Why I Don’t Call Anyone “Gay”

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What the author is talking about is describing the predators in the Church, most of whose predation involved young men.

We do not want to call them gay or homosexual precisely for the reasons you gave.

Outside of the scandal, she seems also to advocate not using gay or homosexual, but to use people with SSA. This is for different reasons than the issue with the scandal.
 
Priests (or anyone else) who are particularly beset by sexual temptations involving the same sex, but do not act on those temptations, are chaste persons, just the same as priests or anyone else who experience temptations involving the opposite sex, but do not act on them, are simply described as chaste persons, or chaste Catholics.

There is no need to identify anyone by the nature of their temptations, sexual or otherwise. The only reason I can imagine for making such a self identification is to take some sort of pride in it: “I’m a real ladies’ man.” or “I’m a total swinger.”

I’ll never quite understand the current fad for identifying people by their temptations rather than their actions. One might say, “he’s a thief”, if he commits thievery, but not if he’s merely tempted to steal but never steals anything.
 
JimG said:
The only reason I can imagine for making such a self identification is to take some sort of pride in it: “I’m a real ladies’ man.” or “I’m a total swinger.”
Click to expand...
Maybe your imagination is too limited. One reason that someone who is gay might want to identify themselves by their sexual orientation is so that they can meet others like themselves who have had similar struggles and experiences. This doesn’t necessarily have to be about sex or pride. It might be for support and friendship.
 
Unless caught fornicating, most people’s sexual inclinations aren’t publicly known, and frankly, is irrelevant.

I dont want to know that heterosexual priest is attracted to brunettes either. It is inappropriate and irrelevant.
 
Seriously? You have no interest in what percentage of priests are gay? None at all?
 
When I meet a Priest, I assume is married to the Church and sent even register his sexuality.
 
I see this as a problem in the larger culture, too.
We simply don’t have concise terminology to explain or define the various lgbt phenomena.
 
You seemed to be unable to conceive of someone’s not caring what percentage of Catholic priests are gay. Do you want to eliminate them all?
 
Last edited:
I don’t want to eliminate any of them. Why would you say that?
But they are a topic of discussion in the Church today.
I can certainly conceive of a person not caring. Some people care about very little.
 
Last edited:
What is the importance of the percentage of homosexual priests to you, since it is not because you want to eliminate them, and you think that people who don’t care about this percentage “care about very little?”
 
Annie said:
What is the importance of the percentage of homosexual priests to you, since it is not because you want to eliminate them, and you think that people who don’t care about this percentage “care about very little?”
Click to expand...
There is discussion these days about a culture of homosexuality in the priesthood. If that is true I think it is something worth knowing about and how the Church will deal with it since according to the Church it is a disorder. And you are twisting my words. Why are you so argumentative with me?
 
Last edited:
I am not twisting your words. I am argumentative because you were so incredulous about someone’s not wanting to know the percentage of homosexual priests.

I prefer the phrase mafia to culture, but whatever it’s called, it does not include all homosexual priests, which has been thoroughly discussed in this very thread.

That is why your answer to Dr M above seemed so strong to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top