same-sex attraction

[whatevergirl]

Hello. I am a 20 year old heterosexual male. However, on occasion, I find myself attracted to physical, masculine aspects of attractive men. Also, I feel uncomfortable around flamingly gay men, maybe not attracted… but maybe it’s the false femininity about them that triggers the instinctual attractiveness to womanly attributes.

This makes me feel insecure. I have a girlfriend, am planning on marrying her, and certainly find immodest women a temptation. Where is the line between gay and straight, and how do you suggest dealing with these feelings?

I don’t have much advice, but pray for strength. Pray for purity. We have all struggled with various ‘forms’ of impurity…whether it be in thought, deed…word. It’s not easy to be pure thinking, and pure acting, especially in a culture that glamorizes the opposite. It’s great that you recognize this ‘weakness,’ and that you want to resolve it…or at least make attempts to resolve it. Pray to our Lady. You know, remarkable changes happen (for the better of course) when we ask Mary to pray for our weaknesses. I had a situation a few years ago that I was really overwhelmed and struggling with, and asked for her intercession…and it’s weird, but I don’t even think about ‘all that,’ anymore…at all. You’re in my prayers.

 

[Digger71]

You have it backwards: The universal feature is the object (based on natural moral law); the variable is reaction of disgust (based on formation and acceptance of natural moral law).

What a pity that from a purely objective sense, the subject of disgust is not universal. This debate come from the fact the OP isn’t repulsed by the idea, nor am I. Therefore even with just two exceptions (and there are more than two) the word ‘universal’ does not apply.

Of course, any number of rationalisations can be presented to explain this, but in this instance the facts are exactly contrary to your assertion. Disgust is universally recognised (by facial expression), but the subjects vary by culture.

Those are the facts.

I agree. Take the Nazi war criminals who after a while thought nothing about killing another Jew – they essentially burned out their conscience, and reaction of disgust, of right and wrong and committing murder through the mechanism of rationalization.

The process there was of dehumanising the jewish people so that they seemed another species, so killing them was not akin to murder. A similar process tends to happen with all scape-goated groups.

 

[Digger71]

It seems that you are stuck on the unfounded notion that humans will always act in accord with nature, that they can never contradict true nature either physically or mentally. Thus, you infer that because one can apply social conditioning to an individual in order that they not be disgusted by same-sex attractions or the acts that flow from them, that there is nothing “natural” about such disgust. Instead, it is something grafted onto the psyche by the media, one’s peers and one’s family. We can therefore “make” same-sex attractions normal or even good with the appropriate learning environment.

No, I am saying that disgust at same-sex romances and relationships is as likely to be grafted on as non-disgust.

The fact lots of people dont feel this so-called universal disgust about same-sex relationships underlines the point.

I am not, however, narrow minded about disgust. I assert only part of it is due to socialisation. I do believe that some hetero people are genuinely repulsed by same-sex sex, just as some gay people are genuinely repulsed by the idea of sex with the opposite gender.

 

[Other_Eric]

No, I am saying that disgust at same-sex romances and relationships is as likely to be grafted on as non-disgust.

The fact lots of people dont feel this so-called universal disgust about same-sex relationships underlines the point.

I am not, however, narrow minded about disgust. I assert only part of it is due to socialisation. I do believe that some hetero people are genuinely repulsed by same-sex sex, just as some gay people are genuinely repulsed by the idea of sex with the opposite gender.

Well, I confess that your point ceases to make any sense. If disgust for a thing is partially innate and partially a product of socialization, then we must look to some other standard in order to define what people ought to be disgusted at. The most consistent philosophy I know of that attempts this is Natural Law Theory, which defines same-sex attraction as unnatural. If you have some different standard, I would have it referenced here so that we can scrutinize it.

 

[setter]

.

What a pity that from a purely objective sense, the subject of disgust is not universal. This debate come from the fact the OP isn’t repulsed by the idea, nor am I. Therefore even with just two exceptions (and there are more than two) the word ‘universal’ does not apply.

Of course, any number of rationalisations can be presented to explain this, but in this instance the facts are exactly contrary to your assertion. Disgust is universally recognised (by facial expression), but the subjects vary by culture.

Those are the facts.

I am talking about the natural reaction of disgust over homosexual acts specifically.

The process there was of dehumanising the jewish people so that they seemed another species, so killing them was not akin to murder. A similar process tends to happen with all scape-goated groups.

