Request for Help w/ Understanding LGBT

  • Thread starter Thread starter nqes7t9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nqes7t9

Guest
Hi CAF,

Could you give me any guidance in understanding the LGBT movement and in particular understanding people involved with that movement?

I wasn’t born yesterday (literally!) but that movement seems rather peculiar & I wonder whether being compassionate, as the Catechism calls us to be, might involve coming to understand this stuff better.

Thanks,
n
 
In your previous post, you were inquiring as to why more aren’t in favor of criminal sanctions for sodomy. Your request here to understand seems dubious at best. I’m sorry - I doubt your sincerity.
 
The “LGBT movement” wants homosexual acts to not be considered sinful. That’s why most officially involved with the movement (not all gay people) are atheists.

It’s very similar to the “swingers movement.” These people do not believe that sexual sin is wrong because most involved with the movements either don’t believe in God or don’t believe in Christianity. They are agnostic at best.

They don’t believe that morality is static, and they prioritize ethics (which can change due to different situations) over moral.

Further, they believe that morals can change form culture to culture, which is something that Christians do not believe, as morality is based on natural law and Divine Law.

I pray this is helpful
 
Briefly I think it contains many different kinds of people.

Besides a certain element of agents provocateurs, there will be people of good will who have been told they “are gay” (probably from the age of nine like my friend’s boy) and were told what that meant (to the person telling them what to think).

Give me time and I’ll try to find links to the various bits & bobs I’ve added to different threads on this subject as I’ve thought of them. I’m single as yet and like to mull over what I see and hear in my individual way.

I sat through a “retreat” when I was a “Catholic youth” (in my later 20s) from a “Catholic youth worker” who tried to tell me in front of younger retreatants that because I didn’t have a plan to marry I must “be gay” whereas my thinking already was as it is now, that attractions are no business of someone unless I am threatening others’ mental or physical safety and was complemented by some younger, even shyer retreatants during coffee break for asserting balance into the proceedings by countering his line (some younger people still knew, then).
 
Being homosexual is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle, it is a choice, though free will may be affected by various factors. It is a political and social expression.

We should definitely try to understand, and not judge, persons who are homosexual; and also, homosexual persons who are also gay. They, like heterosexuals, are far more than just their sexual orientation and/or public expression.
 
commenter said:
Being homosexual is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle, it is a choice, though free will may be affected by various factors. It is a political and social expression.

We should definitely try to understand, and not judge, persons who are homosexual; and also, homosexual persons who are also gay. They, like heterosexuals, are far more than just their sexual orientation and/or public expression.
Click to expand...
Yeah. This.

This plus 1 other thing. The LGBT community has branches just like any community. There’s the Side A branch, Side B, and Side X.

These 3 form the community (with Side X maybe being on the furthest side out from the rest). But while they have things they agree on, they also have things they don’t. And sometimes the goals of 1 run completely against the goals of the others.

Unfortunately we only ever get Side A’s view in the media. So that colors the picture quite a bit. I think it even uses all the crayons.

Peace.

-Trident
 
commenter said:
Being homosexual is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle, it is a choice, though free will may be affected by various factors. It is a political and social expression.

We should definitely try to understand, and not judge, persons who are homosexual; and also, homosexual persons who are also gay. They, like heterosexuals, are far more than just their sexual orientation and/or public expression.
Click to expand...
I think it should be acknowledged that gay/lesbian=homosexual to most people (as in a person who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to the same sex), to avoid confusion.
 
Sexuality and attractions are no concern of anyone else unless others’ mental and physical safety are threatened.

They don’t make people become of a different caste although some of those people claim it does.

If some people have a different arrangement with Her Majesty or equivalent authority in any country, it doesn’t call on Christians to regard them as of a different caste.

It appears as Trident points out there are different elements.

A vocal element claims children bullied in school for learning differences as “gay”, cynically stepping into a vacuum where no-one else is standing up for them.

My friend’s 9 (yes nine) year old has been claimed by proxy through his classmates as “gay”.

Agents provacateurs claim as excuse that they “are” gay.

A ploy is to combine the word with the verb “being”. Whereas what counts is what people are doing to others.
 
Hi Vic…I don’t think I quite follow your posts or that other thread, but I think I see the point that the “gay caste” could be sort of detrimental. I think we need to find healthy identities, not unhealthy ones.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
I sat through a “retreat” when I was a “Catholic youth” (in my later 20s) from a “Catholic youth worker” who tried to tell me in front of younger retreatants that because I didn’t have a plan to marry I must “be gay”
Click to expand...
If the “Catholic youth worker” was right, then there seem to be only three kinds of recruits into the priesthood:
  1. Young men who had a plan to marry and who were forced by circumstances to abandon all hope of marrying.
  2. Young men who are gay
  3. Young men who plan to be Catholic priests and to secretly get married and periodically visit their wives, but not share accommodations with their wives.
 
commenter said:
Being homosexual is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle, it is a choice, though free will may be affected by various factors. It is a political and social expression.

We should definitely try to understand, and not judge, persons who are homosexual; and also, homosexual persons who are also gay. They, like heterosexuals, are far more than just their sexual orientation and/or public expression.
Click to expand...
“Gay” and “homosexual” mean the same thing.

According to Merriam-Webster:

“gay: sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex”

“homosexual: sexually attracted to people of the same sex”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Did you notice that the definition of “gay” and “homosexual” in Merriam-Webster are the same (aside from one using “someone” and the other “people” to describe who a gay or homosexual person is sexually attracted to)?
 
