Please, enlighten all of us stupid people how your picking and choosing who qualifies for the status of human being and then using that definition to justify the killing of anyone who doesn’t fit that definition is so much different than all of the people in history that de-humanized a group simply for the purpose of making it easier on their conscience to kill them is?
Being gay/homosexual/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is not a sin.
Yes, I know. My post was in response to someone who basically said that people who are homosexual living a chaste lifestyle shouldn’t talk about it.
The Catechism does not say that “gay” means someone who is active in the homosexual lifestyle. The catechism doesn’t use the word gay because it’s slang.
So is consciousness and feeling what defines a human being?
Buffalo, thanks for your later clarification where you say it is because of free will ‘going back to Adam’. I’m inclined to agree with you that that’s probably part of it but I hope you can see how very different that is to what you wrote above. You asked how old my son is - he’s 28.
Wow well this thread has certainly changed course while I was away from the computer!
Buffalo, thanks for your later clarification where you say it is because of free will ‘going back to Adam’. I’m inclined to agree with you that that’s probably part of it but I hope you can see how very different that is to what you wrote above. You asked how old my son is - he’s 28.
As to the whole homosexual/gay word choice discussion, I’m surprised to hear that many posters think homosexual means attracted to the same sex and gay means acting on that attraction. I think it’s important to use words in the way they are understood by most people. Homosexual is the ‘correct’ word I suppose and gay is a slang word but to most people (including everyone I know), they mean exactly the same thing. They both mean a person who is attracted to those of the same sex. Neither implies being sexually active and neither suggests being chaste.
The Church does not suggest or say that it is immoral to acknowledge that one is homosexual/gay. I understand that some people have objections to the word gay being used to mean homosexual but the fact is that it IS used that way. The Church plainly teaches that it is immoral to act on homosexual attraction - there is no question or lack of clarity about that, but as far as I’m aware the Church does not say one must not use the word gay. I don’t think it was you (buffalo) who said that but it was said and I don’t know how to quote more than one person.
I am interested in discussions about homosexuality because of my own family situation. I’m also aware that, as someone has already said, there are many people who read but don’t post - I used to be one of them.
Gay absolutely implies actively homosexual – to that part of the secular community which identifies as homosexual or “gay.”
In secular culture, which is why the Catholic Church avoids it as much as possible, especially because in secular culture, “gay” overwhelmingly = actively homosexual. Maybe not where you live, but in any area I can think of in this country, the secular region defines “gay” as not only attracted to the same sex, but with the assumption of sexual activity.
She shows us by avoiding the word herself, because The Church is in the world but not of the world, And the word “gay” is “of the world.”
Probably best to refer to sociologists on this issue, since operational definitions of these terms matter during the course of research:Wow well this thread has certainly changed course while I was away from the computer!
Buffalo, thanks for your later clarification where you say it is because of free will ‘going back to Adam’. I’m inclined to agree with you that that’s probably part of it but I hope you can see how very different that is to what you wrote above. You asked how old my son is - he’s 28.
As to the whole homosexual/gay word choice discussion, I’m surprised to hear that many posters think homosexual means attracted to the same sex and gay means acting on that attraction. I think it’s important to use words in the way they are understood by most people. Homosexual is the ‘correct’ word I suppose and gay is a slang word but to most people (including everyone I know), they mean exactly the same thing. They both mean a person who is attracted to those of the same sex. Neither implies being sexually active and neither suggests being chaste.
The Church does not suggest or say that it is immoral to acknowledge that one is homosexual/gay. I understand that some people have objections to the word gay being used to mean homosexual but the fact is that it IS used that way. The Church plainly teaches that it is immoral to act on homosexual attraction - there is no question or lack of clarity about that, but as far as I’m aware the Church does not say one must not use the word gay. I don’t think it was you (buffalo) who said that but it was said and I don’t know how to quote more than one person.
I am interested in discussions about homosexuality because of my own family situation. I’m also aware that, as someone has already said, there are many people who read but don’t post - I used to be one of them.
