time the Mustang is getting some serious horsepower. For a while there they were getting under powered. Camaro was putting Mustangs to shame there.

If I remember right, Ford had a really cool model that was only available in Australia, I can’t remember what it was through!

 

[Mustang1971]

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

I wouldn’t consider it a golden-age. Just my general observation that people seem to be more about instant gratification.

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?

There are plenty of social consequences when any marriage fails. There are plenty of social consequences when the father splits and the mom has to raise the child alone. There are plenty of social consequences when the family is dysfunctional. I think most of us agree that a child benefits most when both the Mother and Father are present. I know sometimes things happen and that is not possible.

My question is why add to the social chaos we already have by continuing to tear the traditional family apart?

 

[Mustang1971]

I’ve been pondering Dakota’s theory that this is an age-related debate and now I have a question, for those willing to respond. In looking on the internet for others who have similar stories to my own, I found quite a few like myself who were actively homosexual for some period of years and then converted or returned to Christ (most of these that i’ve found are Christian but not Catholic). Those people, like me, reject the word “gay” and for similar reasons.

but then I see the younger crowd, like some of you, using the word “gay” but it appears that most of them have either never been actively homosexual or only engaged in homosexual acts during high school or on rare occasion, as opposed to an all-out embracing of the sexual lifestyle.

I hope I’ve made that distinction between the two groups clear. Does this make sense to anyone else? it’s not really an age-related distinction so much as an experiential one?

Don’t know, still trying to work it out in my head. Seems important to figure out, especially since at least some of us here on this thread hope to offer testimony, hope, and/or ministering to others.

That is a interesting thought! At this point I am in older category. LOL. I did not really have a full fledged gay lifestyle. I have a lot of gay friends, so I went to parties and gay bars. Went to the gay pride parade once. Did not have a significant other or live with anyone. As far as sexual activity goes, it was mostly limited to some high school stuff. In college I dated a girl for a few years, we did mess around, pretty much everything just short of actual intercourse. I guess I was not a very good homosexual, I got that all backwards. I did see a lot in the active gay community that I did not care for.

Just a thought, do you think that people who were active homosexuals and then had a change of heart, quit using the word gay as a way of further breaking away from their pasts?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I wouldn’t consider it a golden-age. Just my general observation that people seem to be more about instant gratification.

There are plenty of social consequences when any marriage fails. There are plenty of social consequences when the father splits and the mom has to raise the child alone. There are plenty of social consequences when the family is dysfunctional. I think most of us agree that a child benefits most when both the Mother and Father are present. I know sometimes things happen and that is not possible.

My question is why add to the social chaos we already have by continuing to tear the traditional family apart?

Mustang, coming from you, that might mean more to Eugenius. He has been inserting the same side issue of the failure of heterosexual marriages whenever same sex marriages is the topic.

Your is a voice of reason in this continuing debate. Much appreciated.

ISoG

 

[karoleck]

Mustang, coming from you, that might mean more to Eugenius. He has been inserting the same side issue of the failure of heterosexual marriages whenever same sex marriages is the topic.

Your is a voice of reason in this continuing debate. Much appreciated.

ISoG

You are spot on with all those remarks and all those great posts on this and other threads.

I personally remember in the early seventies when through God’s grace,I felt that as a Catholic that I should stand up against the Abortion Legalization Lobby.One interesting book that I read as a research tool was called Politics In Abortion.This dealt amongst other issues, the use of language in presenting a catholic approach and the terms and ideas and terminology that the abortion factories’ put out.(unfortunately the battle was lost, at least in the short term but I am confident that truth will prevail)

I did the same research on the same sex issue and the best people I found to get information from ,were those who’s lives were turned around, throught the grace of God.This site is worth a revisit in my view ;as it gives a perspective of this debate through those who are experts on same sex attraction.As catholics promoting a life of chastity(which we all need to follow,according to are state of life) the people at Courage have wonderful articles and links on SSA.

couragerc.net/

 

[karoleck]

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.

Here is a passage from Timonthy 1 Chapter 4 1-7

'The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times there will be some who will desert the faith and choose to listen to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from the devils;and the cause of this is the lies told by hypocrites whose consciences are branded as though with a red-hot iron:they will say marriage is forbidden,and lay down rules about abstaining from foods which God created to be accepted with thanksgiving by all who believe and who know the truth.Everything God has created is good,and no food is to be rejected,provided grace is said for it:the words of God and the prayer make it holy.If you put all this to the brothers,you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ and show that you have really digested the teaching of the faith and the good doctrine which you have always followed".