Thorolfr said:
“Gay” and “homosexual” mean the same thing.

According to Merriam-Webster:

“gay: sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex”

“homosexual: sexually attracted to people of the same sex”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Did you notice that the definition of “gay” and “homosexual” in Merriam-Webster are the same (aside from one using “someone” and the other “people” to describe who a gay or homosexual person is sexually attracted to)?
Click to expand...
I find the word “gay” to be curious in that it is kind of euphemistic. It’s other meaning (happy, care-free) is never far removed. When I hear the word, the meaning I take is more than an objective description of attractions. I “hear” an embracing of the situation [an idea not at all present for me in the expression “I experience SSA”.] Now clearly this “embracing” idea is not found in the dictionary meaning, but perhaps it lingers from the thinking of those who coined the word by choosing “gay”. I imagine in time that will pass, and the word will increasingly merge toward the more “clinical” meaning we read in the dictionary.
 
commenter said:
Being homosexual is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle, it is a choice, though free will may be affected by various factors. It is a political and social expression.
.
Click to expand...
Just a hopeful helpful clarifier. For many ‘being gay’ simply means experiencing same sex sexual attractions without any connotation about behavioral choices or actions. For a large portion of the LGBT community, the term homosexual is a disliked term because of its very clinical and cold feeling (or something like that). So with the term gay you have people living a lifestyle that embraces same sex sexual actions and others like a Wesley Hill, for example, who live a celibate lifestyle and follow a traditional sexual ethic (I believe he is Anglican). So, if a person does use the label gay, it would be important first to ask them what they mean by it and then probe about various religious views.
 
Rau said:
I find the word “gay” to be curious in that it is kind of euphemistic. It’s other meaning (happy, care-free) is never far removed. When I hear the word, the meaning I take is more than an objective description of attractions. I “hear” an embracing of the situation [an idea not at all present for me in the expression “I experience SSA”.] Now clearly this “embracing” idea is not found in the dictionary meaning, but perhaps it lingers from the thinking of those who coined the word by choosing “gay”. I imagine in time that will pass, and the word will increasingly merge toward the more “clinical” meaning we read in the dictionary.
Click to expand...
I think that could be a generation difference and a personal differencd. Even among Christains with same sex sexual attraction and a traditional view on marriagr and sexual morality, there is a difference of views on what gay means. Younger people (though not exclusively ) tend to see gay and ssa as synonymous while others view gay as having particular ideoological connotations. So where the definition and meaning goes in the future might depend on the audience you ask.
 
commenter said:
Being homosexual is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle, it is a choice, though free will may be affected by various factors. It is a political and social expression.

We should definitely try to understand, and not judge, persons who are homosexual; and also, homosexual persons who are also gay. They, like heterosexuals, are far more than just their sexual orientation and/or public expression.
Click to expand...
We always need to keep in mind that the Church is not discriminating against LGBT people. The Church clearly teaches that it is no less wrong for a married couple to use artificial contraceptives as it is for any sexual act that is not open for new life.

The Church - like good old Mother Nature - is about LIFE, LIVING and BABIES. Sexual attraction is about babies. Check out Biology 101.

Check out the Theory of Evolution 101. “Survival of the Fittest” - euphemism “Natural Selection” - and all that…

If one does not believe in God one can always turn to Mother Nature. Nature is cruel to the sterile individual. This is not the case with God - he has better plans for his children. He gives all of us a purpose in life but we must not confuse sexual pleasure with that purpose.

There is so much work to be done. Those among us who, for what ever reason, can not have children are able to give the gift of themselves for the Kingdom of God. They have the gift of greater freedom to feed the poor, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty and visit the sick and those in prison.
 
HelenRose said:
We always need to keep in mind that the Church is not discriminating against LGBT people. The Church clearly teaches that it is no less wrong for a married couple to use artificial contraceptives as it is for any sexual act that is not open for new life.

The Church - like good old Mother Nature - is about LIFE, LIVING and BABIES. Sexual attraction is about babies. Check out Biology 101.

Check out the Theory of Evolution 101. “Survival of the Fittest” - euphemism “Natural Selection” - and all that…

If one does not believe in God one can always turn to Mother Nature. Nature is cruel to the sterile individual. This is not the case with God - he has better plans for his children. He gives all of us a purpose in life but we must not confuse sexual pleasure with that purpose.

There is so much work to be done. Those among us who, for what ever reason, can not have children are able to give the gift of themselves for the Kingdom of God. They have the gift of greater freedom to feed the poor, clothe the naked, give drink to the thirsty and visit the sick and those in prison.
Click to expand...
As a gay man I would say it does appear that some might think wanting to prevent gay people from getting married and adopting children would be considered discrimination.🤷
 
Strydersroom said:
As a gay man I would say it does appear that some might think wanting to prevent gay people from getting married and adopting children would be considered discrimination.🤷
Click to expand...
We are called to discriminate throughout our lives. The key question is: Is the discrimination just? Discriminating against a poison berry is just discrimination. Choosing not to hire someone because of their skin color is unjust discrimination. Understanding the Church teaching requires one to conclude that limiting marriage to one male and one female human is just discrimination.
 
davidv said:
We are called to discriminate throughout our lives. The key question is: Is the discrimination just? Discriminating against a poison berry is just discrimination. Choosing not to hire someone because of their skin color is unjust discrimination. Understanding the Church teaching requires one to conclude that limiting marriage to one male and one female human is just discrimination.
Click to expand...
It would appear that the one being discriminated against would not call it “Just” while the one doing the discriminating would find it quite “Just.” If that makes any sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top