Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[Rau]

…I understand that from a Catholic perspective but…is the person with only desire actually a homosexual?

Due to the ambiguity of the word, I call them a person experiencing SSA. Many read the word “homosexual” to mean “practicing homosexual”. And I guess that is because the vast majority of those “coming out” would only do so if they also embraced the associated inclinations.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The word “heterosexual” is commonly defined by sexual attraction, not by sexual actions. For example:

Oxford English Dictionary: (Of a person)** sexually attracted **to people of the opposite sex; Involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the opposite sex.

Merriam-Webster: : sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex; based on sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex

So a person who is not sexually attracted to the opposite sex cannot be called a heterosexual except in your own rather perverse and unique definition. Now you could say that for you, the word “white” defines something that is black or that the word “blue” defines something that is red, but no one is going to understand what you’re talking about.

My dear Thorolfr.

We have discussed many things and I have always found your comments clear and concise. ( although I never agree with you )…But this time I have to say…I do not understand what you are talking about.

 

[1990Domer]

I favor civil unions. Inheritances being passed on among gay couples, health insurance between civil spouses, and other forms of financial and legal equality should be universal. The only difference should be that the word marriage is replaced by the term civil union or civil partnership. This is unacceptable to activists though, because couples legally joining together is not what this is all about. It’s about destroying Christianity and it’s about destroying the concept of family. Once these ideas are accepted as the new norm among up and coming generations, there will be no going back. It should be noted that gay couples generally don’t get married when it’s legal, and relatively few actually do.

It’s a ruse - that’s not what this is all about.

This is spot on. The devil wants to ruin families and it attacks what is weakest. Right now, it is the traditional family unit.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Due to the ambiguity of the word, I call them a person experiencing SSA. Many read the word “homosexual” to mean “practicing homosexual”. And I guess that is because the vast majority of those “coming out” would only do so if they also embraced the associated inclinations.

Ok… Good point.

I want to discuss this more… but not hijack the thread. Maybe later.

 

[Thorolfr]

My dear Thorolfr.

We have discussed many things and I have always found your comments clear and concise. ( although I never agree with you )…But this time I have to say…I do not understand what you are talking about.

If, as per the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “heterosexual” means “a person sexually attracted to the opposite sex” and the word “homosexual” means “a person sexually attracted to the same sex,” and we plug those definitions into your statement whenever you wrote “homosexual” or “heterosexual”, we get the following:

Zoltan: Does [a person sexually attracted to the same sex], with only desire or attraction, become more of [a person sexually attracted to the same sex] upon acting on the desire/attraction? Or is that person a [person sexually attracted to the opposite sex] with odd desires and attractions…who becomes a [person sexually attracted to the same-sex] upon indulging?

So are you asking whether a person who is sexually attracted to the same-sex gets a stronger attraction upon acting on the desire/attraction? If so, I don’t think so, although I can’t speak for all people who are gay/homosexual. At least in my case, the attraction was there and was quite strong many years before I ever acted on that attraction. It did not get stronger later on.

As for your second sentence, many gay people never were attracted to the opposite sex, so that could not apply to them. I also don’t have any idea what you mean by a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex (heterosexual) with odd desires and attractions. What kind of “odd desires and attractions” are you talking about? Now if the person is sexually attracted to the opposite sex and is also sexually attracted to the same-sex, such a person might be called “bisexual” which means that they are attracted to both sexes.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If, as per the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “heterosexual” means “a person sexually attracted to the opposite sex” and the word “homosexual” means “a person sexually attracted to the same sex,” and we plug those definitions into your statement whenever you wrote “homosexual” or “heterosexual”, we get the following:

Zoltan: Does [a person sexually attracted to the same sex], with only desire or attraction, become more of [a person sexually attracted to the same sex] upon acting on the desire/attraction? Or is that person a [person sexually attracted to the opposite sex] with odd desires and attractions…who becomes a [person sexually attracted to the same-sex] upon indulging?

So are you asking whether a person who is sexually attracted to the same-sex gets a stronger attraction upon acting on the desire/attraction? If so, I don’t think so, although I can’t speak for all people who are gay/homosexual. At least in my case, the attraction was there and was quite strong many years before I ever acted on that attraction.

As for your second sentence, many gay people never were attracted to the opposite sex, so that could not apply to them. I also don’t have any idea what you mean by a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex (heterosexual) with odd desires and attractions. What kind of “odd desires and attractions” are you talking about? Now if the person is sexually attracted to the opposite sex and is also sexually attracted to the same-sex, such a person might be called “bisexual” which means that they are attracted to both sexes.

Look…I’m sorry. Maybe I didn’t word my question properly.

Try this…

Is a person with SSA really a homosexual if he never acts on his attraction?

 

[Thorolfr]

Look…I’m sorry. Maybe I didn’t word my question properly.

Try this…

Is a person with SSA really a homosexual if he never acts on his attraction?

Yes, because the word “homosexual” is defined as a “sexually attracted to people of the same sex” (Merriam-Webster). The definition of the word is based on attraction, not acts.

