The disorder of homosexuality

[Gaber]

Gaber,

My perspective is skewed. I have a distorted view. I agree. As a physician I see and saw people that seek help for problems and those that seek help in the homosexual population and the heterosexual population have provided me that skewed view. The problems are different.

You are correct. Walking down the street looking at a house is different than being inside the house. Walking by a hospital is different than being in the hospital seeing people on ventilators, dying from Aids, having surgery for Kaposi Sarcoma, recovering from drug overdoses. There are different perspectives I agree.

Mostly all our perspectives are skewed. That comes with and from cathecting a person. And if you deal with such things as you name on a daily basis, that is an inordinatley heavy dose of what constitutes the lives of some. As to your work with them, as I assume you do from your statement, I’m sure that you have a job that requires much and that you give much. And I am possitive that as you help individuals that they are blessed and grateful, as I am that someone is dong such work. I don’t have the education or perhaps the stomach for it. I didn’t become a doctor, despite my high regard for y’all and what you do. So thank you for that.

 

[LisaA]

I’d like your responses.

FWIW I have encounter DV many time here and he seems quite genuinely curious

I’m sure no heterosexual has ever gotten sad because his six pack is gone being replaced with a beer belly or her being sad because she is all wrinkly. I’m sure no heterosexual has ever been sad because his wife is ill. I’m sure no old heterosexual man has ever looked at an attractive young woman dirty or ever possessed photos pf a young and attractive woman in seductive poses. Mark appears to be asserting that not all gays are unhappy all the time.

Dakota you’ve set a Strawman ablaze! No one said “all gays are unhappy all of the time.”

What several of us have asserted is that the abnormality of the sexual practices and the abnormality of the homosexual relationships can and do create difficulties, challenges, problems…whatever you want to call them. Thus there is far more potential and in fact actual evidence that homosexuals (particularly males) participate in unhealthy behaviors, have higher incidences of drug use, suicide, mental illnesses, physical illness and a shorter life span. Does that sound like a happy place to be?

Now you posit the theory that these issues have nothing to do with homosexuality and that heterosexual males are also attracted to young and pretty women, that their wives who have gained weight, gray hair and wrinkles are to be discarded with abandon.

However in claiming this you therefore assert that a male female marriage is identical to a male male or female female relationship. I say that is utter baloney. What holds couples together when the bloom is off the rose? As I see members of my church in long marriages I see shared joy in their children and grandchildren, family events, a shared purpose, a feeling of community in their neighborhood and church, and a strong faith. They have made commitments that last through the tough times and when gravity has hit the physical beauty. Does that mean that Grandpa never looks at a pretty women? No. Men are visual creatures, they are sexual creatures and it’s difficult to overcome one’s nature. But the male/femaile marriage bond is stronger than the desire to chase skirts.

My lengthy and close experience in the world of gay males is that relationships are far more likely to be transitory, based on sexual attraction, and with the male desire for variety, filled with casual sexual encounters. One of my best gay male friends was a psychiatrist who specialized in counselling gays. He said that many conitnue to engage in casual sexual encounters, even if in a long term relationship. And btw he thought that was perfectly acceptable!

Politically correct or not, women have a civilizing influence on men, on their monogamy, and their complimentary nature is designed to bring out the best in male nature. Two males or two females cannot have the same relationship, although I suspect female nature being what it is, that lesbian couples are far more stable and less likely to engage in casual sex.

As Coptic Christian has pointed out, aging homosexuals who no longer hit the bricks with the same fervor, don’t have the same bonding and shared lives as heterosexual couples because so much of the relationship is sex and sexual attraction. I recall one of my first close gay friends, a man in his 50s who had been quite the party boy in youth. His long time partner had dumped him for a younger model (the partner was wealthy and a bit of a celebrity, the kind that looks so much better standing on his money) and as he said “No one wants an old _______.” I never forgot that statement although it was probably 20 years ago. I’ve known a good number of gay males and not a one said “If I could choose, I would rather be gay.” It is a cross to bear and no amount of happy talk or episodes of “Glee” is going to change the truth.

