Should people get help for SSA? As in a label?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re the only one talking about teenagers and these labels.
LOL you’re probably right.
But I work in a school setting, so I think about this age group a lot because they’re trying to figure so many things out, not just sexuality, but their place in the social strata and future plans and stuff
 
Out of interest, in what way do you think that the Church could improve its teaching on gay people? I guess I’m asking as someone who is gay and has decided to enter the Church and I’m curious to hear differing thoughts on it.
 
Just a note, I got that study from a VERY gay website.
Queerty is a gay website, and they were quoting a study carried out by FS magazine, which literally stands for: Fashion Street Magazine. Its not a right wing website. There are plenty of media, celebrities, etc. who are already making the case that the Open Relationships gays are en masse participating in are healthier than traditional marriages. You can find this stuff all over, its not a conspiracy.
 
Well hi there 🙂

Um, I mean for me personally, I really think a lot of ills in our society would be righted if our communities were stronger. Like, literally more people living in community or near each other. I think problems like gay homelessness and gay suicide have been difficult for the Church to address. But, I think as more and more people like you and me are keen on living how the Church wants. These problems are going to be viewed as more legitimate, hopefully.

Yeah, I think this thread is important to. I don’t think being quiet about this subject helps anyone. Parishes aren’t so shy about having AA groups. Or “so and so is an upstanding member of our parish, yeah he’s 27 years sober”, etc. Having gay people in the pews, but being quiet and discreet about it is not good. Maybe priests thought that was prudential, because they wanted to spare us from you know… homophobia, I guess. But the times are different. I think very few Catholics would be homophobic. None of them should be once they find out we’re trying to live faithfully as Catholics.

So yeah, more communication about it. Being more open about it.

I talk about the communities, because really its hard for anyone to live the single life in our culture. Parishes are understandably very family-focused. But, as we know, there are many more single people these days than say in 1950s. Maybe more people back then entered into marriage because it was a social norm, and not something they were really called to. At any rate, there are many more people these days TRYING to live single life. And, so I think parishes and the Church just trying to do better at that will also impact gay Catholics .
 
So perhaps the Church could be more open to listening to gay Catholics? I think a big reason why there hasn’t been change even though we’re willing to live as the Church teaches us to, is because of some of the more conservative elements of the Church are unwilling to listen. Like the Bishops in Africa and South Asia are pretty hard line conservative and I think they’re what’s preventing change for the rest of the Church.

I want to be a faithful Catholic, but I do agree that the Church could improve on its messaging to gay people like you and I.
 
For me, I’m trying to live in a community of lay people. Yes, the 2nd option you list is a big fear of mine. But, I think that’s only a failure of our society and culture. Have people always lived only alone or with families? Have you seen Downton Abbey? Back in those days it was much more common to not marry, and they’re living with all those people (I’m referring to Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes), who, although they did eventually get married, were pretty sure that they’d live the single life their entire lives.
Downton Abbey takes place in England which is a very different place from the US where extended families with unmarried single adults all living together would have been much rarer. A couple of generations ago, most gay men in the US probably felt compelled by society and by their families to get married to women which often didn’t result in very happy marriages.
 
Have you seen Downton Abbey? They were basically the help, but they also lived there. They were living amongst co-workers who became friends.

I studied history, so I can think of plenty of situations of single people who weren’t alone. Most of it had to do with it taking much longer to travel between places. Men in the navy, or people who lived on the frontier. There’s also the very American example of the Amish. There are plenty of examples of people in their communities who never marry and are single their whole lives. But, they’ll live in a house by themselves like within 5 miles of most of their family, and if not, then other Amish people.
Same thing with the ethnic communitied in thid country. Widows were looked after in the Little Italys, etc.
Thags mostly pre 1920s, as is Downton Abbey. I think post-war saw the Baby Boom. Marriage for many reasons became more common then, because of a rise of the Middle Class. Since then marriage has obviously declined.

Anyways, I’m just saying there are options. In a modern context, I’m VERY interested in “co-housing”. Basically living in your own apartment, but then you actually share meals and chores with everyone else. We can choose to be less individualistic. Its clear that people are isolated in ways that they didn’t used to be. They used to know their neighbors, sit on their front porch, not stay inside all day watching tv/ internet. We can either try to respond to this problem, or carry on with status quo/ business as usual.

 
There are plenty of examples of people in their communities who never marry and are single their whole lives.
I’ve always wondered how many of those “single” people from the past were really single. Walt Whitman never married, but he probably wasn’t always completely single. He’s one of the few people from that period that we know about, but there were undoubtedly many others.
 