 

[vsedriver]

When said behavior is part of the very fiber of that person, it is cruel to ask them to conform especially when their behavior harms no one. You may live a fantasy world where parents don’t kick out their children and abandon them but I have seen that reality.

are you sure their behavior harms no one? If you truly love someone the greatest act of love isn’t physical but where you help the other person to grow in holiness.

Morality is not based on science but on sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and sacred teaching authority. It is not possible for the Church to teach error when it comes to faith and morals. All sexual acts outside the covenant of marriage are sinful. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman per Jesus.

If you truly love someone you would not lead them into sin.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, because the word “homosexual” is defined as a “sexually attracted to people of the same sex” (Merriam-Webster). The definition of the word is based on attraction, not acts.

Yet, in the Merriam Webster source I looked up, below is the definition.

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL

1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one’s own sex—compare heterosexual 1a
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex—compare heterosexual 1b

which also refers to acts, as well.

,

 

[vsedriver]

Separate but equal doesnt work. Call them all civil unions and leave the word marriage for churches.

legal marriage has always discriminated. It has this discrimination built into it because the natural result of male/female sexual activity is the production of Children. It is in the state’s best interest to protect and provide for children. The best situation for the welfare of children is to be raised by their biological mother and father. The second best situation is to be raised by an adoptive mother and father. At least, that was the original point of civil marriage. It defined adult relationships based on their potential to be parents.

But if children are not the object of marriage, then there really is no need for the state to be involved in personal sexual activities. Civil marriage, as such, should be ended because it unjustly discriminates against singles and the closely related.

 

[vsedriver]

Is it cruel to deny them marriage?
Is it cruel to deny them children via surrogacy?

Yes and yes.

Is it cruel to deliberately deprive a child of their natural right to experience both a mother and a father?

Children are not accessories that we can bring into the world for our own satisfaction.

 

[lileli]

Is it cruel to deliberately deprive a child of their natural right to experience both a mother and a father?

Children are not accessories that we can bring into the world for our own satisfaction.

Loving families comes in many many different types and the image that only a man and woman can provide a loving environment is just false.

 

[Rau]

Loving families comes in many many different types and the image that only a man and woman can provide a loving environment is just false.

Yes, that is false. But why would one choose a context for a child lacking what children should have, a mothe and father? Something objectively less may be unavoidable, but why plan on it?

 

[lileli]

Yes, that is false. But why would one choose a context for a child lacking what children should have, a mothe and father? Something objectively less may be unavoidable, but why plan on it?

If a loving gay couple wants to adopt a child why deprive a child of a loving family? It is hard for homosexuals to be parents but that is because of society not because of them.

 

[Rau]

If a loving gay couple wants to adopt a child why deprive a child of a loving family? It is hard for homosexuals to be parents but that is because of society not because of them.

Adoption may improve the life for the child, though it immerses them in an environment where their adoptive parents set a disturbing example of sexual relationship, and portray it as good.

An even greater concern is where children are procured via surrogacy. In addition to the wrong above, in some cases, 4 persons collaborate - two as genetic parents and two as, in effect, adoptive parents. Persons producing a child in order to gift the child to another, treats the child as a commodity, regardless of good intentions.

 

[Rau]

If a loving gay couple wants to adopt a child why deprive a child of a loving family? It is hard for homosexuals to be parents but that is because of society not because of them.

Retread my post. You appear to have misread it.

It is hard for persons with SSA to become parents for reasons which are self-evident.

 

[Thorolfr]

Adoption may improve the life for the child, though it immerses them in an environment where their adoptive parents set a disturbing example of sexual relationship, and portray it as good.

An even greater concern is where children are procured via surrogacy. In addition to the wrong above, in some cases, 4 persons collaborate - two as genetic parents and two as, in effect, adoptive parents. Persons producing a child in order to gift the child to another, treats the child as a commodity, regardless of good intentions.

Many people would not consider a same-sex relationship to be setting a bad or disturbing example for a child. And there is no reason to think that a child born through surrogacy who is loved and wanted by their parents would consider themselves to be a commodity unless this kind of disturbing view has been drilled into them.

 

[Rau]

Many people would not consider a same-sex relationship to be setting a bad or disturbing example for a child. And there is no reason to think that a child born through surrogacy who is loved and wanted by their parents would consider themselves to be a commodity unless this kind of disturbing view has been drilled into them.

It is objective a fact that a child created by one set of parent(s) to hand over to another has been treated as a commodity.

 

[pete_29]

Many people would not consider a same-sex relationship to be setting a bad or disturbing example for a child. And there is no reason to think that a child born through surrogacy who is loved and wanted by their parents would consider themselves to be a commodity unless this kind of disturbing view has been drilled into them.

Many people would

 

[Thorolfr]

It is objective a fact that a child created by one set of parent(s) to hand over to another has been treated as a commodity.

All acts of surrogacy are not like this. I know of one same-sex couple where the sister of one of them acted as surrogate. She did this out of love for her brother, not for money.