Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[InSearchofGrace]

More on ‘Gay’ v ‘Same Sex Attracted,’ from the point of view of Steve Gershom who has a popular blog site, Catholic, Gay, and Feeling Fine, Thanks.:

On November 13, 2011, he submitted this article to OSV Weekly :After the desert: A faithful Catholic’s reflection on same-sex attraction

STEVE GERSHOM

What would I know about vocation? I’m 28, a faithful Catholic and gay. A little explanation of that last part: It would be more accurate to say that I have same-sex attraction than that I’m gay. My attraction to men is deep and, as far as I can tell, permanent, but I’m celibate. I sometimes use the word “gay” as a convenient shorthand, but it carries a lot of political and even theological baggage, and doesn’t really apply to me, because of my celibacy and for other reasons …

You can read the rest here.

 

[Mustang1971]

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.

Did not mean to sidestep the issue. I will see if I can clarify it a bit more. yes heterosexuals fall into that same trap. The one where thinking that getting married or having a baby will make them happy. Don’t get me wrong both events can be very joyous and bring much joy into ones life. Both getting married and having children can also be a lot of hard work, and even heart ache.

The problem is what happens when there are difficulties. When people base a decision to get married based on feeling they are setting themselves up for failure. When people think that having a baby will fix their marriage or will make them happy they are setting themselves up to be disappointed. What happens when those feelings change? What happens if the man or woman is no longer able to have sex? What happens if one becomes seriously ill? Well most likely someone who basis their marriage on feelings is going to want to bolt. Same goes when you have children, what happens if the child has emotional problems? What happens if the child has a physical problem? This is where people who enter a marriage with the understanding that this is a life long commitment, a will to see this through, a will to raise any children God sends them. Even if the child may have difficulties.

The problem is there are many of who do not look at it this way. Many heterosexuals want to bolt out of a marriage once it becomes difficult. Many heterosexuals will abort baby if they know it is going to have physical problems. Look at China how many female babies are aborted all because the parents want a son. All of this stems from selfish desires. MY happiness, MY feelings, I deserve to be happy, etc. What happens to the well being of the innocent child?

I was also negligent in forgetting all about the child’s spiritual welfare. How many gay couples even if they are Catholic are going to teach the child the truth? If they teach the child the truth, how would they reconcile their life with what they are teaching the child that the Church teaches?

If you look at what the Church teaches it all fits together. One man, one woman coming together in the sacrament of marriage. Once they are married they are to be open to life. Should God bless them with children they are to raise those children in the faith creating strong God fearing citizens that will be a benefit to society. It is when we start messing with the definition of marriage and the purpose of marriage. Along with turning sex into recreation and entertainment that we have what we have now. Look at how many young people have STDs. Look at the divorce rate. Look at how messed up many children are. I am not saying there were not problems before, but it was no where on the scale we have today.

 

[Kolbe300]

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?

Hi Michelle. I just saw this post of yours and just wanted to let you know that it does make sense. I’ve thought about that as well. I think people have a tendency to define “gay” by how they have experienced “gay,” if you will. It definitely makes a difference.

To everyone here:

We all really need to be careful. Someone started a thread a day ago seeking help with their faith struggles and being gay. The thread melted immediately into a debate over the word “gay,” even though he explained himself clearly in the post. That kind of thing is maddening to me. There are times when we all have to look at what matters the most. And the definition of gay is not always what matters the most. Behind every gay person is a person, regardless of how we or they define the word. In that thread, the person was completely lost in the mix. There’s no excuse for that.

I think we all need to remember that. This may just be an internet forum, but there are real people behind every word. Not everyone is looking for a debate.

Peace!

 

[karoleck]

Hi Michelle. I just saw this post of yours and just wanted to let you know that it does make sense. I’ve thought about that as well. I think people have a tendency to define “gay” by how they have experienced “gay,” if you will. It definitely makes a difference.

