I should have said “descriptive” of the real world, not “predictive”. Scientific theories (if any good) are usually predictive. Quantum theory is a case in point - Higgs boson etc. I agree sexuality per se is not a theory. It appears to be a reality (“social construct” seems a bit nebulous to me). An explanation of the mechanisms that give rise to the orientation of ones sexual attractions might constitute a theory.
Sexual attractions are objective data. But the idea that sexual attractions behave in predictable enough ways to posit orientations is an idea we created, not observed. It’s kinda like we created two fetishes, and then popularized them so much that everyone came to have these fetishes, and then we said they’re a part of nature. Then whoever doesn’t fit into these categories we call “bisexual”, a sort of third “catch-all” category that just serves to make our theory immune to counterevidence.
I think this reflects the point estebob made earlier in this thread. There is this expectation that homosexuality be treated in the church differently that other sins or struggles that pertain to our sick and healing (for believers) fallen nature of makind after original sin. It still beats me exactly what is the basis for this expectation or conviction among (chaste) gay Catholics other than either
For me, the thing that stands out about homosexuality is not so much the temptation toward a sin - which in itself is not a distinguishing characteristic - we all face temptations. It’s what is not in their life, what cannot (licitly) be in their life - the special and intimate relationship(s) most of us take for granted. Girlfriends/boyfriends → fiancée → wife/husband.
Alright I will try to give you a good answer to this. Let’s start first with the most common examples: those of tendency to overindulge (gluttony, alcoholism, drug addiction). On the surface they appear similar, but they are not. These illnesses require an initial intake, even if performed at a young age, to present themselves, even if the person is biologically predisposed. On the other hand, homosexuality does not. So while a person must make a foolish decision that they can later reflect on in order to obtain temptations of overindulgence, gays/lesbians are merely hit with it and stuck in a place where they don’t know what to do as young teenagers through the end of high school and potentially college. There’s no “root” to it (despite how desperate conversion therapy endorsers are to claim there is) since it is biologically fixed in a person. Thus, a person must be treated with care and they must be taught appropriate chastity for their orientation in a way that makes them feel like they are still a wonderful human being, and that their SSAs says nothing about their quality as a person. It thus requires more care than someone who can say “this is why I’m an alcoholic, I’m not cursed or stricken with sin.” Also, alcoholism and drug addiction usually shows itself at a later age than homosexuality, and teenagers are less equipped to deal with the stress of temptation.
I agree that perversions are always directed at the good, only in some distorted sense. But the thing that makes a person an alcoholic is NOT his attraction to alcohol; it is his attraction to drunkenness.
I hope I’ve explained above how all disordered attractions are the same, in this respect. They are all desires for good things, and have their own proper way of being satisfied – but they reach too far.
Is this a response to me or SMGS, or both of us? I think our answers were rather different, so I’m not sure how one response could apply to both.
I do not think anyone can object to the approach you re describing here. I think there must be a saint I forget who that once said every sin is a search for God in some way. But I think what you are saying is very different from saying that ssa is a good and normal thin or pedophilia or alcoholism. Because you are basically finding and isolating the search for the good in all of them and saying that THAT particular seeking for the good is natural and good. That is good and I think I have seen it expressed in one way or another by old saints but that is NOT same as saying that alcholosm or ssa or whatever other disordered inclination is good or normal.Hi One Point!
I believe in telling alcoholics that their desire to relax with a drink is good, in telling pedophiles that their desire for innocence is good, in telling gay men that their desire for men is good, and in telling lesbians that their desire for women is good. And then there are the hard conversations: where you say that an alcoholic might have to abstain from alcohol entirely, or that a gay man should avoid close friendships with other gay men who they find extremely attractive. But unless you first affirm the goodness in something that is clearly good, it’s hard to evangelize.
You are taking “SSA” to mean an attraction to same-sex sexual activities.
Do you really think that having no spouse and no kids means living and dying alone?
I am not inclined to duality I see here. On one hand the uniqueness of homosexuality, as standing alone, no comparisons accepted and all attempts are insulting. No one who is not gay can understand.
There was a discussion about this many months ago. I forget. But it was about romantic feelings in SSA couples. I do not see how you can separate romance from sex. Romance brings two people together as part of mating. Did God design any body to be romantically involved with people of the same sex just because? I think the separation of romance from sex is simply another untruth I have seen in this place. If you don’t mean romance then you are speaking about plain old friendship. It is no different from brotherly or sisterly love. It also knows no ‘orientation’ but it is part of the experience of all human beings in this world except sociopaths. So no. I do not just mean sex and erotic sexual feelings with SSA. These are simply the fruit or the last end in the long process of mating. I am also including romance between SSA couples. There is an idea I have seen suggested here that these couples could encourage romantic feelings and relationships short of explicitly sexual expression and this would be fine or even good. But seems to me Such couplings would also be contrary to God’s plan and I don’t see why not? If they were not then we should wonder exactly what is the end of romantic involvement in same sex couples and why this would be alright or good for them but wrong for pedophiles or for people suffering with temptations of adultery?
There also seems to be a contradiction between the assertion there is no homosexual lifestyle and"I have to keep all my homosexual friends because they are the only ones who I can relate to and we have a unique language and culture"
No, you’re mistaking my meaning. I mean “plain old friendship”, but I don’t assume that there is anything plain about friendship. The question is whether SSA is always a barrier to ordinary friendship, or if it can sometimes be an aid to ordinary friendship. I think this is an open question – and if it is answered in the affirmative, it means that “being gay” can be an advantage to establishing a good thing in the world. (This is not to say that gay friendships are “different” somehow, or better, or any such thing – no more than saying that a romantic temperment makes marriages better. A romantic temperment is clearly a beautiful thing that God made for a reason).
Then I have no opposition to what you are saying. It means simply, gay people can be friends, just as a man and a woman can be friends. Each of those would require prudence of course as we must never forget we are weak and can sin. But that they can be friends I cannot object.
The problem is you are using a very modernist definition of romance. Romance, for most of human history, was exclusively tied to marriage and the marital act; dating, non-sexual physical intimacy, etc. was not seen as romance or unique to marriage. In the Victorian Era, married women would have non-sexual physical intimacy and “romantic” evenings with each other as part of a close friendship. It was considered a friendship, not an interested romance.
It would to me. If a homosexual disagrees then I say good for him or her–live a chaste life and stay gay, Not my problem. Not my decision.Do you really think that having no spouse and no kids means living and dying alone?
No. What you are claiming is different from what prodigal son is saying. What romance may have meant in old times is really irrelevant.
