The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[CopticChristian]

Lol. You’re a funny guy. :clapping:

**By definition, he is either a homosexual or a bisexual. **If someone has homosexual attraction, it is impossible for them to be considered a heterosexual./****B]

Regular,

Your thought process does not square with taxonomy, that is part and parcel of Biology, recall you asked “who made you a Biologist”…well from a Biologist the way things are categorized are as follows…

Human
Heterosexual with opposite sex attraction
Heterosexual with same sex attraction
Heterosexual with opposite and same sex attraction

In your mind, in your thinking this makes sense…Taxonically, from the ones that made me a Biologist you are making no sense other than to present your bias…

Yes, I am funny, and I appreciate that you appreciate my sense of humor…

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Choosing not to share is not living a lie. That is a choice.

Oh, yes, it’s a choice they’re welcome to. But it is a lie. If you’re a homosexual but claim to be a heterosexual, you’re lying.

 

[buffalo]

You do realise that homosexuality is only wrong based on your religious beliefs, right? .

No - it is logically wrong and violates the natural law. (not aberration’s of nature)

 

[CopticChristian]

It makes sense because using the word Gay means you are living the lifestyle

A person with homosexual feelings is not Gay, unless he proclaims he is living the lifestyle.

Crimson,

It is not that hard to grasp…you don’t need to go up into the sky and bring it down…it is on your lips and in your heart…you understand…

 

[CrimsonThorn]

You do realise that homosexuality is only wrong based on your religious beliefs, right? I dislike the idea that homosexuality being wrong is an objective principle.

However, I would agree that it’d probably be best for homosexuals to remain closeted when it comes to folks like you.

I was replying to a person who is Catholic, so i dont the problem? Actually i dont see a reason to hide my beliefs, since non believers need to adjust to our terminology not the ither way around.

However, you do realize that homosexuality was seen as wrong by the secular public and not just by Christians as well, 50 years ago right?

You do realize that pedophilia and incest are wrong, without even including the religious aspects of it, right?

Its not rocket science.

 

[buffalo]

Oh, yes, it’s a choice they’re welcome to. But it is a lie. If you’re a homosexual but claim to be a heterosexual, you’re lying.

If you are chaste SSA you are not living a lie. Unless now your claim is you are somehow obligated to share your disorders. Does that extend to depression? Are you obligated to share?

Did you read through the Catechism on lying? If you did you will see there are things that you can protect.

 

[CopticChristian]

“Gay” simply means “homosexual.”

It does not specify the person’s lifestyle.

Debora,

In the context of the CAF and the thread is “homosexual state of mind” and there is a Catechism that says “homosexual” not gay and the fact that Dr. Nicolosi has pointed out that “gay” implies a lifestyle…usage of a word defines what it means…you may choose to accept and believe that “gay” means “homosexual” however that does not square with the Catechism or what is out there in the community as agendas…so use whatever you like and if you meet resistance, understand from whence it comes…

As for me and my house we will serve…Heterosexual with same sex attraction for the Lord…called to chasity.

 

[buffalo]

Bufallo,

I suggest you be cautious in suggesting anything about epigenetics. I have read the stuff and it is in need of further study. A study I read even says…results not conclusive and should be repeated…

Glad you brought up somoking…
from Stanton Peele, PhD…

You will see those on other threads using epigenetics to prove handedness, ie left hand and homosexuality as the reason for being…

Genes are genes…proclivity to act does not procivity to change action.

Epigenetics is not the same as genetics. I thought I expressed that my statement was not fact.

 

[CopticChristian]

Gay by definition : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits<a bird’s gay spring song>

I’ve been in a gay marriage for over 36 years

Stephen,

Are you telling me that after all these years, every Christmas when I hear the song…

Don we now our gay apparrel…it isn’t what I thought it was?

 

[CopticChristian]

Are you a time traveller from the 1950s? The meaning of the word “gay” has changed.

But, hey, maybe we should all use archaic english. I mean, it is rather queer when you hear people say it. I haven’t heard it myself for a fourscore.

Regular,

I like your thinking. It is easy to dissect. Euthanasia is murder. The definition has changed to be read as

: the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; also : the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life—called also mercy killing

It is still murder regardless of what you call it…

 

[Regular_Atheist]

No - it is logically wrong and violates the natural law. (not aberration’s of nature)

By what logic? Also, all the definitions I’ve seen suggest that natural law is completely subjective. You decide what goes within the bounds of natural law.

 

[buffalo]

Regular Atheist - have you been avoiding this?

Post #309.

You are? Big surprise…

Pro-choice is the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

As an atheist with moral relativism as your god I can see why you are pro-choice. I submit I can substitute your name in this statement and you should agree.

Pro-choice is the choice a woman (I) wants to murder her unborn baby (you) who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is what society teaches, Debora.

As Catholics, our sins are not who we are as humans and as people. Our sins are not our identities.