To everyone here:

We all really need to be careful. Someone started a thread a day ago**(29-11-2011**) ???seeking help with their faith struggles and being gay. The thread melted immediately into a debate over the word “gay,” even though he explained himself clearly in the post. That kind of thing is maddening to me. There are times when we all have to look at what matters the most. And the definition of gay is not always what matters the most. Behind every gay person is a person, regardless of how we or they define the word. In that thread, the person was completely lost in the mix. There’s no excuse for that.

I think we all need to remember that. This may just be an internet forum, but there are real people behind every word. Not everyone is looking for a debate.:shrug**this is a forum after all!)**Peace!

May I make a little observation Kolbe300? I would think that you would have a rather one-sided debate -----as the person who started this thread has not posted again!I got the impression that he was looking for a truthful,honest response from catholics.I believe that he would be very pleased with the material presented and the Links provided so far.

Here is a wonderful link on a free E-Book with well over 200pages for you or in fact any person who is seeking the truth in the light of Christ.It even documents all the stages of the “gay rights” manifesto’s since the first in 1972–I hope this Link will bring you joy and peace.(The Booklet is called Redeeming The Rainbow–a christian response to the Gayagenda by Dr.Scott Lively)

defendthefamily.com/rtr/

 

[Eugenius]

Did not mean to sidestep the issue. I will see if I can clarify it a bit more. yes heterosexuals fall into that same trap. The one where thinking that getting married or having a baby will make them happy. Don’t get me wrong both events can be very joyous and bring much joy into ones life. Both getting married and having children can also be a lot of hard work, and even heart ache.

The problem is what happens when there are difficulties. When people base a decision to get married based on feeling they are setting themselves up for failure. When people think that having a baby will fix their marriage or will make them happy they are setting themselves up to be disappointed. What happens when those feelings change? What happens if the man or woman is no longer able to have sex? What happens if one becomes seriously ill? Well most likely someone who basis their marriage on feelings is going to want to bolt. Same goes when you have children, what happens if the child has emotional problems? What happens if the child has a physical problem? This is where people who enter a marriage with the understanding that this is a life long commitment, a will to see this through, a will to raise any children God sends them. Even if the child may have difficulties.

The problem is there are many of who do not look at it this way. Many heterosexuals want to bolt out of a marriage once it becomes difficult. Many heterosexuals will abort baby if they know it is going to have physical problems. Look at China how many female babies are aborted all because the parents want a son. All of this stems from selfish desires. MY happiness, MY feelings, I deserve to be happy, etc. What happens to the well being of the innocent child?

I was also negligent in forgetting all about the child’s spiritual welfare. How many gay couples even if they are Catholic are going to teach the child the truth? If they teach the child the truth, how would they reconcile their life with what they are teaching the child that the Church teaches?

If you look at what the Church teaches it all fits together. One man, one woman coming together in the sacrament of marriage. Once they are married they are to be open to life. Should God bless them with children they are to raise those children in the faith creating strong God fearing citizens that will be a benefit to society. It is when we start messing with the definition of marriage and the purpose of marriage. Along with turning sex into recreation and entertainment that we have what we have now. Look at how many young people have STDs. Look at the divorce rate. Look at how messed up many children are. I am not saying there were not problems before, but it was no where on the scale we have today.

I agree with all that you said here and it fits right in line with what I said above where Elizabeth mocked me for focusing on the “misery” of marriage, which I would call “responsibilities.” In response to your comment about teaching the faith to children, I’m afraid the same comments apply to heterosexual couples, there is no assurance they will even go to church just because they are heterosexual.

 

[Eugenius]

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.

I already told you that I was asking the previous person to clarify his statement. He has since kindly elaborated and I am in agreement with him, end of story. You need to knock off the silly innuendos about my character.