Lisa

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The torment is not evident or immediate. My experience with gay men is that as they age, particularly in a relationship they have sadness. The sadness is related to those that worship the exterior of the body that is aging and not young anymore. I saw too many gay old men that were depressed, too many gay old couples that were sad as one of their partners aged and was ill. I made house calls in training and saw old gay men with pictures of young, muscular athletic men pasted all over their walls. This was while in San Francisco studying Medicine. Gay men you want to believe are the happiest people in the world. When I compare and contrast the heterosexual population and homosexual populations encountering similar life circumstances…the gay are not gayer…but sadder…

Coptic, you bring up something which is, to me, an interesting, important, and complex issue–and that’s the issue of culture and how culture creates people and conditions desire. I feel that so often when people express misgivings about same sex attracted people or same sex attraction generally, what they’re really expressing misgivings about is “gay culture.” And there’s a lot about “gay culture” over which one can be justifiably uncomfortable.

First, “gay culture” is a relatively new phenomenon, largely constructed by boomers and gen-Xers from the ashes of the “free love” movement of the '60’s and the disco culture of the '70’s. “Gay liberation” was largely defined by its emergence into these larger cultural expressions of hedonism. This is, in itself, lamentable, but not particularly surprising. There is something about boomers and Xers which tends to confuse freedom with libertinism. (One could invoke other boomer enterprises perpetuated by Xers which have proved disastrous–guitar masses, for instance–and see at work here larger cultural and generational forces. In this light “gay culture” emerges as little more than a bit of collateral cultural damage which has nonetheless gone on–either directly or indirectly–to exercise a cultural influence entirely out of proportion to its importance!)

Moreover, the culture of youth and external beauty, so prevalent in popular culture to begin with (popular culture tends to be an expression in one way or another of the lower passions–which is not necessarily wholly bad, but not wholly good either), is hyperactive in “gay culture.” Why should this be so? My suspicion is that it has (at least) a twofold genesis: 1) it has to do with a phenomenon of delayed adolescence–many older gay men (boomers, older Xers) who likely experienced their sexuality as a source of shame in their adolescent years and were not able to experience what passes as “normal adolescence” (an experience to which same sex attracted kids today have much greater access) seem to have overcompensated for the lost time and created for themselves an extended adolescence relatively late in their lives when they were finally able, for whatever reason, to accept and/or express their sexuality. This extended adolescence has become the architecture around which so much of “gay culture” has been built. And when youth and the beauty of youth fades, having spent so much time in such a culture, I would imagine it’s more difficult to recognize the signs of the beauty of maturity or the beauty of old age…and disappointment and sorrow, resentment and various unhealthy forms of acting out at aging and the natural progress of time are likely to be a result. I’ve a feeling that as the boomers and Xers wane in numbers and influence, subsequent generations will have a more circumspect and critical relationship with this aspect of popular “gay culture” because the extended adolescence on which so much of it has been built will no longer be an issue. (Full disclosure: I am myself from the late 2nd half of the Xer generation.)

I think the second source for this focus on youth and beauty comes from a degree of self-consciousness regarding the male gaze. So much of what is crippling to young women in the popular culture’s obsession with feminine beauty is a function of the power of the male gaze–the consciousness of the gaze, the desire to be desired by it, and the will to construct oneself in the image of the gaze’s desire. The hypermasculinity of a lot of “gay culture” comes, at least in part, from this (there are some historical developments arising out of the entrance of women into the workforce during WWII which also contribute to this)–certainly the “clone” culture of the '70’s and early '80’s came from it. But it results in an embrace of androgyny as well–if masculinity is conceived as an object of the male gaze, then it must occupy a space previously (from a cultural perspective) occupied by the feminine, which leads to a lot of bleeding through from one construction to the other.

Of course, culture conditions desire and creates us as people in relationship to each other. Regarding the phenomenon of “good people doing evil things,” Philip Zimbardo (the researcher behind the (in)famous Stanford prison experiment) has written that he no longer believes in “bad apples” but in “bad barrels”–put good apples into them, they come out corrupted. All cultures, big or small, exercise a similar power and influence. The concept of original sin speaks to this: the human barrel isn’t what it should be, consequently, the human apples inside aren’t quite the apples they should be either. As Rene Girard and adherents of his theory of mimetic desire would point out, our desires are often our culture desiring in us. (Disclosure: I’m a fan of Girard’s work.)

But “gay culture” as we know it and experience it today is not a necessary expression of same sex attraction, but is an artificial desire-construct which has coalesced around same sex attraction. True, it has represented itself as necessary and/or indispensable to same sex attraction, but the representation is false–i.e., it is possible to be same sex attracted, or even identify as gay without buying into all of the baggage with which “gay culture” would burden same sex attracted folks. And it’s possible for people who are not same sex attracted to refuse to buy into the “gay culture” baggage as well–possible, in other words, for them to see same sex attracted folks for themselves and not as functions of a particular culture. Hard work sometimes, but necessary work.

