You only think your gay

  • Thread starter Thread starter FormerXCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FormerXCatholic

Guest
I’m seeing a lot of well meaning Christians on here spreading a dangerous theology on homosexuality. That being gay is just “who you are” and acting on it is a sin.

“Who you are” is not determined by preferences. If you are intentionally giving life to homosexual thoughts because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings about romance and sex, you are committing sin, by choice.

Hearing people keep saying “who you are” is like hearing Michael Jackson say “heal the world” in that corny song from the nineties. It’s a meaningless phrase that just sounds nice.

Why don’t people define objectively what “who you are” means? Is it who I am today? Yesterday or tomorrow? Is “who you are” a collection of organs and blood? Is it a spirit, that possesses a body? Or a body that posseses physical objects and makes physical actions?

End with the euphemisms, if you have a vagina, it is physically “what it is”. Use it for its purpose, peeing and the coincidently pleasurable process of procreation. Same goes for male body parts. If you have deformed genetalia that can still procreate, then procreate. Nobody is born anything. You know nothing about sex until you learn about it. Heck most people first sexual experience is with themselves. Does that make you “gay”
 
FormerXCatholic said:
I’m seeing a lot of well meaning Christians on here spreading a dangerous theology on homosexuality. That being gay is just “who you are” and acting on it is a sin.

“Who you are” is not determined by preferences. If you are intentionally giving life to homosexual thoughts because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings about romance and sex, you are committing sin, by choice.

Hearing people keep saying “who you are” is like hearing Michael Jackson say “heal the world” in that corny song from the nineties. It’s a meaningless phrase that just sounds nice.

Why don’t people define objectively what “who you are” means? Is it who I am today? Yesterday or tomorrow? Is “who you are” a collection of organs and blood? Is it a spirit, that possesses a body? Or a body that posseses physical objects and makes physical actions?

End with the euphemisms, if you have a vagina, it is physically “what it is”. Use it for its purpose, peeing and the coincidently pleasurable process of procreation. Same goes for male body parts. If you have deformed genetalia that can still procreate, then procreate. Nobody is born anything. You know nothing about sex until you learn about it. Heck most people first sexual experience is with themselves. Does that make you “gay”
Click to expand...
(Just correcting a technicality. Women don’t urinate from the vagina.)

Back to regular programming.
 
FormerXCatholic said:
I’m seeing a lot of well meaning Christians on here spreading a dangerous theology on homosexuality. That being gay is just “who you are” and acting on it is a sin.

“Who you are” is not determined by preferences. If you are intentionally giving life to homosexual thoughts because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings about romance and sex, you are committing sin, by choice.
Click to expand...
Having sexual thoughts arise, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, is not a sin. However, deliberately entertaining those thoughts may constitute lust. The distinction between unintentional and deliberate is very important.
 
FormerXCatholic said:
I’m seeing a lot of well meaning Christians on here spreading a dangerous theology on homosexuality. That being gay is just “who you are” and acting on it is a sin.

“Who you are” is not determined by preferences. If you are intentionally giving life to homosexual thoughts because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings about romance and sex, you are committing sin, by choice.

Hearing people keep saying “who you are” is like hearing Michael Jackson say “heal the world” in that corny song from the nineties. It’s a meaningless phrase that just sounds nice.

Why don’t people define objectively what “who you are” means? Is it who I am today? Yesterday or tomorrow? Is “who you are” a collection of organs and blood? Is it a spirit, that possesses a body? Or a body that posseses physical objects and makes physical actions?

End with the euphemisms, if you have a vagina, it is physically “what it is”. Use it for its purpose, peeing and the coincidently pleasurable process of procreation. Same goes for male body parts. If you have deformed genetalia that can still procreate, then procreate. Nobody is born anything. You know nothing about sex until you learn about it. Heck most people first sexual experience is with themselves. Does that make you “gay”
Click to expand...
Having the attraction is one thing. Acting on it another.
A man can lust after a woman if he doesn’t train his thoughts and eyes.
So too a gay person.
In either case, they may feel the instant stirring of desire, but it is what is done with that desire that matters.

SSA is a cross to bear, not a cross to wield.

God bless.

PS, I don’t think it is something to be embraced, rather something to be acknowledged and dealt with.
 
FormerXCatholic said:
You know nothing about sex until you learn about it. Heck most people first sexual experience is with themselves. Does that make you “gay”
Click to expand...
When a person says they are gay, they aren’t saying that they are attracted to a sex act – no more than when I say I’m attracted to my wife, I say that I’m attracted to coitus. Thus, my first experience of homosexual attraction was when I saw a picture of a nearly naked man, when I was 11, and I felt sexual attraction. I didn’t want sex with him – I didn’t even know such a thing was vaguely possible! – but I did, in some sense, want him.