This, of course, just confirms the role of socialisation in forming disgust reactions. One can easily extend it to religious teachings, which in turn legitimise the dehumanisation of those who disagree with doctrine, or who cannot live by it.

I have several instances in mind, only a few of which refer to the burning times.

Natural moral law is transcendent of social indoctrination and processes. Any “dehumanization” is a consequence of deviation from natural law.

**1959 **The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit. (CCC)

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law. (CCC)

 

[Digger71]

Well, I confess that your point ceases to make any sense. If disgust for a thing is partially innate and partially a product of socialization, then we must look to some other standard in order to define what people ought to be disgusted at. The most consistent philosophy I know of that attempts this is Natural Law Theory, which defines same-sex attraction as unnatural. If you have some different standard, I would have it referenced here so that we can scrutinize it.

Well, it’s not complicated. The brain is wired up so that different stimulus can provoke the same reaction. Disgust, for example, is activated by the smell of rotten food and by social situations, such as catching someone cheating (at a game, in an election, whatever).

There is some skill in determining what is natural disgust and what is socially conditioned disgust. The key difference seems to be what communicates the disgust, scent being a good example of (almost always) on non socialsed disgust. gay sex is a very good example of conditioned disgust, not only is it non-universal, the disgust is concentrated in groups with a history of disgust, but vanishes on normalisation, experience, knowledge.

Your made a second point, that we must have some sort of objective standard. This point seems true to me. Socialisation is designed to facilitate group living,

However, the question is does natural natural law provide this?

Well, no it doesn’t, because it can easily be argued against by skeptics who do not accept the premis. it is materially incorrect, and even the fact it needs to be indoctrinated indicates that its universal nature is far from universal.

Natural Moral Law is at most a philosophy that some people want to impose universally by gaining access to children for indoctrination and by leveraging the power of the state to impose.

And in anycase, it has no proven benefits.

Do I have an alternative? Yes, atheism. it’s a reasoned position that seems to reduce antisocial behaviour.

holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/01/atheists_in_jai.html (kind of humerous).

And the stats directly contradict the idea you need religion, moral natural law or such like to have a well ordered society.

 

[Digger71]

.
I am talking about the natural reaction of disgust over homosexual acts specifically.

Natural moral law is transcendent of social indoctrination and processes. Any “dehumanization” is a consequence of deviation from natural law.

**1959 **The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit. (CCC)

1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law. (CCC)

Well, you can say that. But it’s pure assertion, rationalisation and wishful thinking.

 

[setter]

Well, you can say that. But it’s pure assertion, rationalisation and wishful thinking.

Any system of belief not respectful of natural law will eventually collapse on itself.

Unless you can disprove my faith in God, my assertion stands firm.

**153 **When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”. Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’”

This is worthwhile repeating:

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit. (CCC)

 

[Digger71]

Any system of belief not respectful of natural law will eventually collapse on itself.

Well, that really begs the question “does Catholicsism respect natural law”, and one would have to answer that it doesnt. My reasons for asserting this is that it mixes up instrinsic states for aquired states, and mistakes current forms for universal forms. So, it is correct in observing peple naturally form couples and this in good for the couples and society, and mistaken if it asserts they must be of different genders, the same race, the same social class, etc.

The current debate about disgust is ample illistration. Disgust is a universal emotional, readily recognised by every culture if the only clue is facial expression. Where the error creeps in is when one group asserts that another should feel disgust when it doesnt. That itself is proof subject of the disgust is not part of natural law in the asserted universal sense.

Whether the appearance of atheism, protestantism, equality movements, and so on are signs that Catholicism is collapsing in on itself because it does not respect natural law is an interesting argument, i am sure you will agree, but one for another place.

Unless you can disprove my faith in God, my assertion stands firm.

You clearly have a great deal of faith, so what is the point in trying to disprove your faith?

The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit. (CCC)

Simply repeating the assertion that you are right and everyone else is blinded simply doesnt do. it is self-referential circular reasoning that skeptics dont accept, and so has no effect on skeptics.

If it was True in any real senseit could be argued from any starting point without reference to, for example, the Bible.

A good example is murder. With out without the Bible, every society has dictates against murder, even before Christianity reached them. Of marriage, yes, virtually all socieities had marriage, though many would be what we called civil, in that were race, class, and age requirements.