Crimson,

This is also taught in SMART recovery “I am not my behavior”…it stems from REBT, Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy…when people are trying to get well they understand that what they do is not what they are…in this context the reverse identification is to identify with what I do and in a sense is saying I am what I do and choose to remain fixed in my thinking and according to Ellis my illness…

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

I like your thinking. It is easy to dissect. Euthanasia is murder. The definition has changed to be read as

It is still murder regardless of what you call it…

Hm. I’m not so sure. The author Terry Pratchett, who’s works I am a big fan of, is suffering from Alzehmiers and he said that he would like to be able to have his own life taken via “assisted suicide.” I am not quite sure that, in such a situation, it could be considered murder.

telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5960166/Sir-Terry-Pratchett-coroner-tribunals-should-be-set-up-for-assisted-suicide-cases.html

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry, but when you look into a dictionary that’s clearly not true.

You are right about thiefs, but not about homosexuals. The reason? They both have different definitions. By your logic, someone is not heterosexual until they have sex with someone of the opposite sex, but a look in a dictionary clearly tells us that is wrong. A heterosexual is someone who is attracted to members of the opposite sex, regardless of whether they act on this attraction or not. A homosexual is the same, but with the same sex.

Regular,

You continually show evidence of nievety and the mind of a youth…words in a dictionary come by usage and acceptance…it does not define what is…

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular Atheist - have you been avoiding this?

Post #309.

You are? Big surprise…

Pro-choice is the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

As an atheist with moral relativism as your god I can see why you are pro-choice. I submit I can substitute your name in this statement and you should agree.

Pro-choice is the choice a woman (I) wants to murder her unborn baby (you) who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I do not agree with late term abortion, however I can’t see what’s wrong with removing what is essentially a ball of cells from a woman. I hardly believe it could be considered living, and I don’t believe it could be considered a human being. I’d like to believe the woman is in complete ownership of her body, and therefore can decide what she’d like growing inside her.

Besides, there are some cases, such as rape, where abortion may be nessecary. I’d also like to empthasize the fact that there are atheists who are pro-life (you have one of these people on this very forum). There are also atheists who oppose homosexuality. My moral compass, what I believe to be right or wrong, has nothing to do with my disbelief in a god or gods.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

You continually show evidence of nievety and the mind of a youth…words in a dictionary come by usage and acceptance…it does not define what is…

Then, how are we to work out the definition of words apart from using what is commonly accepted? After all, is that not how language works, and is that not how language evolves? The definition of words is certaintly not subjective, if that is what you are claiming.

And, after that little incident where you asked me which American city has the highest population a couple of days ago, how can you accuse me of having the mind of a youth? You only asked that so you could catch me out, and then accuse me of being narrow minded. What you did was childish. It brought nothing to the discussion but ad hominem, and was completely off topic.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Coptic, you’re mixing up too many terms of art here to be intelligible. The RCC catechism never once mentions heterosexuality, so it’s a safe bet that the RCC does not understand basic human sexuality in the same way that the rest of the world understands the term “heterosexuality.” Indeed, the rest of the world understands the term “heterosexuality” as denoting the majority sexual orientation, but an argument can be made that the RCC would understand “heterosexuality” as a common form of concupiscence which is often mistaken for basic human sexuality–and here’s the difference: the RCC appears to understand basic human sexuality to be oriented toward marriage, but heterosexuality only comprehends a “romantic, emotional and/or sexual attraction” to a member of the opposite sex. The difference is profound.

The catechism understands “homosexuality” to describe sexual behavior that homosexuals get up to together (that’s the gist at any rate). The catechism understands a homosexual inclination to be an attraction to homosexual acts–and since the latter is verboten, the former is disordered. However, the rest of the world understands homosexuality to be a “romantic, emotional and/or sexual attraction” to members of the same sex. The RCC understanding of homosexuality, therefore, does not quite mesh with the dominant understanding of the term (which can prove a bit problematic).

So given all this, one of the many bizarre things you appear to be saying here is that Go’s son is romantically attracted to women but is drawn to having sex with men (either in addition to being attracted to women, or perhaps as a possible expression of his attraction to women). I don’t know that this is how any same sex attracted person would describe their affections. I also don’t think it’s a very coherent thing to say. It’s pretty odd.

Or you could be stating that Go’s son would be attracted to women if he weren’t attracted to men so much, which I suppose is true enough. But the statement “that hexagon could be a circle if it weren’t so hexagonal” is true in the same way. Which is to say, indeed, that people and/or things would be different if they weren’t what they are.

If what you wanted to say was, “same-sex attracted people are really heterosexuals at heart”…then I’m afraid the statement is little more than a speculative assertion. Because if such a statement were true, we would expect to be able to glean an understanding of it from life, and not simply from intellection. That is to say, we should expect the argument to be reliably demonstrated in real life–i.e., conversion therapy should be able to consistently, repeatedly, non-violently and reliably remove same-sex attractions from a clear and vast majority of those who undergo such therapy. But there’s no evidence for this.