 

[Eugenius]

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

It sounds like you would object to legal recognition of same sex unions because it would be “adding” to a society that is already in chaos and “continuing” to tear apart the traditional family, which is already being torn apart? I’m afraid that would not be a very watertight defense. Heterosexuals are the only ones with the “right” to muck things up and get away with no accountability? (said tongue in cheek)

 

[John21652]

It sounds like you would object to legal recognition of same sex unions because it would be “adding” to a society that is already in chaos and “continuing” to tear apart the traditional family, which is already being torn apart? I’m afraid that would not be a very watertight defense. Heterosexuals are the only ones with the “right” to muck things up and get away with no accountability? (said tongue in cheek)

I don’t think it’s meant as a defense per se. It’s more of an observation about the continuing failings (fallings?) of western society. One brick at a time is being pulloed from the wall. As I said in a previous post, society is fragmenting into interest groups who manage to cobble together a list of their percieved “rights”. They do it by screaming out about the percieved ‘wrongs’ being done to them by society. Society is accused of intolerance and when it acquiesces, it crumbles. One example is the acqiescence which gave rise to no fault divorce. I’d argue there is no such thing. However, this particular argument is not about that issue. It is about a particular section of society that has built an agenda and an argument on the percieved wrongs and now demands “rights”. The label is “gay rights” and as we have seen from evidence, the “gay” part of the demand for “rights” has extended the demands into areas which greatly transgress societies social and moral mores. The demand is now to make equal what can never be equal.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t think it’s meant as a defense per se. It’s more of an observation about the continuing failings (fallings?) of western society. One brick at a time is being pulloed from the wall. As I said in a previous post, society is fragmenting into interest groups who manage to cobble together a list of their percieved “rights”.

Good morning, John! This made me think of verses from a couple Psalms:

From Psalm 20
Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses *
but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God.

From Psalm 62
In God is my health, and my glory *
the rock of my might, and in God is my trust.
O put your trust in him alway, ye people *
pour out your hearts before him, for God is our hope.
As for the children of men, they are but vanity *
the children of men are deceitful upon the weights, they are altogether lighter than vanity itself.

From Psalm 146
O put not your trust in princes, nor in any child of man *
for there is no help in them.

The point? Looking to western society (or any other society) to do anything apart from crumble is probably not the most productive use of our time here on earth. You strike me as the sort of guy who has read Spengler. If he was right about anything it’s that cultures and societies die, and then others come along. Western culture is on the outs. That’s the way it goes. The grass withers and the flowers fade.

As I said in a previous post, society is fragmenting into interest groups who manage to cobble together a list of their percieved “rights”. They do it by screaming out about the percieved ‘wrongs’ being done to them by society.

You may be surprised to know that I agree with you here. Our concept of rights has become incredibly twisted of late. I’m a fan of Simone Weil’s conception in her work outlining a possible reconstruction of France after WWII: no one has any rights in themselves, but everyone has responsibilities. My responsibilities to you are what I perceive as your rights. In this way, the concept of rights arises out of our mutual responsibilities to each other by virtue of our shared humanity.

In countries like the US (and dare I say it, Australia?) where an ethos of rugged individualism seems to hold sway, we seem to have the idea backwards: I’m a great individual and people owe me something. But that’s not it at all. It’s more like: I belong to a community within the broader human family–I owe the people around me something.

I don’t know if that amounts to 2 cents worth, John, what with inflation and all, but…for whatever it’s worth, there it is.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I agree with all that you said here and it fits right in line with what I said above where Elizabeth mocked me for focusing on the “misery” of marriage, which I would call “responsibilities.” In response to your comment about teaching the faith to children, I’m afraid the same comments apply to heterosexual couples, there is no assurance they will even go to church just because they are heterosexual.

I already told you that I was asking the previous person to clarify his statement. He has since kindly elaborated and I am in agreement with him, end of story. You need to knock off the silly innuendos about my character.

It sounds like you would object to legal recognition of same sex unions because it would be “adding” to a society that is already in chaos and “continuing” to tear apart the traditional family, which is already being torn apart? I’m afraid that would not be a very watertight defense. Heterosexuals are the only ones with the “right” to muck things up and get away with no accountability? (said tongue in cheek)

Emphasis mine.