Thanks for raising this, Coptic. One could go on and on on culture!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Most hetersexual couples do not have to deal with the concerns about unprotected sex, rectal prolapse, hemorrhoids, fecal incontinence, genital warts and a variety of sad situations.

Coptic, I hope this not a controversial thing to say, but many same sex attracted folks are not attracted to anal sex for a number of reasons, some of which no doubt related to the pathologies you have enumerated.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The notion of “same sex attraction” as long as you use it carries the overtone of something other than collegiality and friendship.

Must it? As a presumably opposite sex attracted person, I imagine you form friendships with members of the opposite sex to whom you are not attracted in the way that you might be attracted to a girlfriend or a wife. Or, if these attractions are present but not reciprocated or not capable of being reciprocated, I’m sure you (like most folks) are able to maintain the friendship and respect proper boundaries despite your attraction.

This will continually cause frustration because there is the continued reason to ask why are you attracted?

I’m not sure what you’re asking with the “why.” Why is anyone attracted to the people to whom they’re attracted? Why does anyone go on a date? Why does anyone pursue a romantic relationship? I can tell you, I’m not attracted to a man because I want to perform any particular sex act with or on him. Nonetheless, I have noticed in myself (and you may have noticed in yourself) that there is a qualitative difference between the attraction one feels to the folks with whom one is or would like to be friends, and the attraction one feels for someone with whom one is in love and with whom one would like to share one’s life as completely as one may. Am I same sex attracted because I want to have sex with men? I don’t think so. Am I same sex attracted because I’m attracted to other men? Yes.

I spent time in the boy scouts. …] Attraction" had nothing to do with it.

Clearly. And why should it, either for you or for someone who is same sex attracted?

As long as you invoke “same sex attraction” in any scenario you automatically implicate the problem of what is it you are talking about.

But why invoke it in just any scenario? Why not only in the scenario to which it properly applies–two people of the same sex who are in love with each other?

What do you mean by “same sex attraction” in a non-sexual relationship between two men living together? Why did you come to live together in the first place? Intention defines the action.

What I mean by same sex attraction in this scenario is: two men who are in love with each other in an intimate relationship which excludes sex.

Can a man that is heterosexual be a room mate with a Prostitute and they are mutually attracted live in a relationship that is committed to Chastity? The answer for me is that why would I place myself in a situation where there is a near occasion of sin?

I don’t know why a prostitute needs to be involved…

Are you arguing against the possibility of Josephite marriages? This is the rough model I’m following in the question I posed to Lisa and in the scenario mentioned above.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark had you read my post you would have noted that I explained how and why my perception of homosexuality was formed. But in the context of saving time so you don’t have to search: I was raised by two PhD scientists who were totally secular, atheist and in violent disagreement with Christianity and its teachings. As secular biologists they taught me that from a biological basis, any physical or mental or behavioral issues that would either cause a species to sicken or die prematurely and/or result in the inability to procreate was by definition not normal. The first objective of any species is survival, followed by procreation to ensure the species survives. This premise can be applied to homosexuality. I think even you as an advocate and defender of homosexuality, will have to admit that homosexuals, particularly males, have a lot of physical and mental health issues related to homosexuality. Coptic Christian has been more forthright than I in describing some of these issues. Further there are many studies demonstrating a higher incidence of drug addiction, mental health issues, and suicide in homosexuals, again particularly the males. And no matter how determined, homosexual pairs cannot procreate as Coptic Christian also clarified.

This behavior is not normal. I am not being specifically perjorative because it is a sexual sin. I was not raised Catholic and have none of the legendary “Catholic guilt.” I am looking at homosexuality in the same way I look at other abnormal behaviors.

I am now Catholic and one of the things that most drew me to this faith is the intellectual tradition, the relationship to Natural Law, and the consistency of position particularly on life issues.

So I will state that my perception originated from a secular and biological view and was further strengthened by Catholic teaching with completely confirms my secular parents’ viewpoint of such issues as homosexuality.

Lisa

Lisa, before I respond to this and followup on Coptic’s good suggestion that I provide the basis for my perspective on this as well, I need to ask you what you mean when you say that I’m “an advocate and defender of homosexuality”?

