Question on Homosexuality

[goofyjim]

I kinda see what you are saying, but my heart is unsettled by this.

Think of it this way. Even the Church says that some find themselves with the attraction through no fault of their own. Their only requirement is to live a chaste life. If they are doing this then they are not sinning. Otherwise the person with ssa is sinning just by getting out of bed in the morning. The Church wouldn’t possibly teach that anyone is in a constant state of sin. Some can be in a constant state of grace like the Blessed Mother, for example, but to say someone is in a constant state of sin would leave them with no hope for salvation.

The alcoholic who stays dry is not sinning either. He continues to face temptation maybe. But the temptation is not the sin. Otherwise we are all in trouble because we are all tempted. Anyone who refutes that idea is an outright liar.

 

[Mirdath]

That is the same as saying an alcoholic condition even though one is dry should not be overcome. You have two choices. You can live with it or try to purge it from your being completely. Here or in purgatory?

Staying sober is overcoming alcoholism or other substance addiction. It doesn’t just go away if you snap your fingers; it’ll be there in the back of your head for the rest of your life, always whispering at you: go ahead, one won’t hurt.

 

[blessedtoo]

Think of it this way. Even the Church says that some find themselves with the attraction through no fault of their own. Their only requirement is to live a chaste life. If they are doing this then they are not sinning. Otherwise the person with ssa is sinning just by getting out of bed in the morning. The Church wouldn’t possibly teach that anyone is in a constant state of sin. Some can be in a constant state of grace like the Blessed Mother, for example, but to say someone is in a constant state of sin would leave them with no hope for salvation.

The alcoholic who stays dry is not sinning either. He continues to face temptation maybe. But the temptation is not the sin. Otherwise we are all in trouble because we are all tempted. Anyone who refutes that idea is an outright liar.

That’s great, Jim. But the reason Buffalo is unsettled is because you, us usual, left out the part of the Catechism which says that a homosexual orientation, whatever it’s origin, is intrinsically disordered. This is what makes us all squirm a bit when you attempt to defend the orientation itself as being nothing more than a case of “different eye color”. It is not. It is, as has been explained 1000 times, not ordered to natural law, biological health, or the procreative good. Just as my alcoholism, regardless of it’s origin, and even though I no longer drink, is intrinsically disordered. By it’s very existence, it compels me to behave in a way that is not beneficial for the good.

 

[blessedtoo]

Certainly blindness isn’t the norm vis a vis the general population. But can a blind person be healthy? Yes, they can. You aren’t really using the word correctly, is all I am trying to tell you. Medicine does not work that way, or at least not as simply as you seem to think.

Disease, deformity, abnormalities are all things which medicine attempts to FIX, right? If a child is born with a cleft palate, he may be perfectly healthy otherwise, but wouldn’t his doctor do everything to fix his deformity?

Of course there is a standard by which we recognize health. Billions of dollars are spent by the government every year to find “cures” for that which afflicts human beings and places their health and well being at risk.

I really take issue with your tone. It is condescending and insulting. I was about to do a post with a cut and paste of all the rude remarks you’ve made so far, but it’s ain’t worth it. Truth is, without fact and reason to stand on, insult is usually the last resort.

 

[Ahimsa]

Seems to me that “disorder” is quite subjective, in the sense that one can view, e.g., blindness as (1) a disorder, and therefore as a ‘handicap’ and something that causes you to worry, fret, or fear; or (2) as a gift, and therefore a blessing that one can use for the greater glory of God, in whatever way He chooses.

To see SSA as a ‘disorder’ would not preclude also seeing it as a gift to be wisely utilized. It’s a “both…and” issue, not an “either…or” issue.

 

[blessedtoo]

Seems to me that “disorder” is quite subjective, in the sense that one can view, e.g., blindness as (1) a disorder, and therefore as a ‘handicap’ and something that causes you to worry, fret, or fear; or (2) as a gift, and therefore a blessing that one can use for the greater glory of God, in whatever way He chooses.

To see SSA as a ‘disorder’ would not preclude also seeing it as a gift to be wisely utilized. It’s a “both…and” issue, not an “either…or” issue.

Disorder, in the case of blindness, is not subjective at all. Blind people are considered physically handicapped. Even the state recognizes this and makes accomodations. Mental illness is the same only it is a psychological disability. Nothing subjective there. If you’ve ever known someone with schizophrenia, clearly you understand it as a disability.