Nobody is bringing up innuendos about your character. It is about this repeating theme you express in this forum which has been addressed several times. Your reply to Mustang1971 illustrates it yet again. You want the discussion to be the assault of heterosexuals on traditional marriage, minimizing the movement towards same sex marriage and the ‘rights’ the activists continue to demand. Several posters have already elaborated that no fault divorce is not being defended. At all. It is a side issue. For your benefit, John21652 has laid out the full picture again in Post 206.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

May I make a little observation Kolbe300? I would think that you would have a rather one-sided debate -----as the person who started this thread has not posted again!I got the impression that he was looking for a truthful,honest response from catholics.I believe that he would be very pleased with the material presented and the Links provided so far.

Here is a wonderful link on a free E-Book with well over 200pages for you or in fact any person who is seeking the truth in the light of Christ.It even documents all the stages of the “gay rights” manifesto’s since the first in 1972–I hope this Link will bring you joy and peace.(The Booklet is called Redeeming The Rainbow–a christian response to the Gayagenda by Dr.Scott Lively)

defendthefamily.com/rtr/

I have come across that excellent document before and in fact bookmarked it. Thanks for citing it here for thread followers to read.

Kolbe’s admonition does not take into consideration that young people who come on board with concerns of feeling homosexual attractions would benefit with a balanced perspective. On a coping level, an appropriate identification instead of a popular term may best serve the young person who has not actualized or has not yet taken up sexual relations with a member of the same sex in experimentation or as a habit.
,

 

[Kolbe300]

May I make a little observation Kolbe300? I would think that you would have a rather one-sided debate -----as the person who started this thread has not posted again!

Hi Karoleck. I don’t think I would have a debate with him at all, since it’s obvious that wasn’t what he was looking for. And his not posting again came as no surprise to me, considering how the thread was derailed.

I know people mean well, but they’re so focused on the agenda and the definition of words that they’re entirely missing the person. That thread is an embarrassingly good example.

Peace!

 

[Eugenius]

I don’t think it’s meant as a defense per se. It’s more of an observation about the continuing failings (fallings?) of western society. One brick at a time is being pulloed from the wall. As I said in a previous post, society is fragmenting into interest groups make equal what can never be equal.

In my response to Mustang, I did not intend to imply that he/she was defending one position or another. Perhaps I watch too many courtroom dramas; when I read someone’s explanation for why same-sex couples should not get married, adopt, etc., I usually see loopholes in the argument and either point them out or ask for clarification. I am afraid many of these arguments would not stand up to cross examination in a court of law, in other words there is a weak defense. A good attorney wanting to win his case will anticipate these loopholes and be prepared to answer them. This in no way means that I am pro gay marriage, adoption, or no-fault divorce, as some here may like to believe.

PS, I like the brick wall analogy.

 

[Eugenius]

Emphasis mine.

Nobody is bringing up innuendos about your character. It is about this repeating theme you express in this forum which has been addressed several times. Your reply to Mustang1971 illustrates it yet again. You want the discussion to be the assault of heterosexuals on traditional marriage, minimizing the movement towards same sex marriage and the ‘rights’ the activists continue to demand. Several posters have already elaborated that no fault divorce is not being defended. At all. It is a side issue. For your benefit, John21652 has laid out the full picture again in Post 206.
,

Once again you are misrepresenting my intentions, I’ve already pointed this out to you and asked you to stop. My desire is to strengthen marriage, pure and simple. I don’t know why that is a continual problem for you.

 

[Mustang1971]

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.

Hello! You bring up a good point. I guess for those of us who did not get too deep in the lifestyle, I can see where it is a bit more abstract for us. To a large degree I guess we are more at the conceptual level. Like you pointed out about marriage. I think it would be interesting to see what a lot of people who are heterosexual think about the word.

