Request for Help w/ Understanding LGBT

  • Thread starter Thread starter nqes7t9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Historically way back it did have sexual connotations .
 
jjr9 – nice posts! Way to go (in my opinion).

I’ve read your comments about the “homosexual person” and how that term is used in some Catholic documents – and this idea is a little fishy to me too.

However, I think we still have to respect Church documents. Sometimes we use terms in a certain context. If we had the opportunity to talk to the writers of the Catechism, I’m sure they would flesh out what they mean, and I figure what they mean would be pretty sensible.

Strydersroom: dude…
 
OK, here are a few more of my two cents. Strange that these “two cents” never really get spent.
  1. From what I read in Making Gay Okay by Robert Reilly, the psychiatric establishment made the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders without any scientific process! The idea here is that the decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder was made on shall we say “political” grounds – the psychiatrists were pressured into doing this.
  2. People have disorders. We eat too much, we eat too little, we work too much, we work too little, we want things that are impossible for us to have, we yell at each other, we drive like nuts, we use our lawn mowers way too late in the evening, we play loud music in our apartment buildings when people are trying to sleep, we litter, we disobey all kinds of laws. Homosexuality is just like that. Common sense shows that real sex is between a man and a woman in marriage for reproduction and bonding. It’s not between anyone else.
That’s all for right now. Toodles!
 
A few more thoughts from me. These are just my thoughts.
  1. The LGBT movement, more or less, consists of people who have basically different ideas from the Catholic ideas. The LGBT person thinks, more or less, that the sexual faculty is for something different than what I think the sexual faculty is for. This is more important that “I say tomato, you say tomah-to” – it touches on things that are more important.
  2. I wonder whether these different beliefs come from – but then I ask, why? Does it matter? Very probably not. I think I’ve found that it doesn’t really matter where evil comes from. It doesn’t matter! Junk gives rise to more junk. It might help someone a little to know where it comes from, but not me, not really.
  3. It’s not necessarily my role to go correcting other people’s beliefs, especially in the sense that in my one little life; I am not going to go around fixing everyone. I just can’t do it. I’m going to encounter other people’s beliefs, but frankly I can’t do much about that. Of course, I try my best in terms of sharing what I believe in case it might help someone.
  4. It’s probably, in my opinion, that homosexuality is not of the same type or severity as other kinds of disorders, such as homicidality, or kleptomania, or whatever. These various groups of people do different things.
Lastly: some people have sought so-called gay conversion therapy. Why did they do this? They must have been seeking to become un-gay. Why was this so? They must have had a reason for it. Are those reasons no longer valid?

n
 
nqes7t9 said:
…If we had the opportunity to talk to the writers of the Catechism, I’m sure they would flesh out what they mean, and I figure what they mean would be pretty sensible.
Click to expand...
Or maybe we simply take what they wrote at face value? By the term “homosexual person”, “they” refer to a person who “experience(s) an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

The statement does not opine on why they experience these attractions.

We can concur that there are people who do experience this (some deeply, some much less so), based on observation and the testimony of those so affected. Or we can assert that such is a fiction, and that all testimony on the subject is a lie and worthless.
 
Rau, I agree with you. We have to give people the benefit of the doubt; if a person says, “I’m experiencing this,” then I have to believe it.

But I think at the same time I don’t want to buy in to any “false caste” system.

Last thing from me today: I don’t understand you, whoever you are. I understand that you’re human, you have disordered feelings, and I have disordered feelings, too. I think our disordered feelings are just not who we really are. Maybe those rainbow banners, etc, are just not…you.

Also, I think the LGBT movement could have redeeming value in terms of promoting compassion for those who experience SSA. That’s what we want, right? But if by LGBT movement we mean “gay marriage” or some such thing, then we/I can’t support that. Such a thing is contrary to compassion, right? I think we have a whole slew of things between vigilante (in)justice, like the Matt Shepard case, gay marriage, and simple, ordinary friendship between persons struggling to become more human.

Some of these things are horrible (torture, death, sodomy), and some of them are good (friendship).

n
 
nqes7t9 said:
Lastly: some people have sought so-called gay conversion therapy. Why did they do this? They must have been seeking to become un-gay. Why was this so? They must have had a reason for it. Are those reasons no longer valid?
Click to expand...
One can speculate on possible reason:
  • encouraged by parents or others;
  • a conclusion that sexual relations with another of the same sex is a contradiction of the body and something must be amiss to desire them, combined with a hope or trust that professionals offering a treatment would not do so unless there were some basis for it.
I’ve no idea whether there really was any effective therapy. But the position of the professional bodies today is:
  • don’t know why some persons experience same sex sexual attractions;
  • don’t have a broadly accepted, effective treatment available;
In light of that, and given the view that such persons are well able to function in society, and present no risks to themselves or others (arising from their attractions), the professional bodies don’t regard the experiencing of same sex attractions as a psychological “condition”. This is a utilitarian/pragmatic position (and one can argue it’s politically influenced) - but it does not mean that there is nothing amiss, nor nothing to be explained.
 
nqes7t9 said:
…I don’t want to buy in to any “false caste” system.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Also, I think the LGBT movement could have redeeming value in terms of promoting compassion for those who experience SSA. That’s what we want, right? But if by LGBT movement we mean “gay marriage” or some such thing, then we/I can’t support that.
Click to expand...
A great many of those who describe themselves as supportive of LGBT seek a great deal more than compassion and an absence of unjust discrimination. We are largely past gay marriage, and of course from that must flow changes in school education and literature about the nature of sexuality, the nature of families and so forth. And I do wonder how it can be that Churches will be permitted to promote beliefs contrary to such fundamental matters (marriage, sexuality, family…) if/when they are fully accepted in secular society.
 