It seems there is also “situational” homosexuality (e.g., the prison example) and “preferential” homosexuality (i.e., a ‘taste’ or preference for the same sex).
Is it ludicrous? Are you really going to draw a distinction between genocide and infanticide? Are you saying there is a difference between dehumanizing a fetus, and dehumanizing a Black slave or a German Jew during the Nazi era?
A child only lives for years after its birth thanks to the continual care of its parents, so is it still not its own person? Killing a 2 year old is fine then, right? Actually, if you ask some secular “ethicists” (and I use the term lightly), it’s perfectly fine. And they justify it using exactly your line of reasoning.
In my experience, this has been the CAF definition of the word gay by some Catholics here (note, I even say “some” not “all”). I’ve never heard this definition being used by anyone else in the real world, and prior to seeing a few posts on this forum, I had no idea such distinction even existed for some people.
Of course it makes sense for the Church not to use the word “gay” because it is slang. It doesn’t necessarily automatically mean that using such word is somehow wrong or sinful or means something different than what society has created it to mean. The Church doesn’t use the word “straight” either, but no one here has a hissy fit every time it gets used.
callmeChris 1. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” 2. without being judgmental or mean [/QUOTE said:
It actually exists for the secular gay community as well. Secondarily, there is a political preference, in the secular community, for the term “gay.” However, when you are as acquainted with the gay culture as I am, you hear all the time that, and I quote, “Gay is not just an orientation. Gay is a lifestyle.”
No. That is not the reason. It’s about a completely different context for words. I know the point you are trying to make regarding slang (“gay,” “straight”), but ambiguity does not exist in the heterosexual community about whether straight does or does not mean sexually active. The Church is very careful with words. There are few accidents in official documents, and no hastiness. On the occasions in which the hierarchy discovers or realizes that a word or phrase has caused any ambiguity, that word or phrase is replaced for the sake of precision.
Passions could be voluntary in a number of instances, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1762-1775
I guess I’ve had a completely different experience of what “gay” means.It actually exists for the secular gay community as well. Secondarily, there is a political preference, in the secular community, for the term “gay.” However, when you are as acquainted with the gay culture as I am, you hear all the time that, and I quote, “Gay is not just an orientation. Gay is a lifestyle.”
No. That is not the reason. It’s about a completely different context for words. I know the point you are trying to make regarding slang (“gay,” “straight”), but ambiguity does not exist in the heterosexual community about whether straight does or does not mean sexually active. The Church is very careful with words. There are few accidents in official documents, and no hastiness. On the occasions in which the hierarchy discovers or realizes that a word or phrase has caused any ambiguity, that word or phrase is replaced for the sake of precision.
Words may not be important to you. They are very important to the Church because language is very important to communicating doctrine and communicating Truth.
No, you misunderstand what I am saying. A fetus is unable to physically survive outside of the body as it lacks developed vital organs (depending on how mature it is). A baby, however, can physically survive outside of the body - it just lacks the means to feed itself. The baby is able to live, while a fetus isn’t. The baby just can’t survive for long. There’s a difference.
No. A fetus or an embryo is not a child. It is also not a human being. Tell me, how many people do you know that lack developed vital organs, and are unable to survive out of their parent’s womb?
An inconsequential difference. Dead is dead, if the child can’t survive on his/her own organs or abilities. If that baby has the ability to develop into a child with fully developed organs that THEN has the right to survive, by your standards, then you still have no right to kill the child.
Lochias, should I go off like a bomb in these types of threads?An inconsequential difference. Dead is dead, if the child can’t survive on his/her own organs or abilities. If that baby has the ability to develop into a child with fully developed organs that THEN has the right to survive, by your standards, then you still have no right to kill the child.
The only difference, by your own logic, is how you let the child die: underdeveloped organs, or starvation. You can bleat that it’s not a child all you’d like until it has a functioning liver, it makes no functional or logical difference whatsoever, according to your line of reasoning.
And heck, for that matter, once a person’s kidney’s or liver or lungs start to malfunction and shut down, they’re no longer human either…they can’t exist outside of outside help.
What a fun slippery slope! Ever thought about becoming a Catholic apologist?