From a spiritual standpoint, all physical, psychological and emotional disorders can be edifying if one understands the blessing of suffering. Those who carry the cross of SSA can be spiritual giants when they offer their sacrifice for God’s glory. The same goes for all who suffer. But attempting to DENY that one has such a cross does nothing to glorify God. In ex-drunk world, we call that denial. A blind person who refuses to accept that they are blind will never avail themselves of the opportunities to assist them through life.

 

[Ahimsa]

A blind person who refuses to accept that they are blind will never avail themselves of the opportunities to assist them through life.

Being “blind” is certainly objective. Whether a blind person wants to think of herself as “disordered” is up to her.

 

[goofyjim]

That’s great, Jim. But the reason Buffalo is unsettled is because you, us usual, left out the part of the Catechism which says that a homosexual orientation, whatever it’s origin, is intrinsically disordered. This is what makes us all squirm a bit when you attempt to defend the orientation itself as being nothing more than a case of “different eye color”. It is not. It is, as has been explained 1000 times, not ordered to natural law, biological health, or the procreative good. Just as my alcoholism, regardless of it’s origin, and even though I no longer drink, is intrinsically disordered. By it’s very existence, it compels me to behave in a way that is not beneficial for the good.

But if one is not acting on these inclinations they are healthy. There is nothing unhealthy about having either condition. I really don’t care anymore whether or not the Church wants to call it disordered. I consider it a healthy part of me that I can do nothing about except refuse to act on it and remain chaste.

 

[fix]

Certainly blindness isn’t the norm vis a vis the general population. But can a blind person be healthy? Yes, they can. You aren’t really using the word correctly, is all I am trying to tell you. Medicine does not work that way, or at least not as simply as you seem to think.

A blind person may have other bodily systems that are healthy, but they ceratinly have a visual defect or pathology so they are not healthy in every parameter.

The game you play is not really a scientific one, but a moral one. The attempt to misdefine health and pathology as if they are exclusively subjective is based on a certain premise. That premise is clear to all who read this thread.

 

[estesbob]

A blind person may have other bodily systems that are healthy, but they ceratinly have a visual defect or pathology so they are not healthy in every parameter.

The game you play is not really a scientific one, but a moral one. The attempt to misdefine health and pathology as if they are exclusively subjective is based on a certain premise. That premise is clear to all who read this thread.

The game is to try and divert the thread from discussing the morality of Homosexuality. It does not matter whether one beleives the roots of SSA it is natural or pathological or genetic or enviromental. it is greviously immoral behavior regardless. This is based on 4,000 years of Judeo/Christain teaching as revealed by God. Now if one does not accpet the Authority of any Church that condemns homosexual behavior that is their choice but then 0ne must ask why are they discussing it in a Catholic Forum?

 

[goofyjim]

The OP asked if they were possibly born with the orientation. They were not suggesting moralizing the acts. If it has been shown that there is an alcoholism gene then the tendency becomes in some a given such as eye color or hair color. This may also be the case with a homosexual orientation because all the socalled causes afterwards do not fit everyone. I know this does not legitimize the activity but at least it would take the pressure off someone that they have to be heterosexual by nature to gain acceptance into society. They don’t. They are only required to practice abstinence like the rest of the unmarried population.

 

[fix]

The OP asked if they were possibly born with the orientation. They were not suggesting moralizing the acts. If it has been shown that there is an alcoholism gene then the tendency becomes in some a given such as eye color or hair color. This may also be the case with a homosexual orientation because all the socalled causes afterwards do not fit everyone. I know this does not legitimize the activity but at least it would take the pressure off someone that they have to be heterosexual by nature to gain acceptance into society. They don’t. They are only required to practice abstinence like the rest of the unmarried population.

See, you are equating eye color with other things that are not equivalent. Eye color does not predispose one to drink to excess. We do not correct eye color for other than cosmetic reasons. We do not call eye color pathologic, disordered, or a potential to cause a problem.

I am not saying every variation of normal or deviation demands correction. As an example folks routinely live with mild acne. No one says that is healthy? No one demands it be corrected in each case.

What I argue against is the idea every single variation that occurs is “normal” and tends toward what we were designed to be. That we all have defects does not mean we are bad or should be forced into a correction if such treatment exists, but to pretend pathology is healthy is dishonest and opens the door for folks to claim since it occurs we deem this healthy and are free to act on it.