Hi Rau,

Yes, I kind of agree with you. It does seem that the LGBT movement is more interested in things like “gay marriage” and now “trans-gender-ism” type things rather than fighting Matt Shepard type things.

I was looking at some older posts in this thread, and I noticed Strydersroom said something like: you are “demonizing” me. Well, I was thinking about demonic influence, and really I don’t think I could conclude that a gay person / homosexual person / whatever you want to call the person is possessed. We do have standards for possession, right? To me, I don’t see those standards being met. So the issue must be something else besides demons (although everyone “has their demons” to be sure, not to mention other actual instances of demonic problems). This will sound hokey to a non-believer but dealing with demons and exorcisms and such is indeed part of Christianity. Jesus and his disciples dealt with demons all the time.

n
 
nqes7t9 said:
Hi Rau,
I was looking at some older posts in this thread, and I noticed Strydersroom said something like: you are “demonizing” me. Well, I was thinking about demonic influence, and really I don’t think I could conclude that a gay person / homosexual person / whatever you want to call the person is possessed. We do have standards for possession, right? To me, I don’t see those standards being met. So the issue must be something else besides demons (although everyone “has their demons” to be sure, not to mention other actual instances of demonic problems). This will sound hokey to a non-believer but dealing with demons and exorcisms and such is indeed part of Christianity. Jesus and his disciples dealt with demons all the time.

n
Click to expand...
The etiology of same sex attraction is unknown at this current point. What is known from most who experience it is that there wasn’t a conscious choice to experience the attraction nor do all have some unifying factor to explain the existence of the attraction. It is most likely due to multifactorial inheritance with a role being played by genetics, embryonic development, social factors, upbringing, environment, epigenetics, and many more (with all factors probably have different level of significance in different people).

From the spiritual side, it could be possible that the attraction and inclination simply represents the manifestation of brokedness due to the fall in the particular person. Everyone has disordered desires and inclinations that are contrary to God’s Will that they resist. Even people who are not same sex attracted deal with disordered sexual desires.

That being said, from a Catholic standpoint, same sex sexual acts, regardless of their origin or etiology, are still considered sinful.

A decent source for understanding an LGBT/ssa person from a traditional viewpoint is the blog spiritualfriendship.org (Made up of Christian who experience same sex attraction all with slightly different perspectives but agreeing on the sexual ethic that sex is reserved within a marriage between a man and a woman).
 
nqes7t9 said:
jjr9 – nice posts! Way to go (in my opinion).

I’ve read your comments about the “homosexual person” and how that term is used in some Catholic documents – and this idea is a little fishy to me too.

However, I think we still have to respect Church documents. Sometimes we use terms in a certain context. If we had the opportunity to talk to the writers of the Catechism, I’m sure they would flesh out what they mean, and I figure what they mean would be pretty sensible.

Strydersroom: dude…
Click to expand...
Thank you for the kind words.

I believe what we need to respect is the Truth. This is not about terminology or context the
claim is simple and clear the Magisterium says a group of men and woman:

2357 “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”

What is your view does the Magisterium claim the mythical “homosexual person” real?

I believe this claim by the Magisterium is an error that the Lord will have the Magisterium
correct in His Time.

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
… I believe this claim by the Magisterium is an error that the Lord will have the Magisterium correct in His Time.
Click to expand...
It was Freudian-based. It is better to state the faith of Jesus and the Apostles whilst letting people self-describe in their own contexts as they wish. In the face of modern media, together with the dwindling of genuine evangelising and catechising, which would help people understand to whom Scriptures are addressed, treating the entire public like a bunch of rebel monks (either way) isn’t appropriate.
 
Thank you At9009, for the ref to the Spiritual Friendships site and everything it linked to!

Openness to life = (whether you are married or single) keeping the lonely company

You can visit in pairs to make a threesome or foursome.

You can host or join a group that includes singles as well as couples.

Take a small crowd on a ramble.

The other thing, with receiving Communion portrayed as compulsory, no wonder people are querying being left out. God is reminding us to relaunch catechumenate, with plenty of those who would befriend the newcomers or would-be newcomers in suitable ways.

There are people whose only experience of relationship is a “relationship”.
 
Rau said:
Or maybe we simply take what they wrote at face value? By the term “homosexual person”, “they” refer to a person who “experience(s) an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

The statement does not opine on why they experience these attractions.

We can concur that there are people who do experience this (some deeply, some much less so), based on observation and the testimony of those so affected. Or we can assert that such is a fiction, and that all testimony on the subject is a lie and worthless.
Click to expand...
Well said! Why is there a need to read the words (from the catechism) as some conspiracy or some lie? And then to call all those who claim to have this experience liars? It’s just bizarre. 🤷
 
Rau said:
Or maybe we simply take what they wrote at face value? By the term “homosexual person”, “they” refer to a person who “experience(s) an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

…
Click to expand...
Yes, the writers are using the term in its original Freudian sense. (We now know where the Freud mindset led to.) But given that the majority of the public see the term as meaning something more than that, with the sacrament of Communion regarded as needing to be received like smarties, and Spiritual Communion not advertised at all, and in the absence of catechumenate, and other Church activities either unadvertised or non-existent, and Catholic life not supposed to include friendship, they have “walked into it”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top