What you may have wanted to say here is something more along the lines of: homosexuality as the RCC understands it represents something foreign to or in addition to basic human sexuality which is oriented to marriage–that is, homosexuality obscures or distorts basic human sexuality. There is an argument to be made for such an understanding based on the catechism. But such an argument can only be made within the context of the RCC understanding of the terms in use and cannot be made outside of such a context. And even so, what such an argument amounts to (within the context of the RCC understanding of the terms) is not that same-sex attracted folks are really or should be attracted to the opposite sex, but that acts opposed to marriage are understood to be discordant with our true nature; consequently,an attraction to any such acts (pornography, homosexual sex, fornication, etc.) will most likely represent a trial for those who experience such an attraction because such acts, being contrary to our human nature, cannot lead to human flourishing. That seems to be what the catechism is saying.

The alternative is to say that same-sex attracted people are really heterosexuals in disguise, or are suffering from a broken or occluded heterosexuality, which represents an understanding of things which is simply not supported by any consistent or reliable evidence. But because the catechism doesn’t use the term “heterosexuality,” it seems like the catechism is inviting us to understand its definition of homosexuality with reference to marriage and* not* with reference to heterosexuality as it is commonly understood. As such, we are being invited, I think, to understand our attractions to people as being referred to marriage. This position is not beyond criticism however (particularly if the criticism is that such a position makes marriage usurp or overtake chastity as the end of human sexuality as opposed to being a rather special example of that chastity to which all are called). But we don’t need to open that can of worms right now.

None of which is to say, Coptic, that you’re justified in claiming to know the drift of a stranger’s affections sufficiently well enough to impose on them a label. What you appear to have done is comparable to the reductionism that you accuse others who call themselves “gay” do when they label themselves “gay.” So…just a word of caution.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Deo Volente,

You and others that use lots of words to explain what, I don’t know should use caution.

The Catechism may or may not use heterosexual…it doesn’t have to. Does the word “inferred” mean anything to you…The Catechism discusses Homosexuals in the section concerning the 6th commandment…

• I. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM . . .”

Male and female. Do you understand this to mean heterosexual? It is called an inferrence.

The Vocation of Chastity is discussed and within that discussion is included

The integrity of the person

The integrality of the gift of self

The various forms of chastity

Offenses against chastity

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.

Now, knowing that the first part of the section declares “male and female he created them” and then there is a section called Chastity and Homosexuality, would you have preferred…

Male and female he created them…we call this heterosexuality…and when you look at the section on Chastity, when you get to the section on Chastity and Homosexuality understand that since male and female he created them, knowing that this is a hetersexual statement, for those not in the know…and homosexual issues are attractions and actions of the male and female he created them that you all know is heterosexual.

Are you kidding me…

 

[buffalo]

I do not agree with late term abortion, however I can’t see what’s wrong with removing what is essentially a ball of cells from a woman. I hardly believe it could be considered living, and I don’t believe it could be considered a human being. I’d like to believe the woman is in complete ownership of her body, and therefore can decide what she’d like growing inside her.

Besides, there are some cases, such as rape, where abortion may be nessecary. I’d also like to empthasize the fact that there are atheists who are pro-life (you have one of these people on this very forum). There are also atheists who oppose homosexuality. My moral compass, what I believe to be right or wrong, has nothing to do with my disbelief in a god or gods.

OK - now I know where you stand - thanks.

Science fully understands that this “ball of cells” is a fully living human with unique DNA that is found no where else. The difference is maturity. Have you seen 4D ultrasounds? I am curious as to where you heard the tern “ball of cells”? Was this taught to you?

Woman have a choice on whether to engage in relations. Abstinence works every time it is tried. It also limits the spread of STD’s.

---

Case of rape - how does one crime justify committing another, that is the taking of another humans life? Is the child of a rapist any less human? By being raped does the child lose the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

 

[CopticChristian]

So you think the homosexual people being interviewed on EWTN were “touting”??

(I won’t argue about the “gay” thing anymore. at this point it’s just become a silly argument about semantics)

Debora,

Praise you…there are 4000 plus people viewing this thread. I raised a concern in post 242…all I did was make a suggestion…I did not tell anyone what to do…I expalined why I made that suggestion and you had lots to say and add and that was great…here at post 335 you have come to terms with the reality that it may be an issue…

Use “gay”, “heterosexual with same sex attraction”, “homosexual”…however just understand that it is a concern, there are 93 postings over this issue which means that it means different things to different people and your willingness to say you choose not to argue about it and that it is silly semantics…is just awesome.

You have done a world of good for your ability to accept that there is an issue and for you not worth arguing about however the “gay” community will no longer count you as an ally…for that I praise you…