As I’m sure you know, words can be quite slippery, particularly in these parts where homosexuality means one thing to the APA and most folks in the world and quite another thing to many RC folks. I’ve tried to be very conscientious in this thread regarding my use of language (using “same sex attracted” rather than homosexual because the latter, in these waters, appears to carry with it the connotation of sexual activity but the former does not unless such activity is explicitly mentioned or referenced). I hope I’ve not slipped up, but it’s possible I have.

Before we continue, therefore, I want to make sure that you’re not labelling me some form of gay activist or homosexualist simply because I’m challenging your perspective on this issue. And calling me “an advocate and defender of homosexuality” can very easily be read as “gay activist” or “homosexualist” in this part of the world. I.e., before we go further, I want to make sure you’re actually hearing me. Because if you’re not, then our conversation will be close to useless. I know. I’ve been there before.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Coptic, you bring up something which is, to me, an interesting, important, and complex issue–and that’s the issue of culture and how culture creates people and conditions desire. I feel that so often when people express misgivings about same sex attracted people or same sex attraction generally, what they’re really expressing misgivings about is “gay culture.” And there’s a lot about “gay culture” over which one can be justifiably uncomfortable.

First, “gay culture” is a relatively new phenomenon, largely constructed by boomers and gen-Xers from the ashes of the “free love” movement of the '60’s and the disco culture of the '70’s. “Gay liberation” was largely defined by its emergence into these larger cultural expressions of hedonism. This is, in itself, lamentable, but not particularly surprising. There is something about boomers and Xers which tends to confuse freedom with libertinism. (One could invoke other boomer enterprises perpetuated by Xers which have proved disastrous–guitar masses, for instance–and see at work here larger cultural and generational forces. In this light “gay culture” emerges as little more than a bit of collateral cultural damage which has nonetheless gone on–either directly or indirectly–to exercise a cultural influence entirely out of proportion to its importance!)

Moreover, the culture of youth and external beauty, so prevalent in popular culture to begin with (popular culture tends to be an expression in one way or another of the lower passions–which is not necessarily wholly bad, but not wholly good either), is hyperactive in “gay culture.” Why should this be so? My suspicion is that it has (at least) a twofold genesis: 1) it has to do with a phenomenon of delayed adolescence–many older gay men (boomers, older Xers) who likely experienced their sexuality as a source of shame in their adolescent years and were not able to experience what passes as “normal adolescence” (an experience to which same sex attracted kids today have much greater access) seem to have overcompensated for the lost time and created for themselves an extended adolescence relatively late in their lives when they were finally able, for whatever reason, to accept and/or express their sexuality. This extended adolescence has become the architecture around which so much of “gay culture” has been built. And when youth and the beauty of youth fades, having spent so much time in such a culture, I would imagine it’s more difficult to recognize the signs of the beauty of maturity or the beauty of old age…and disappointment and sorrow, resentment and various unhealthy forms of acting out at aging and the natural progress of time are likely to be a result. I’ve a feeling that as the boomers and Xers wane in numbers and influence, subsequent generations will have a more circumspect and critical relationship with this aspect of popular “gay culture” because the extended adolescence on which so much of it has been built will no longer be an issue. (Full disclosure: I am myself from the late 2nd half of the Xer generation.)

I think the second source for this focus on youth and beauty comes from a degree of self-consciousness regarding the male gaze. So much of what is crippling to young women in the popular culture’s obsession with feminine beauty is a function of the power of the male gaze–the consciousness of the gaze, the desire to be desired by it, and the will to construct oneself in the image of the gaze’s desire. The hypermasculinity of a lot of “gay culture” comes, at least in part, from this (there are some historical developments arising out of the entrance of women into the workforce during WWII which also contribute to this)–certainly the “clone” culture of the '70’s and early '80’s came from it. But it results in an embrace of androgyny as well–if masculinity is conceived as an object of the male gaze, then it must occupy a space previously (from a cultural perspective) occupied by the feminine, which leads to a lot of bleeding through from one construction to the other.

Of course, culture conditions desire and creates us as people in relationship to each other. Regarding the phenomenon of “good people doing evil things,” Philip Zimbardo (the researcher behind the (in)famous Stanford prison experiment) has written that he no longer believes in “bad apples” but in “bad barrels”–put good apples into them, they come out corrupted. All cultures, big or small, exercise a similar power and influence. The concept of original sin speaks to this: the human barrel isn’t what it should be, consequently, the human apples inside aren’t quite the apples they should be either. As Rene Girard and adherents of his theory of mimetic desire would point out, our desires are often our culture desiring in us. (Disclosure: I’m a fan of Girard’s work.)