All that Catholicism has done is draw a line in the sand and declare it’s defined structures are the natural law.

I and many others assert that the line is drawn in the wrong place.

That is why Christian for slavery was wrong headed and why Christian opposition to same-sex relationships is wrong headed. it’s mixed up its preferred form for the natural law.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Other_Eric]

Well, it’s not complicated. The brain is wired up so that different stimulus can provoke the same reaction. Disgust, for example, is activated by the smell of rotten food and by social situations, such as catching someone cheating (at a game, in an election, whatever).

There is some skill in determining what is natural disgust and what is socially conditioned disgust. The key difference seems to be what communicates the disgust, scent being a good example of (almost always) on non socialsed disgust. gay sex is a very good example of conditioned disgust, not only is it non-universal, the disgust is concentrated in groups with a history of disgust, but vanishes on normalisation, experience, knowledge.

Your made a second point, that we must have some sort of objective standard. This point seems true to me. Socialisation is designed to facilitate group living,

However, the question is does natural natural law provide this?

Well, no it doesn’t, because it can easily be argued against by skeptics who do not accept the premis. it is materially incorrect, and even the fact it needs to be indoctrinated indicates that its universal nature is far from universal.

Natural Moral Law is at most a philosophy that some people want to impose universally by gaining access to children for indoctrination and by leveraging the power of the state to impose.

And in anycase, it has no proven benefits.

Do I have an alternative? Yes, atheism. it’s a reasoned position that seems to reduce antisocial behaviour.

holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html

dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/01/atheists_in_jai.html (kind of humerous).

And the stats directly contradict the idea you need religion, moral natural law or such like to have a well ordered society.

It seems to me that you have not managed to come up with a way to differentiate between natural disgust and socially conditioned disgust. In the first place, there is always going to be a subset of individuals who will not have a normative reaction to a certain stimulus. Even a scent most might recognize as disgusting, say that of rotting flesh, could be tolerable or even enjoyable to some. If one brings in developmental psychology to explain why some people like a certain thing that others are revolted by, we very quickly find ourselves in an area where nothing can be said to be natural, as such, as any appetite can reasonably be traced back to some form of conditioning.

Since one can say that it is possible to use social conditioning as a tool to achieve amicable group living. Let us leave aside, for the moment, the question of the supposed virtue behind this framework. Let us instead focus on social cohesion and the means by which this might best be achieved.

If we wished to make society stable under an atheistic philosophy, I still fail to see why it is that same-sex sexual activity should be tolerated, much less approved of. Reason dictates that sexuality serves a reproductive purpose, just as hunger serves the purpose of nourishment. Any use of the sexuality that contradicts a reproductive purpose could only have a benefit for the individual who uses it in that fashion, not the larger society. The individual trains himself, by this very sexual act, to seek his own good rather than the good of the larger society. This attitude contradicts our stated objective in facilitating group living. Therefore, it seems that the reasoned use of our social conditioning program would be one that inculcates disgust for same-sex attractions and activities.

Further, in your references to the religious composition of inmate populations, I fail to see that you have much of a point. It is not unusual for people who become incarcerated to “find religion” once behind bars. Highly stressful living environments, like those of a prison block, tend to bring out religious fervor in people who may very well have been functional atheists at the time of their crimes. As an atheist, surely even you should acknowledge the appeal in an escapist spirituality as a method of coping with an unpleasant reality.

Atheism has not shown itself to be a sustainable means of keeping a society together. The Soviet Union, for instance, imploded. All functional societies have shown deference to spirituality in one form or another. It is not something that can easily be dispensed with. Even if we did attempt it, it certainly does not follow that same-sex attractions contribute to the overall good of society.

 

[cloverleaf]

Hello. I am a 20 year old heterosexual male. However, on occasion, I find myself attracted to physical, masculine aspects of attractive men. Also, I feel uncomfortable around flamingly gay men, maybe not attracted… but maybe it’s the false femininity about them that triggers the instinctual attractiveness to womanly attributes.

This makes me feel insecure. I have a girlfriend, am planning on marrying her, and certainly find immodest women a temptation. Where is the line between gay and straight, and how do you suggest dealing with these feelings?

