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

[Regular_Atheist]

No - it is properly called same sex attraction. Homosexuals are trying to play the word game, just like the abortionists did when they started calling it pro-choice.

I’m pro-choice, and I don’t mind the term abortionist.

Anyway, same-sex attraction and gay have different definitions anyway. Same-sex attraction is, obviously, being attracted to the same-sex, while a gay person is someone who feels same-sex attraction.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

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.

Scroll up a couple of posts and see my reply to Debora.

You are getting words and definitions confused here.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

A chaste same sex attracted person has no reason to declare themselves to anyone. It is a personal struggle which can remain private, just like other disordered desires.

But imagine the horror they must be going through, to think of the shame and humility that they would be subjected to if their family or friends would find out. And imagine the lack of fulfillment they would get from their heterosexual relationship they are forced into, and the poor woman they would have to lie to so often. :bighanky:

Besides, isn’t lying a sin? Surely someone would have to admit to their same-sex attraction, or risk sinning?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

A chaste same sex attracted person has no reason to declare themselves to anyone. It is a personal struggle which can remain private, just like other disordered desires.

Exactly, just as we dont go around parading our every temptation.

BEING GAY implies that you are ACTIVE in it, which is why it is sinful.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t believe that. As you are a Conservative Catholic, I don’t believe you would tell someone you are feeling gay, or that you are a gay person. I think you know full well the problem that would cause.

The fact is that you can’t really pick and choose from language. I can’t decide I’d much rather call cars trees, for example. Words have assigned definitions, and we have to stick to them or risk confusion.

One; there is no such thing as a “conservative Catholic;” therefore I am not one. Two; you could have accepted my post as information about myself but instead you prefer to call me a liar. Why would you call people to don’t know a liar? Does name calling fortify your argument?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Scroll up a couple of posts and see my reply to Debora.

You are getting words and definitions confused here.

No I’m not. Words have no meaning without definitions. Without them, they are simply sounds that mean absolutely nothing. It’s only the meaning behind the words that is significant.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

One; there is no such thing as a “conservative Catholic;” therefore I am not one. Two; you could have accepted my post as information about myself but instead you prefer to call me a liar. Why would you call people to don’t know a liar? Does name calling fortify your argument?

I didn’t call you a liar directly, so you’ll notice that I actually made no attempt at ad hominem. I wasn’t trying to offend you. I’m sorry that you see it that way, but I can’t see how you could make use of that word by that definition now days. If you told someone you were gay, they’d automatically assume you were a homosexual.

 

[buffalo]

I’m pro-choice, and I don’t mind the term abortionist.

Anyway, same-sex attraction and gay have different definitions anyway. Same-sex attraction is, obviously, being attracted to the same-sex, while a gay person is someone who feels same-sex attraction.

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.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

No I’m not. Words have no meaning without definitions. Without them, they are simply sounds that mean absolutely nothing. It’s only the meaning behind the words that is significant.

Not what i meant.

You are mismatching words with their proper definitions.

 

[buffalo]

I
Anyway, same-sex attraction and gay have different definitions anyway. Same-sex attraction is, obviously, being attracted to the same-sex, while a gay person is someone who feels same-sex attraction.

Huh?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Exactly, just as we dont go around parading our every temptation.

BEING GAY implies that you are ACTIVE in it, which is why it is sinful.

Yes, it does. Everyone who considers themselves gay will be active in it. HOWEVER, just because someone isn’t active in it doesn’t mean they aren’t gay. It just means they’re lying to themselves and people around them. As long as they experience same-sex attraction, they are gay, regardless of what they consider themselves.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Huh?

You implied that ‘gay’ and ‘same-sex attraction’ were the same thing, yes?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Not what i meant.

You are mismatching words with their proper definitions.

No, I’m not. I’m getting my definitions from reliable sources. I was using one of the most trusted dictionaries in the world.

Where do you get your definitions from, then?

 

[Elizabeth502]

A chaste same sex attracted person has no reason to declare themselves to anyone. It is a personal struggle which can remain private, just like other disordered desires.

 

[JackyB]

You mean like marriage?

Excellent

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It’s sad that you would support the idea of people being forced into self-denial. :nope:

 

[Debora123]

A chaste same sex attracted person has no reason to declare themselves to anyone. It is a personal struggle which can remain private, just like other disordered desires.

It’s a personal decision whether or not someone wants to come out and tell their story and talk about their struggles. I don’t think it’s our place to think any lower of a chaste homosexual for being open and honest about themselves if it helps them heal or find closure.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

…] the fact is your son is a heterosexual with homosexual attraction.

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!

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s a personal decision whether or not someone wants to come out and tell their story and talk about their struggles. I don’t think it’s our place to think any lower of a chaste homosexual for being open and honest about themselves if it helps them heal or find closure.

In context, yes. Out of context, it’s bad taste, not to mention the other factors I mentioned in my earlier post regarding context, gratuitous mentions, and freqency. It has nothing to do with “thinking lower.” I assume that everyone knows I’m a sinner, simply because I’m human. (If they never observed me committing a sin.) And I assume that they don’t “think less of me” for that, given everyone’s struggles with behavior, universally.

 

[buffalo]

But imagine the horror they must be going through, to think of the shame and humility that they would be subjected to if their family or friends would find out. And imagine the lack of fulfillment they would get from their heterosexual relationship they are forced into, and the poor woman they would have to lie to so often. :bighanky:

Besides, isn’t lying a sin? Surely someone would have to admit to their same-sex attraction, or risk sinning?

There are a number of same sex attracted persons here on CAF who live a chaste and fulfilling life. You should ask them.

Catechism on lying -

III. OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH
2475 Christ’s disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By “putting away falsehood,” they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275
2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of *detraction *who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of *calumny *who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
  2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280 2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
2480 Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another’s vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages.
2481 *Boasting *or bragging is an offense against truth. So is *irony *aimed at disparaging someone by maliciously caricaturing some aspect of his behavior.
2482 "A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.
2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.