But “gay culture” as we know it and experience it today is not a necessary expression of same sex attraction, but is an artificial desire-construct which has coalesced around same sex attraction. True, it has represented itself as necessary and/or indispensable to same sex attraction, but the representation is false–i.e., it is possible to be same sex attracted, or even identify as gay without buying into all of the baggage with which “gay culture” would burden same sex attracted folks. And it’s possible for people who are not same sex attracted to refuse to buy into the “gay culture” baggage as well–possible, in other words, for them to see same sex attracted folks for themselves and not as functions of a particular culture. Hard work sometimes, but necessary work.

Thanks for raising this, Coptic. One could go on and on on culture!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I have a problem with new things and things that do not ring true. I am a student of thought and see things this way.

Alfred Korzysbski wrote Science and Sanity, a treatise in General Semantics…the basic tenet is this…“The map is not the Territory”…he also pointed out that humanity does “time binding” in other words takes information from the past and brings it to the present and builds on it. I see the OHCAC doing that and that is amazing to me.

Cultures have language, architecture, build societies, have food, art, etc. I speak other than English as part of a Culture that has built civilizations, left ruins and I take issue with you wanting me to accept Homosexuality as a culture. In fact I cannot , do not and will not.

Show me evidence that there has been a history of language, food, art, architecture defined by the culture you describe as gay as there has been no gay culture outside of the behavior within a culture.

Maps are important and change. You are probably aware that the street atlases have to be updated as communities are built, roads named, etc…so that you can get from here to there.

Alfred Korzybski said that when the internal map of your head as it concerns the universe is not consistent with the universe then your map is going to create a problem in navigation through the universe causing “Unsanity”…in my opinion based on your notion of a “gay culture”…trying to take what I know of in the world and place it in my map of the world equates to accepting unsanity.

I suggest that you correlate your map of the brain with what is and not what you want it to be.

All praise and glory to Him, His Church, the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known so that we may know Veritiatis Splendor.

I wish you well in correlating your thinking with the universe and navigating as you go. If you have problems navigating then you need to correct your map so that you are in tune with reality of what is and not your map.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

…] I take issue with you wanting me to accept Homosexuality as a culture. In fact I cannot , do not and will not.

Hold up hold up hold up hold up. Coptic.

When and where did I ask you to accept homosexuality as a culture?

I thought it was clear from my post that I was discussing the obsession with youth and beauty amongst same sex attracted folks by situating it within a particular cultural phenomenon, i.e., “gay culture.” It is clear that I was critical of “gay culture” throughout the post, and in the end, I state that “gay culture” is “an artifical desire-construct.” In what way could you have interpreted all of that as saying that you must accept homosexuality as a culture?

If you don’t like calling the loose collection of tropes, mythologies, social rituals, pageants etc which construct the popular notion of a gay identity a “culture,” then please suggest another word. But, to my understanding, “culture” is the appropriate word.

I honestly have no clue what could have prompted such a strong misreading of what I wrote.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
As Dakota kindly noted, I am genuinely curious, and I’ve not been reticent to discuss the nature of my curiosity: I’m interested in the practical effects on the lives of faithful RC same sex attracted folks of the teaching on same sex attraction being an objective disorder and whether or not those effects are necessarily emergent from sound RC moral teaching. Or, to put it in the form of a question: “Is it possible for a same-sex attracted faithful Roman Catholic man or woman, committed to chastity, to live and fall in love and be in relationship with the person with whom they’ve fallen in love and do so without pain, guilt or shame?” You have posited that it is impossible because you believe that there is a kind of inner torment inherent in same sex attraction itself. I want to know why you think that, and I want to discover if thinking as you do is a necessary outgrowth of sound RC moral teaching in practice.

I’m not trying to make you do research, but if your assertion is actually based on research, I would imagine you would be able to produce it quickly because it would have informed how you came to make your assertion to begin with. My hunch is that your assertion is more of an emotionalized universalization of your perception of your experience and less objectively verifiable by research. That’s fine. I’ve made assertions based on similar evidence/experience. They’ve not gotten me particularly far, certainly not very far in these forums. I don’t want to call your experience itself into question nor would I claim that your experience is invalid, but I don’t mind challenging your perception of that experience and what formed it. Others have kindly done the same for me and, one way or another, I’ve profited by it (regardless of whether or not I’ve found their challenges correct!).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Mark, you have always and continued to trumpet your disagreement with Catholic teaching in this Catholic forum on the homosexual condition. Lisa reads you accurately in that you are being disingenuous in your engagement of Catholics. For example in the recent related thread now closed,

Living as a Gay Catholic Man in your post 55 you said this

There is in fact something wrong in the RCC’s moral teaching in the catechism regarding the homosexual condition–that the inclination is an objective disorder.

and this

I would argue that it’s the language of “objective disorder” that invites such comparisons. And I and others would further argue that that language is problematic, to say the least.

in as always a long winded explanation and defense of same sex relationships. You are again raising it here as you have in many threads and posts prior to this one I cited.