I am related to many old religious. They would speak to you in a candid way of your problems. 1) you are not fit to marry because you cannot fulfill your sacrament of marriage due to a lack of committment, and 2) you cannot walk into a true Catholic Church and demand that you be accepted for your inappropriate sexual feelings as they are contrary to the teachings of Christ. If you wish to be a Catholic, you must study and practice Catholic doctrine. Through study and practice you may discover that you can make committments to your faith and possibly a women also, but for now your out in left field.

 

[setter]

Well, that really begs the question “does Catholicsism respect natural law”, and one would have to answer that it doesnt. My reasons for asserting this is that it mixes up instrinsic states for aquired states, and mistakes current forms for universal forms. So, it is correct in observing peple naturally form couples and this in good for the couples and society, and mistaken if it asserts they must be of different genders, the same race, the same social class, etc.

The current debate about disgust is ample illistration. Disgust is a universal emotional, readily recognised by every culture if the only clue is facial expression. Where the error creeps in is when one group asserts that another should feel disgust when it doesnt. That itself is proof subject of the disgust is not part of natural law in the asserted universal sense.

Natural law is universal, innate and uniformly applied. “Feelings” are universal, innate but not uniformly applied. You are confusing individual expression with universal law.

You clearly have a great deal of faith, so what is the point in trying to disprove your faith?

If you man “prove god does not exist”, i think you’ll find it is universally recognised that when someone claims that something exists it is for the person who asserts something to exists to demonstrate it. For example, the gravitron, the loch ness monster, the law of the conservation of information.

Can you please prove atheism as a wholely consistent belief system?

Simply repeating the assertion that you are right and everyone else is blinded simply doesnt do. it is self-referential circular reasoning that skeptics dont accept, and so has no effect on skeptics.

If it was True in any real senseit could be argued from any starting point without reference to, for example, the Bible.

My goal is not to impress or have an effect on skeptics, but to point out that only in reference to the solid reality of natural law, can one approach a rational basis for encountering and explaining reality in its fullness.

All that Catholicism has done is draw a line in the sand and declare it’s defined structures are the natural law.

I and many others assert that the line is drawn in the wrong place.

What proof do you have that the infallible teaching by the Catholic Church is wrong?

That is why Christian for slavery was wrong headed and why Christian opposition to same-sex relationships is wrong headed. it’s mixed up its preferred form for the natural law.

The Church has always taught that homosexual realtionships are intrinsically disordered.

 

[setter]

I am related to many old religious. They would speak to you in a candid way of your problems. 1) you are not fit to marry because you cannot fulfill your sacrament of marriage due to a lack of committment, and 2) you cannot walk into a true Catholic Church and demand that you be accepted for your inappropriate sexual feelings as they are contrary to the teachings of Christ. If you wish to be a Catholic, you must study and practice Catholic doctrine. Through study and practice you may discover that you can make committments to your faith and possibly a women also, but for now your out in left field.

Can you please explain how “inappropriate sexual feelings” in themselves leaves the Catholic faith inaccessible and the conflicted person “out in left field”?

 

[Digger71]

Natural law is universal, innate and uniformly applied. “Feelings” are universal, innate but not uniformly applied. You are confusing individual expression with universal law.

Hmmm, the moment you get any real evidenc that this natural moral law of yours is innate, universal and uniformally applied everyone will take note.

Until then, it’s just assertion powered by a feeling of rightness.

Can you please prove atheism as a wholely consistent belief system?

In the first instance i don’t have to. The evidence supplied is that any sort of atheism reduces crime and antisocial behaviour.

What proof do you have that the infallible teaching by the Catholic Church is wrong?
.

It’s a big claim to claim infallibility. You need some evidence to back it up. otherwise it lives in the same box as the pink unicorns.

 

[cloverleaf]

Can you please explain how “inappropriate sexual feelings” in themselves leaves the Catholic faith inaccessible and the conflicted person “out in left field”?

The doctrine does not render the faith inaccessible, hence the welcome to the Church by JPII of all who wish to follow, but a committment on your part to do what is asked to live a sacrament and to commit to a faith means a maturity must be acquired to overcome your immature and perverted tendencies…santan offers these to many, but Christ requires more. Please explore more than the welcome to the faith. The true love in the Catholic faith comes from an honest understanding and accepatance of the path Christ describes for a true believer. Anyone can fake it, many wish for it, few can achieve the discipline to meet His demands. You must weigh how much you want the true faith and what discipline you are willing to exercise. Do you wish to follow Christ or your sexual urges. They ARE two different paths my friend. Christ is always accessible to you. The question you face is are you willing to follow HIS example.