I don’t pretend to know much sbout the Amish, but I read a book about a Catholic couple who ended up living with the Amish for 18 months of what was supposed to be a summer in Amish country. Anyways, they mentioned several single people who lived by themselves and would work (one was the village blacksmith if I remember). The Book is called: “Better Off: Flipping the Switch On Technology”. They’re involved in the Catholic Land Movement now.

I think like famous writers and various secular ppl might have had plenty of relations, if thats what you mean. I think many more were just faithful Christians living in a time where people might have to spend some time worrying about survival, and didn’t live in a sex-obsessed, relationship-obsessed culture. Because our tv shows are obsessed with relationships, not traditional marriages that last.
 
The “monogomous” nature of most gay relationships just isn’t the same.
Here is a study: 41% of 1,000 gay couples surveyed are either currently or have in the past been in an open relationship.
Perhaps that is a result of not being allowed to marry. Btw, I am suspicious of your numbers (what did that poll look like).

In my opinion, just one more reason we should support and encouraged gay marriage.
 
I think like famous writers and various secular ppl might have had plenty of relations, if thats what you mean. I think many more were just faithful Christians living in a time where people might have to spend some time worrying about survival, and didn’t live in a sex-obsessed, relationship-obsessed culture. Because our tv shows are obsessed with relationships, not traditional marriages that last.
I think that you overestimate the difference between people in the past and people now. I’m reading a new book by Douglas L. Winiarski, Darkness Falls on the Land of Light: Experiencing Religious Awakenings in Eighteenth-Century New England (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017) which has a few pages about what young people did back in the first half of the 18th century (p. 83):
Religious and civic leaders recognized youth as a “chusing time,” and many young people chose rebellion over obedience. They gathered for frolicks in barns, mills and outbuildings, went night walking at taverns, coupled with sexual partners after training days or husking bees, or met in a variety of clandestine spaces to read titillating literature. Few young men and women managed to escape from this flourishing subculture. Their ranks included future clergyman such as Joseph Green of Salem Village, who lamented an adolescence spent in the pursuit of “fading vanitys and pleasures of this world”…Likewise, the aspiring but melancholic Maine minister Joseph Moody devoted much of his anguished devotional diary to lamenting a failed courtship and bewailing his inability to control his autoerotic impulses. Even Cotton Mather’s son, Creasy, fathered an illegitimate child. Adolescent rebellion was neither unusual, nor isolated, nor restricted to the unchurched or the ungodly.

Premarital intercourse ranked among the most pervasive forms of rebellious behavior among young people. Rising rates of bridal pregnancy suggest that sex among unmarried men and women was a common aspect of eighteenth-century courtship in an era that witnessed a gradual loosening of social surveillance and regulation. More than three dozen Haverhill residents appeared before the Essex County magistrates during [Rev.] Brown’s pastorate to answer charges of bearing children out of wedlock…
You might be interested to read Roger Thompson’s book, Sex in Middlesex: Popular Mores in a Massachusetts County, 1649-1699 (University of Massachusetts Press). I’ve done research in 17th and 18th century Massachusetts court files and there were a lot of men and women who were fined for fornication.
 
Last edited:
Ya, they’re not my numbers, I’ve alreay posted the source. Look into it if you want. By your own admission, it doesn’t really matter. Whether 4% or 40% of gay couples are actually open relationships, you don’t care.

@Thorolfr No, I wouldn’t be interested in reading those books. Both of these replies is just nit picking what I’ve said. A lot of what I’ve said actually proposes substantive solutions to the problems facing gay people in our society. Idk what either of you two are doing. None of your posts have been productive. They haven’t proposed anything, merely criticized what I have.

Have you seen Skellig Michael? Back in the day there were many more people practicing aesthetic lives, that’s just a fact. People didn’t eat meat a lot as a form of fasting. People fasted a lot more. People wore hair shirts. There’s nothing like the pornography epidemic we have in history, its unprecdented. People might have been the same, but the culture was not. In Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece they might have had orgies. Christian Europe had a very different culture. Which means that the behaviours of the people were on the whole different. W

Less marriages ended in divorce. Was there abortion? Was there birth control?

Whatever. Do either of y’all care about God at all? The precepts of the Church state that you must go to Church every Sunday and every Holy day of Obligation. Do you agree with that?

Like I said, all of y’alls posts haven’t actually stated anything. Its hard to respond to people who haven’t stated a postion, just to criticize mine.

Why don’t you read some ridiculous revisionist history books where people in the Middle Ages are feminists? Or when there’s a female character in the Middle Ages that’s empowered. There are so many shows and books right now that are utter trash. There was intrigue in the Middle Ages sure, but they had very different ideas about religion, sex, and gender than we do today. A VERY different culture indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top