Can’t you simply accept that there will not be an agreement from the Catholic faithful with your view that lets you justify the ‘good fruit’ and ‘human flourishing,’ your words, that could come out of homosexual relations, unless it is disinterested friendship that strives to have the best for the other without the sex part, whether you and your beloved have this arrangement of dealing with the sexual tension in ways that you don’t call sex?

@Dakota

We realize it is not easy for you, brother in Christ. However, watch out for Mark’s persuasions, which are obvious and show the reason he stays in this forum. Yes, this I dare I say because Catholic Answers is not just a place for answers for those struggling with the homosexuality issue among others. It is a magnet for posters like Deo Volente who wants more than anything a perch for self-justification for personal choices and to convince others to follow suit in doubting Catholic teaching and revisionist / selective understanding of Scripture in favor of personal interpretation. I am witness to a close family member who chose the direction of a lived out homosexual life in San Francisco that led to deeper depression. Not happy or adjusted like Mark and this poster Gaber would have the readers of this thread believe. To claim that depression and suicide ideation in homosexuals can only be blamed on this homophobia construct is a lie.
,

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Show me evidence that there has been a history of language, food, art, architecture defined by the culture you describe as gay as there has been no gay culture outside of the behavior within a culture.

On a closer reading of your remarkable post, Coptic, I think I’ve discovered the breakdown in communication.

I used the word “culture” in this context in a way analogous to how one would use it when describing a school culture or an office culture (referring to patterns of human behavior and thought considered with reference to a particular social dynamic or confluence of such dynamics), not in the sense of “civilization,” which seems to be how you’re understanding the word.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Can’t you simply accept that there will not be an agreement from the Catholic faithful with your view that lets you justify the ‘good fruit’ and ‘human flourishing,’ your words, that could come out of homosexual relations

InSearch, you have yet to realize that I’m not looking for agreement. I’m looking for understanding, mutual if possible, but if not, I’m the one looking to understand. It appears that disagreement, to you, will always look like an act of faithlessness.

Furthermore, I have *no clue whatsoever *when you use a phrase like “homosexual relations” if you’re talking about relationships between homosexuals generally or if you’re talking about gay sex. Let me definitively state to you: I am not talking about gay sex.

unless it is disinterested friendship that strives to have the best for the other without the sex part, whether you and your beloved have this arrangement of dealing with the sexual tension in ways that you don’t call sex?

While I’m not quite sure what you’re saying in the second half of this phrase, am I right in understanding you to believe that two people who love each other deeply and have committed themselves to each other will only be one pair of friends among many unless they can and do have sex–in which case they’ll either be married or an abomination? I’ve never believed that sex brings things to “the next level,” but reading your posts, it sounds like you believe that sex is indeed the thing that separates a deeply loving romantic relationship from a friendship, i.e., if you can’t or shouldn’t have sex, you’ll never be anything more than friends. Are two people in a Josephite marriage, for instance, just friends, or is there more going on there?

Not to get too personal (because I know anything I may say may be twisted by you and used against me–even the idea of human flourishing deserves scare quotes to you), but: I love my friends very deeply, InSearch. But I find my home with my partner. We have found our home in each other. I can’t say that for my other relationships. My partner and I aren’t just friends–we are home to each other. And that represents a significant distinction between my relationship with my friends and my relationship with my partner. Sex has nothing to do that.

It is a magnet for posters like Deo Volente who wants more than anything a perch for self-justification for personal choices and to convince others to follow suit in doubting Catholic teaching in favor of personal interpretation.

You are quite sadly mistaken here, InSearch. But that’s not particularly new.

To claim that depression and suicide ideation in homosexuals can only be blamed on this homophobia construct is a lie.

Where did that come from?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
InSearch, you have yet to realize that I’m not looking for agreement. I’m looking for understanding, mutual if possible, but if not, I’m the one looking to understand. It appears that disagreement, to you, will always look like an act of faithlessness.