 

[goofyjim]

See, you are equating eye color with other things that are not equivalent. Eye color does not predispose one to drink to excess. We do not correct eye color for other than cosmetic reasons. We do not call eye color pathologic, disordered, or a potential to cause a problem.

I am not saying every variation of normal or deviation demands correction. As an example folks routinely live with mild acne. No one says that is healthy? No one demands it be corrected in each case.

What I argue against is the idea every single variation that occurs is “normal” and tends toward what we were designed to be. That we all have defects does not mean we are bad or should be forced into a correction if such treatment exists, but to pretend pathology is healthy is dishonest and opens the door for folks to claim since it occurs we deem this healthy and are free to act on it.

Well I have a homosexual orientation. I’m healthy. If others can’t accept that, tough.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think what goofyjim is getting at–or perhaps just what I’m getting from goofyjim–is that the language of the church with regard to sexuality is confusing, to say the least.

I can understand that there is a difference between “disordered” and immoral. But the effect of making this distinction is complex. The impulse seems to be to want to locate the epicenter of the moral in a movement of the will, in will-in-action. In practice, however, there is a tendency to confuse the two terms–how is it possible to recognize that a disorder thing by its very nature perverts the will without suggesting that that thing in itself is immoral, or a wellspring of immorality. The disordered condition is not merely a given, but a given ordered to disorder/immorality, a given that is innately diabolical. The effect is to suggest that a particular condition causes the will to be more fallen or more crippled than your average fallen will. In short, it suggests that, naturally, fallen homosexuals are more debased than fallen heterosexuals, that the will of a homosexual battling lust is more crippled than the will of the heterosxual battling lust because the homosexual desire is ordered to an inappropriate object. It is to say that the will of the homosexual is diseased. A suggestion which rightly angers those who, like goofyjim, do not feel that their will, having conquered their passions, is particularly unhealthy.

Now, it may be suggested, “but you’re precisely right! Terms like ‘order’ or ‘disorder’ apply to the object towards which the condition is ordered, not the will which acts on the prompting or evidence of the condition.” Okay. So let’s look at this–a sexuality that is ordered to an inappropriate object is naturally considered disordered. Basically, this says that “disorder” is a polite synonym for “wrong”. And the party line that the catechism endorses seems to suggest that saying this is appropriate, “No no no, it’s not ontologically wrong to be a homosexual, you’re not wrong in your being, you’re just inclined to perpetually misidentify the correct object of your affections. That’s right–you’re not wrong in your being, you’ll just want to make the wrong choices. And while the thing, this thing, this condition which prompts you to want to make the wrong choices is not, in itself, immoral, it is wrong. Because it wants you to do wrong things. And if you do wrong things, you’ll be doing something immoral. Yes. That’s right. Because what’s wrong is immoral.”

So this all begs the question–is there a difference between what is “wrong” and what is “immoral”? Is what is moral different from what is correctly ordered?

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

Ultimately, I think the language of the catechism does one of two things:
1–suggests that the morality of a thing is separate from whether or not it is ordered or disordered, which must mean that if something is disordered it does not necessarily make it morally wrong (which implies that being a healthy homosexual is perfectly reasonable)
2–suggests that immoral and disordered are the same thing (which implies that a healthy homosexual is rare if not an impossibility)

The conclusion that can be drawn from option 1 is this–not everything wrong is immoral. The conclusion that can be drawn from option 2 is this–homosexuals are innately immoral.

Conclusion 1 seems the most acceptable, but it has its own problems. It suggests this: I may be a constitutionally bad speller, but if I spell something wrongly, that doesn’t make either the word immoral or me immoral. It just means I got it wrong. Well, what is it that makes other wrong things immoral? It must pertain to their particular sphere of being or action. Certainly it’s wrong to stab someone–a knife in a body is an example of disorder (it’s not meant to be there!), but there must be a moral dimension that distinguishes between a knifing and surgery.

We have to admit, then, that the word “disorder” carries no moral judgment, irregardless of what it describes. Whether or not a condition is ordered to a right or wrong object does not or cannot determine its moral value. Order and disorder are semantic placeholders which, while implying a correct or incorrect end to which something is ordered does not imply the value judgment which “correct” or “incorrect” suggest. To presume otherwise is a confusion of the disordered with the immoral.