 

[Abira]

The doctrine does not render the faith inaccessible, hence the welcome to the Church by JPII of all who wish to follow, but a committment on your part to do what is asked to live a sacrament and to commit to a faith means a maturity must be acquired to overcome your immature and perverted tendencies…santan offers these to many, but Christ requires more. Please explore more than the welcome to the faith. The true love in the Catholic faith comes from an honest understanding and accepatance of the path Christ describes for a true believer. Anyone can fake it, many wish for it, few can achieve the discipline to meet His demands. You must weigh how much you want the true faith and what discipline you are willing to exercise. Do you wish to follow Christ or your sexual urges. They ARE two different paths my friend. Christ is always accessible to you. The question you face is are you willing to follow HIS example.

I’ve just finished reading your post and it basically sums up what I’ve been struggling with for the last ten years. I lost my faith over it for about nine years because I knew that ‘myself’ and my faith could not go hand in hand. I would go for periods without socialising and then periods without God…but they can never be together.

I’ve felt that I need a stricter way of life or a stricter faith because of this, almost to compensate for what I’m being asked to give up in my life… I’m still looking though lol.

Take care, and if anyone else is feeling a bit like that just message me

S

 

[Kevin42]

I lost my faith over it for about nine years because I knew that ‘myself’ and my faith could not go hand in hand.

I felt that way for a while too (thank God it was much shorter than nine years though). For about a year I strayed pretty far from the Church. Thankfully I came back, probably largely due to my parents’ constant faith. I hear alot of people with same-sex attraction say that they felt like they and their faith could never go hand in hand. I felt that way for a while.

What I didn’t realize for the longest time is that while we are all called to live faithful lives, none of us can do this if we keep ourselves attached to our worldly desires. This is not some kind of discrimination, or especially difficult cross that God singles out certain people to carry. Every person, not just those attracted to the same-sex, are called to abandon their earthly and sinful wants. No one can live in Christ (as the faith calls us to) and live in the flesh at the same time. This is why people who are attracted to the same-sex must accept that they have a certain weakness in this area, and must ask for God’s grace to die unto themselves and abandon the flesh. Of course it should be obvious that anyone whose “self” is in the flesh cannot be fully be in the faithful or completely immersed in Christ.

 

[Abira]

I hear alot of people with same-sex attraction say that they felt like they and their faith could never go hand in hand. I felt that way for a while.

Hi Kevin,

this is how I feel at the moment… and I feel that the church should call homosexual people to celebacy and not try to ‘cure’ it when it often not an option for those with SSA. This is what made me feel rejected even more so because I felt that I would not be accepted even if I lived chaste.

Take care, S

 

[setter]

What I didn’t realize for the longest time is that while we are all called to live faithful lives, none of us can do this if we keep ourselves attached to our worldly desires. This is not some kind of discrimination, or especially difficult cross that God singles out certain people to carry. Every person, not just those attracted to the same-sex, are called to abandon their earthly and sinful wants. No one can live in Christ (as the faith calls us to) and live in the flesh at the same time. This is why people who are attracted to the same-sex must accept that they have a certain weakness in this area, and must ask for God’s grace to die unto themselves and abandon the flesh. Of course it should be obvious that anyone whose “self” is in the flesh cannot be fully be in the faithful or completely immersed in Christ.

Well stated. We each are given and offered our specific crosses by Christ for sharing in His redemptive work and working out our own salvation. The task and aquired virtue of self-mastery and chastity is common to all followers of Christ, whether single, married, consecrated, widowed, incapacitated, …".

 

[Kevin42]

Well stated. We each are given and offered our specific crosses by Christ for sharing in His redemptive work and working out our own salvation. The task and aquired virtue of self-mastery and chastity is common to all followers of Christ, whether single, married, consecrated, widowed, incapacitated, …".

I have a question when it comes to actually what the cross is. Sometimes we make our own crosses that are not given to us from Christ, and sometimes we are given crosses by Christ. Would the cross given by Christ in this instance be the fact that one is attracted to the same-sex, or would it be that they are required to live a chaste and possibly celibate life. (Or could neither of them be a cross given by Christ?) I have been leaning toward the latter, but am unsure. This is the question I have recently been asking myself and I haven’t been able to differentiate it on my own.