For someone who is simply seeking to understand, you sure are a heat seeking missile at Catholic Answers asserting when you can the error of Catholic teaching especially for the benefit of posters who admit to having struggles with homosexuality.

Furthermore, I have *no clue whatsoever *when you use a phrase like “homosexual relations” if you’re talking about relationships between homosexuals generally or if you’re talking about gay sex. Let me definitively state to you: I am not talking about gay sex.

We have been talking about homosexual relations that encompass gay sex and romance.

While I’m not quite sure what you’re saying in the second half of this phrase, am I right in understanding you to believe that two people who love each other deeply and have committed themselves to each other will only be one pair of friends among many unless they can and do have sex–in which case they’ll either be married or an abomination? I’ve never believed that sex brings things to “the next level,” but reading your posts, it sounds like you believe that sex is indeed the thing that separates a deeply loving romantic relationship from a friendship, i.e., if you can’t or shouldn’t have sex, you’ll never be anything more than friends. Are two people in a Josephite marriage, for instance, just friends, or is there more going on there?

Not to get too personal (because I know anything I may say may be twisted by you and used against me–even the idea of human flourishing deserves scare quotes to you), but: I love my friends very deeply, InSearch. But I find my home with my partner. We have found our home in each other. I can’t say that for my other relationships. My partner and I aren’t just friends–we are home to each other. And that represents a significant distinction between my relationship with my friends and my relationship with my partner. Sex has nothing to do that.

Are you implying you have a spiritual union with your partner, and it excludes physical intimacy? Because in prior although not recent threads, this is not what you disclosed.

You bring up Josephite marriages where the configuration is between opposite sexes in an extraordinary form of marriage who are able to have sex but are giving it up, not because of impotence or inability of one or the other partner. The partners are celibate or chaste not because sex is sinful, which is not Church teaching on sex within marriage. A spouse gives the other the right to sexual congress. Same sex union in marriage is an impossibility.

Josephite marriage therefore has no relevance or equivalence with your situation even if you seem to imply here but are not directly stating that you and your partner are not engaging in any gay sex or physical intimacy.

If you are sharing a home with your partner without the gay sex or romancing part, then you are good friends, special friends, who choose to be permanent or long term roommates. So yes, in this CAF member’s view, if there is no sexual tension, no sexual expression, taking place between two same sex adults living together, it is not a same sex relationship that is invariably referred in this forum. It is disinterested friendship. If there is sexual tension and you choose to maintain a home together without giving in to sexual intimacy, you are placing yourself in constant near occasion of sin, as has been raised with you before.

As Coptic Christian posed to you in effect, what was your and your partner’s intention when you decided to share a home?

Where did that come from?

Read the sentence before it which mentions another poster who seems to reserve the sharpest words against anti-gay ‘marriage’ folks to the effect that it is homophobia and cultural bigotry that drive homosexuals to depression and suicide. Your post to Lisa however questions the related premise that active homosexuals are tormented and get depressed from the myriad of problems they bring on by themselves in living the lifestyle. I think she and CC have articulated very well this point that extends and gets more pronounced in aging male homosexuals.
,

 

[LisaA]

Grace & Peace!

Lisa, before I respond to this and followup on Coptic’s good suggestion that I provide the basis for my perspective on this as well, I need to ask you what you mean when you say that I’m “an advocate and defender of homosexuality”?

As I’m sure you know, words can be quite slippery, particularly in these parts where homosexuality means one thing to the APA and most folks in the world and quite another thing to many RC folks. I’ve tried to be very conscientious in this thread regarding my use of language (using “same sex attracted” rather than homosexual because the latter, in these waters, appears to carry with it the connotation of sexual activity but the former does not unless such activity is explicitly mentioned or referenced). I hope I’ve not slipped up, but it’s possible I have.

Before we continue, therefore, I want to make sure that you’re not labelling me some form of gay activist or homosexualist simply because I’m challenging your perspective on this issue. And calling me “an advocate and defender of homosexuality” can very easily be read as “gay activist” or “homosexualist” in this part of the world. I.e., before we go further, I want to make sure you’re actually hearing me. Because if you’re not, then our conversation will be close to useless. I know. I’ve been there before.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark
No I don’t take you for an activist in the sense of those who quite honestly, define themselves first by their sexual orientation and thus try to agitate, gin up controversy, and drum up lawsuits. So no I don’t believe you are an activist.