I could also see where a person leaving the lifestyle would want to stop associating with the word also. I would think it would be a stepping stone on the path to build a new identity.

Just some random thoughts.

 

[Mustang1971]

I agree with all that you said here and it fits right in line with what I said above where Elizabeth mocked me for focusing on the “misery” of marriage, which I would call “responsibilities.” In response to your comment about teaching the faith to children, I’m afraid the same comments apply to heterosexual couples, there is no assurance they will even go to church just because they are heterosexual.

I agree a heterosexual couple is not guaranteed to raise a child in the faith either. Realistically two men or two women could mess up a child just as bad or worse than a man and a woman. I am not saying a heterosexual couple is perfect or would never make mistakes or never abuse / mistreat a child. When we look at the needs and the rights of a child, I say they come down on having a man and a woman raise the child within a marriage. We know a home where both opposite sex parents are married is the best and most stable arrangement to raise a child. Of course all kinds of things can go wrong with this arrangement, so I guess my question would be why add fuel to that fire and continue to introduce new arrangements to raising children.

As John mentioned, we continue to remove bricks from the wall. Well in the case of marriage and children I would say not only are we removing bricks from the wall, but we are digging under the foundation as well. See how long a house stands when you undermine its foundation. What seeds we plant today in our children will be what we harvest in the future. If we raise a generation of me first children, they are most likely to grow into me first adults. Then when we are old and not really able to care for ourselves and we need the help of the younger generation we will wonder why they can’t be bothered with us.

It sounds like you would object to legal recognition of same sex unions because it would be “adding” to a society that is already in chaos and “continuing” to tear apart the traditional family, which is already being torn apart? I’m afraid that would not be a very watertight defense. Heterosexuals are the only ones with the “right” to muck things up and get away with no accountability? (said tongue in cheek)

In my response to Mustang, I did not intend to imply that he/she was defending one position or another. Perhaps I watch too many courtroom dramas; when I read someone’s explanation for why same-sex couples should not get married, adopt, etc., I usually see loopholes in the argument and either point them out or ask for clarification. I am afraid many of these arguments would not stand up to cross examination in a court of law, in other words there is a weak defense. A good attorney wanting to win his case will anticipate these loopholes and be prepared to answer them. This in no way means that I am pro gay marriage, adoption, or no-fault divorce, as some here may like to believe.

PS, I like the brick wall analogy.

Eugenius, Remember we all will be held accountable for how we lived our lives. I am sure God will look at how a parent raised the children that he sent them. I know a lot of my arguments are not very watertight, I guess I am just trying to present some thoughts to have others stop a moment and consider these things. Really consider them, not just parrot what they heard on the radio or some talking point they read. Especially for those of us who are Catholic, we should trust in the wisdom our Church has. She has been around for over 2000 years, throughout the years people have been willing to die for the faith. I think that is a pretty powerful testament.

Now admittedly a lot of my arguments probably would not hold up very long against someone who does not express any faith. That is where it is actually helpful for you to point out the weaknesses and the loopholes. I know it helps me to keep on my toes and to think a bit more deeply about what I am about to say. It would not go very well if I present some argument and the pro-gay marriage crowd can pick it all apart very easily!

 

[karoleck]

Hi Karoleck. I don’t think I would have a debate with him at all, since it’s obvious that wasn’t what he was looking for. And his not posting again came as no surprise to me, considering how the thread was derailed.

I know people mean well, but they’re so focused on the agenda and the definition of words that they’re entirely missing the person. That thread is an embarrassingly good example.

Peace!

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

First. Never leave unchallenged any argument in which sexual orientation theory,
homosexual immutability or the equivalency of heterosexuality and homosexuality
is assumed (which is just about any argument you will ever have
on this issue).

Second. Always make the advocates of the “gay” position define the critical
terms.