The catechism suggests that though I am a man, even if I desire sex with a man, the desire may be disordered, but it is not morally wrong.

Is this how I am to understand the catechism? That is, it wants to say that heterosexuality is normative in itself, but that doesn’t mean that homosexuality in itself is wrong?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[davidv]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

Ultimately, I think the language of the catechism does one of two things:
1–suggests that the morality of a thing is separate from whether or not it is ordered or disordered, which must mean that if something is disordered it does not necessarily make it morally wrong (which implies that being a healthy homosexual is perfectly reasonable)
2–suggests that immoral and disordered are the same thing (which implies that a healthy homosexual is rare if not an impossibility)

The conclusion that can be drawn from option 1 is this–not everything wrong is immoral. The conclusion that can be drawn from option 2 is this–homosexuals are innately immoral.

Conclusion 1 seems the most acceptable, but it has its own problems. It suggests this: I may be a constitutionally bad speller, but if I spell something wrongly, that doesn’t make either the word immoral or me immoral. It just means I got it wrong. Well, what is it that makes other wrong things immoral? It must pertain to their particular sphere of being or action. Certainly it’s wrong to stab someone–a knife in a body is an example of disorder (it’s not meant to be there!), but there must be a moral dimension that distinguishes between a knifing and surgery.

We have to admit, then, that the word “disorder” carries no moral judgment, irregardless of what it describes. Whether or not a condition is ordered to a right or wrong object does not or cannot determine its moral value. Order and disorder are semantic placeholders which, while implying a correct or incorrect end to which something is ordered does not imply the value judgment which “correct” or “incorrect” suggest. To presume otherwise is a confusion of the disordered with the immoral.

The catechism suggests that though I am a man, even if I desire sex with a man, the desire may be disordered, but it is not morally wrong.

Is this how I am to understand the catechism? That is, it wants to say that heterosexuality is normative in itself, but that doesn’t mean that homosexuality in itself is wrong?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

To compete a metaphor using this thinking:
As it is not right for a knife to embedded in our body, so it is not right for same sex attraction to exist in a person, but is morally neutral until some action occurs. I believe this is consistent with the catechism’s teaching on the matter.

 

[LBJ]

Most who attened Catholic School up until the early 1960’s know that left handed children were forced to learn to write with there right hands. In fact, there are still some of those children alive today. The reason was that the church believed left handed people were under demonic influence. Similar to those women in Salem, MA who didn’t float when dunked for being suspected of witchcraft.By the way, I’m probably more heterosexual than some you. The charge that only another gay would defend them, went out around the early 1990’s. Jesus never said a word about SSA. If you read Rm.1:18-32 anyone can see that Paul thought SSA was a punishment from God. In verse 29 we see the term fornication. There are far more hetro-fornicators receiving communion on Sunday and through out the week than gays. Why don’t you pick on them? And, while your at it, how about masturbators? Self-Abuse and the eucharist; Paul believed in an invisible man in the sky, he couldn’t have known better! I’ve been through the sky several times areonautically, and never saw angles, saints, Jesus, my dead loved ones or anything else there! When the Russians went into space in 1961, they said that “we went into Heaven, and we didn’t see God there.” Anyway, I don’t dislike gays or catholics, I dislike ignorance. The Bible has been proven wrong on Slavery, Genocide, Infantacide, repression of women, and the Tribal God of the Jews. The Holy Father has just recently declaired Darwinian Evolution to be true, which means there was NO Adam and Eve! Now is it just possilble that the Bible could be wrong about more things? And were does that leave original sin? All religions are based on the suspension of rational thought. The more educated I become, the less religious I am. So, were is God?

 

[Ahimsa]

I’ve been through the sky several times areonautically, and never saw angles, saints, Jesus, my dead loved ones or anything else there!

You have to learn a different type of aeronautics for that to happen.

 

[blessedtoo]

Most who attened Catholic School up until the early 1960’s know that left handed children were forced to learn to write with there right hands. In fact, there are still some of those children alive today.

Urban myth. Pre Vat2 Catholic here. Catholic Grammar and High School. Two sisters, both attended all Catholic Schools, pre Vat 2. Never, never did such a thing occur. Absurd.

The reason was that the church believed left handed people were under demonic influence.

Ignorant statement. Ridiculous.

Similar to those women in Salem, MA who didn’t float when dunked for being suspected of witchcraft.