I do take you as an apologist (in the Catholic sense of the word not in apologizing for wrong doing). As InSearchof Grace noted, you believe that a homosexual who is in a same sex pair bond can be considered as adhering to Catholic teachings, perhaps because you feel a strong love bond (you and he are each other’s homes)…and if we do not see your relationship as following Catholic teaching, you believe the Church is wrong, not you.

The Church uses the word “disordered” and you dispute the term as I understand it. Maybe I have misinterpreted your argument but you seem to believe that while not every or maybe not even most homosexual pairs could be considered as faithful to the Church’s teaching, because the love and devotion you both have, well your relationship is “different” and thus can fall within the term “faithful Catholic.” I don’t think most CAF posters would agree with that.

I try to use the term abnormal in the biological sense because of my secular, science oriented background and because I think it demonstrates I don’t have any particular animus toward homosexuals. Quite honestly I have no interest in anyone’s sex life and if so many homosexuals weren’t so “out there” in effect forcing us to get involved with what should be private, I wouldn’t feel any need to speak up on the subject.

I hope this clears up your question.
Lisa

 

[ringil]

Homosexuality may be disordered but it isn’t a disorder. `

 

[LisaA]

Homosexuality may be disordered but it isn’t a disorder. `

We are all the world’s greatest experts on our own opinions aren’t we? Actually it was considered a mental illness until voted out. Again, opinion driving what should be based on fact.

LIsa

 

[tskrobacz]

We are all the world’s greatest experts on our own opinions aren’t we? Actually it was considered a mental illness until voted out. Again, opinion driving what should be based on fact.

LIsa

CCC 2357: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

The “facts” are that the Church openly acknowledges it’s genesis is not understood at the present time. Until such time as it is fully understood perhaps our time is better spent helping the poor and sick then debating the morality of who is sleeping in whose bed…

 

[LisaA]

CCC 2357: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

The “facts” are that the Church openly acknowledges it’s genesis is not understood at the present time. Until such time as it is fully understood perhaps our time is better spent helping the poor and sick then debating the morality of who is sleeping in whose bed…

Well that’s a mixed set of statements. It says the genesis of homosexuality is unexplained. So what? You know the genesis of most behaviors is unexplained. One doesn’t need to understand what causes a behavior to make a judgement about whether or not it is appropriate in the context of a church, organization, family etc. To claim that we cannot considered homosexuality as disordered unless we understand how same sex attraction occurs is to demand an unreachable standard.

As to the canard of why are we debating this issue instead of helping the poor and the sick, quite honestly I’d LOVE to not deal with, think about or debate homosexuality. I really don’t care what you do in bed. I do care if homosexuals insist that we must not only acknowledge but affirm what should be their private lives. I don’t think five year olds need to be told about homosexuals. I don’t think a Priest should be forced to marry two homosexuals. I don’t think a photographer should be forced to photograph a homoexual wedding if he/she does not want to.

IOW I think everyone’s sex life is their business. To use an old term, I think everyone’s sex life should be “in the closet” and not fodder for public discourse. Too bad so many homosexual activists think otherwise.

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

Homosexuality may be disordered but it isn’t a disorder. `

Ringil,

Define disordered.

Define disorder as you understand it.

Thank you

 

[CopticChristian]

CCC 2357: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

The “facts” are that the Church openly acknowledges it’s genesis is not understood at the present time. Until such time as it is fully understood perhaps our time is better spent helping the poor and sick then debating the morality of who is sleeping in whose bed…

Tsk,

Your mind has selected only a portion of what the Catechism says.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. **2358

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

We do not have to await understanding to accept that there is something to be said as to what we should believe it to be. I don’t understand the Trinity. I don’t understand the Eucharist. You will find on this thread discussion of the Trinity and the Eucharist because we lack understanding. Lack of understanding is not an impediment to discussion.

It is true that we should spend time understanding the poor and sick as these are acts of Charity and this is probably done on other postings and this would be disordered to derail this thread to discuss the value of a soup kitchen concerning the sin of homosexuality.

Charity as you recall is the greatest of Faith, Hope and Charity…Charity is love and endures forever. The only thing that endures forever is God. Good rabbi, why do you call me good? God alone is good. If God alone is good then Aquinas says that true love is willing your intentions and actions for another to God…if so then to do so you must know the Will of God so that you can truly be free and that is found here in Veritatis Splendor.

 

[ringil]

We are all the world’s greatest experts on our own opinions aren’t we? Actually it was considered a mental illness until voted out. Again, opinion driving what should be based on fact.

LIsa

It is not a mental illness. That is fact.