Third. Stay on track. Sophists will** always change the subject to avoid having
to admit error. **The trick is to stay focused until the term in question is defined.
Don’t allow yourself to be baited into switching topics. Promise to address
new topics after your main question has been answered. (Also, watch out
for the **“tag team” tactic **in which a third party will interrupt your discussion
to help your opponent change the subject. Make these parties address your
question.)

Fourth. Don’t allow your opponent to place the burden of proof upon you to
disprove one of his or her assumptions. The **burden of proof is on him **or her.

Fifth. Always address the aspect of conduct, which by nature is volitional.
“Gay” Advocate: “They’re out there. But gay people don’t have to prove themselves to deserve

Sixth. Keep the discussion on what can be objectively observed and measured
and away from the subjective. Don’t be diverted into a discussion of abstractions.

Seventh. Use affirmative statements to reclaim the initiative in the discussion.

Eighth. Make the opponent face the flaws in his or her logic.

Ten.** Measure your success by the degree to which you have illuminated the
truth for those listening in to your discussion,** not by the willingness of your
opponent to change his or her mind.”

Analysis. --------one can never truly come to a common understanding with a “gay” sophist, since
**he or she cares only about winning and not about the truth. **Yet there are many people who merely
parrot “gay” rhetoric and who are really victims of sophistry, not sophists themselves. These people
are persuadable.
The only value in arguing with a true sophist is to hone your debate skills. Usually,
however, you will have an audience. In that case, take the opportunity to educate your audienceand don’t be discouraged that your opponent refuses to see reason.
When all is said and done, the only real solution to the problems created by “gay” sophistry
is to restore a truthful standard in every institution where the sophists now hold sway. That means
that we who have learned how to defeat “gay” sophistry must actively compete for influence in
those institutions and **to persuade others who share our love for the truth **to do the same.

 

[John21652]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Eugenius]

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

Thank you for sharing this, it confirms what I have suspected about some responses I see on CAF.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Grace & Peace!

Hi NeedImprovement!

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.

Hi Deo Volente .

No offense , but the “way it is” for me, I prefer John’s sense of humour actually .I get his jokes when others sometimes don’t. He has a great sense of humour and the Truth never gets compromised in any of his posts. I also like the fact that he argues in straight lines. We don’t need an interpreter.

Now, as opposed to *cloaked character accusations *- you would rather continue your critique of John ? – Is that a more comfortable word for you . It’s all about language isn’t it ?. It would still seem preferable for you to say “has you in his sights” , rather than he has “what you’ve written” in his sights. So be it. But if that is the analogy you wish to entertain :

Then at least, in this particular situation being addressed, you may wish to consider first asking yourself why you walked directly into his line of fire and painted a bulls-eye on yourself –

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

When he wasn’t even aiming in your general direction …

Then why did you? yes I do know, having been involved in a goodly proportion of this thread. Which is exactly what I (and others) was covering in earlier posts. No need for you to go over old ground, thanks …

…and then you criticize him for it.

Come on… really … to me it’s almost like saying , “Waiter, bring me another round of shrapnel please. Thank-you…OWWW !! Look guys – I’m hurt !”


You are of course aware that threads dealing with the subject of homosexuality at CAF , often become magnets for trolls , right ?

Perhaps it might be a little easier for you to understand if I explained that I took exception to that particular wording because saying , “You dislike me,” can covey the notion “You hate me,” with just a slight amount of tweaking . I’m not saying you would’ve tweaked it accordingly but we Catholics who, on a regular basis, have to defend against the attacks on our faith at CAF by the homosexual militants, get those type of empty accusations in their manifest forms of both the generalized and personalized variety day in and day out.

For most of us, it isn’t just debate – it’s our faith , and CAF is our home . They come to our home to attack us.

Over coffee last Friday , I asked a very knowledgeable deacon friend who is 22 years my senior, why homosexual militants would feel impelled to come and attack our faith at CAF, and he replied : “Those engaged in active homosexuality have an intrinsic need to constantly justify their actions . You needn’t look any further than that.”