Reflecting on what The Holy Spirit is saying I believe that it is the deceitful spirits(the devils) that are pushing the “gay rights” & “gay marriage”.No ,I disagree with you in your conclusions ,because it is the “Gay Rights Movement–or Homosexual Lobby” that is calling gay(immoral living) good and those in society who are defending the insitute of marriage(Sacrament) as bad.

Sure, you challenge us to show compassion to these persons suffering from this affliction and I accept that.But I believe that we have to establish and identify an illness ,before we can take steps to find a cure for the malaise.

You rightly pointed out about the overuse of the “gay” word ;but I believe that this is due to an intense campaign by the media in all it’s forms,over a long period of time.Part of the treatment to cure a sick society is to re-educate it and to renew this culture back to a Judeo/Christian way of life.Cardical Pell points us catholics in the right direction ,in making the distinction between a person with a same sexual attraction–rather than a label which marks a person as “gay”(homosexual).

 

[Eugenius]

Mustang, coming from you, that might mean more to Eugenius. He has been inserting the same side issue of the failure of heterosexual marriages whenever same sex marriages is the topic.

Your is a voice of reason in this continuing debate. Much appreciated.

ISoG

Mustang1971 asserted that homosexuals want to get married and adopt because they think it will make them happy. This is not a uniquely homosexual dream and I asked him to clarify this statement, which he sidestepped. You need to stop harping on a discussion we had several months ago. Please note that you are the one that keeps bringing it up in newer threads, not me, and I will continue to call you out on it.

 

[NeedImprovement]

CDF ; CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Church Teaching On Same Sex Issues

 

[John21652]

I wouldn’t consider it a golden-age. Just my general observation that people seem to be more about instant gratification.

One needs merely to see the enlistment rates at the outbreak of World Wars I & 2. It is also fairly well established that community spirit is much less today than in previous generations. Not to mention stories reported in the media of how people can fall in the street and no-one stops to help. The Good Samaritan would probably be sued today.

There are plenty of social consequences when any marriage fails. There are plenty of social consequences when the father splits and the mom has to raise the child alone. There are plenty of social consequences when the family is dysfunctional. I think most of us agree that a child benefits most when both the Mother and Father are present. I know sometimes things happen and that is not possible.

Your sentiments would be shared by the vast majority of people who get the chance to read them, I’m sure.

My question is why add to the social chaos we already have by continuing to tear the traditional family apart?

The social chaos you see can fairly well be summed up by using the descriptive phrase “selfish hedonism”. Feminist rights, womens right, abortion rights, immigrant rights, and yes, gay rights. There seems to be a chase to gain ‘rights’ at the expense of society itself. The claims for these ‘rights’ seem to be granted without any degree of concern for the benefits, or otherwise, that will accrue to society. It is very easy to form an activist group, claim disadvantage, discrimination even, convince others they are being hard done by and voila, you have a self serving, selfish, sectional interest group. Oh, and all you need to advance your cause is a short, pithy ‘label’ and then learn how to work the media and public opinion. As we have seen, it works a treat. Bad luck about the “social consequences” though.

 

[michelleds]

Just a thought, do you think that people who were active homosexuals and then had a change of heart, quit using the word gay as a way of further breaking away from their pasts?

good morning, Mustang! I do think that has great significance. who better to really internalize and grasp the lived meaning of a word/identity than the people who lived with it and under it as a living, breathing identity and not just a concept?

For instance, I have never been married. I understand the word “marriage”, can apply it correctly to other people, grasp the concept, but I have never lived with that identity and cannot claim to know what “married” is on an experiential level.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Mustang1971 asserted that homosexuals want to get married and adopt because they think it will make them happy. This is not a uniquely homosexual dream and I asked him to clarify this statement, which he sidestepped. You need to stop harping on a discussion we had several months ago. Please note that you are the one that keeps bringing it up in newer threads, not me, and I will continue to call you out on it.

I will call YOU out every time I read your segue to the topic of failed marriages as if was never before acknowledged, to justify or at least understand adoption of kids by same sex couples. Below is your post which proves YOU were the one who brought it up AGAIN.

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

,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

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

Not worth re-stating the graphic part of your post. A brother of mine is a Corrections Officer in a men’s prison where all sorts of depravity including consensual and forced sodomy happen. I am also very up on medical terminology, facts and trends because of my past line of work in malpractice claims for nearly 15 years against physicians, where I pored over actual medical records. Not to mention I have two brothers who are physicians who know from their profession the risk of anal tears and cancer, consequences of a particular kind of sex habit.

What I said above is not gratuitous, honest, and dead serious.
,