The Catholic Church was not responsible for Salem. Do some research.

The charge that only another gay would defend them, went out around the early 1990’s.

I didn’t see anyone level such a charge here.

Jesus never said a word about SSA.

Or abortion, or pedophilia, or incest or many other things.

There are far more hetro-fornicators receiving communion on Sunday and through out the week than gays. Why don’t you pick on them? And, while your at it, how about masturbators? Self-Abuse and the eucharist;

Why don’t you do a search on the threads as a research project. There are probably 1000 threads on masturbation, fornication, and receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

Paul believed in an invisible man in the sky, he couldn’t have known better!

Where did Paul say that in the Bible? What would you tell Paul to enlighten him? This?

I’ve been through the sky several times areonautically, and never saw angles, saints, Jesus, my dead loved ones or anything else there! When the Russians went into space in 1961, they said that “we went into Heaven, and we didn’t see God there.”

Anyway, I don’t dislike gays or catholics, I dislike ignorance.

That’s interesting. Both of your posts are full of ignorance of the Catholic Church. Absolutely chock full of myth and propaganda. Such as:

The Bible has been proven wrong on Slavery, Genocide, Infantacide, repression of women, and the Tribal God of the Jews. The Holy Father has just recently declaired Darwinian Evolution to be true, which means there was NO Adam and Eve!

Is that a headline you read in some newspaper? Perhaps before you make a completely false statement like this you might actually read what the Pope said. You won’t look so silly.

Now is it just possilble that the Bible could be wrong about more things? And were does that leave original sin? All religions are based on the suspension of rational thought.

How would you know? There is no reasoning involved when you are basing your conclusions on falsehood.

The more educated I become, the less religious I am.

I disagree. The more educated you THINK you are, the farther from the truth you get.

 

[smarez89]

Since Im new to this forum, Im not sure where to put this question - or if its even allowed!

my question/situation is this…

I grew up with twin boys. When they were 9yrs old their dad left home for another woman. Later in life they claim that this situation caused lots of confusion in their mental state (Im just repeating what they told me) and was a major factor in their lifestyle as adults (gay men).

When we were in high school, rumors were that they were gay. They were NOT! They were sort of shy, not aggressive with the girls. Physically they were thin, weak lookin’.
I had other girl friends that wouldve backed up my belief’s in knowing that they were just normal guys! Just ‘out-cast’, that’s all!

After graduation they both enlisted in the Army and went away for 4-6 years.

Both came home from the military as gay men. Both of them!

Why am I bringing this up to this place?

Last week my hairdresser and I were talking about this (my gay twin friends). She questioned the idea of… “born knowing they were different. Just too scared to say anything.” Basically because they are TWINS she felt this way.

I say, NO! They werent gay (still dont believe they are)… And I think its society’s fault for not accepting them as they were/are (by being timid, small, weak types) and the gay community DID accept them.
In their community, they found support, Love, ACCEPTANCE (one of our greatest emotional needs).
Personally, I think one of the twins became involved in this lifestyle, then invited the other. Just my assumption.

My question is this: (which is what my hairdresser and I
questioned)
do you think that homosexual’s are "born this way’?
or
do you think that through lifes experiences, that one can choose (not sure if this is the right word - but you know what I mean) this lifestyle and believe they are gay?

**NO gay bashing, please.
If this topic is not allowed on this forum, a moderator is welcome to delete this thread or move it.

Okay enough of all this scientific evidence stuff! We as Christians should know by now that science doesn’t prove ALL things and supports other things that we don’t believe in.

Hi I’m Stephen and I am gay. I had a male role model in my life. I have a terrific mother and a father to support me. I have big time jocks as uncles and have been taught nothing but how to live the all American “heterosexual” life. I’ve played sports all my life and I have dated girls in the past; but it just never felt right in my heart. Growing up I spent my life checking out guys and not girls- no lie! Sure I thought girls were pretty but I just didn’t look at them the same way I did guys. It didn’t hit me till I was in junior high that I was different and I didn’t like it. I fell for one of my guy friends and I couldn’t help it. It’s LOVE! You don’t know how and you don’t know why you fall for the person- it just happens! So to answer you question- I believe we are born this way. There was no turning point for me. To be honest, I would much rather be straight and to be accepted and be loved for who I am, than to be gay any day! But I can’t help who I like and who gives me the complete feeling inside!