As for the meaning of the word “gay”, that’s not up to us. People do not decide to be gay. They discover they’re attracted to the same sex, and know that society calls such people “gay”. You can’t opt out of language.

Similarly, when black children in 1960 learned that black people were called “Negroes”, they did not have an option to “opt out” of the name. The name applied, will they, nil they. If the name had negative connotations, so be it. We cannot escape our culture’s beliefs about us. We must transcend such beliefs, but we can’t simply escape them by not using a word.

This is an important point. There is nothing dangerous in calling oneself gay. There IS something dangerous in pursuing gay sexual relationships.

The label “gay” means “attracted primarily or exclusively to the same sex”. I have sympathy with those who have same-sex attraction who reject this label. But there’s nothing wrong with accepting it. You do not somehow, by accepting it, say this is “who I am” and thereby justify sinful activity.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
When a person says they are gay, they aren’t saying that they are attracted to a sex act – no more than when I say I’m attracted to my wife, I say that I’m attracted to coitus. Thus, my first experience of homosexual attraction was when I saw a picture of a nearly naked man, when I was 11, and I felt sexual attraction. I didn’t want sex with him – I didn’t even know such a thing was vaguely possible! – but I did, in some sense, want him.

As for the meaning of the word “gay”, that’s not up to us. People do not decide to be gay. They discover they’re attracted to the same sex, and know that society calls such people “gay”. You can’t opt out of language.

Similarly, when black children in 1960 learned that black people were called “Negroes”, they did not have an option to “opt out” of the name. The name applied, will they, nil they. If the name had negative connotations, so be it. We cannot escape our culture’s beliefs about us. We must transcend such beliefs, but we can’t simply escape them by not using a word.

This is an important point. There is nothing dangerous in calling oneself gay. There IS something dangerous in pursuing gay sexual relationships.

The label “gay” means “attracted primarily or exclusively to the same sex”. I have sympathy with those who have same-sex attraction who reject this label. But there’s nothing wrong with accepting it. You do not somehow, by accepting it, say this is “who I am” and thereby justify sinful activity.
Click to expand...
👍

People do not decide to be attracted to the same sex any more than they decide to be attracted to the opposite sex.
We all have desires and temptations- it is our choice to dwell on them and act on them, but simply having them is not a sin- and ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away.

From the catechism:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
The label “gay” means “attracted primarily or exclusively to the same sex”. I have sympathy with those who have same-sex attraction who reject this label. But there’s nothing wrong with accepting it. You do not somehow, by accepting it, say this is “who I am” and thereby justify sinful activity.
Click to expand...
This.
Acceptance is the key for almost any ‘recovery’.

It is far different from embracing it.

God bless.
 
FormerXCatholic said:
I’m seeing a lot of well meaning Christians on here spreading a dangerous theology on homosexuality. That being gay is just “who you are” and acting on it is a sin.

“Who you are” is not determined by preferences. If you are intentionally giving life to homosexual thoughts because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings about romance and sex, you are committing sin, by choice.

Hearing people keep saying “who you are” is like hearing Michael Jackson say “heal the world” in that corny song from the nineties. It’s a meaningless phrase that just sounds nice.

Why don’t people define objectively what “who you are” means? Is it who I am today? Yesterday or tomorrow? Is “who you are” a collection of organs and blood? Is it a spirit, that possesses a body? Or a body that posseses physical objects and makes physical actions?

End with the euphemisms, if you have a vagina, it is physically “what it is”. Use it for its purpose, peeing and the coincidently pleasurable process of procreation. Same goes for male body parts. If you have deformed genetalia that can still procreate, then procreate. Nobody is born anything. You know nothing about sex until you learn about it. Heck most people first sexual experience is with themselves. Does that make you “gay”
Click to expand...
I find the hypothesis interesting. Perhaps it is only the ego that is homosexual. Bear in mind the ego is that “self” we are supposed to die to in order to be reborn in the Spirit of Christ. The ego of course does not want to die, and kicking and screaming demands that everything about it is innate to it, and therefore a “right”. Now the ego is really just a collection of experiences, perceptions, beliefs, and feelings which are all greatly manipulable by Satanic temptation. This pertains to all sorts of things besides sexual matters.
 
Except that being gay isn’t a sin in the Church at all. And referring to oneself by one of the most important identifiers in our culture for clarity purposes is not sinful.

Sexual orientation determines our interests, friend groups, social connections, work/job stability, and so much more. It is by no means merely confined to “who you want to have sex with,” as many conservatives in the Church would demand. Even before I knew I was gay, I hung out with lesbians in high school. And one by one each of us came out as bi or lesbian. Gay people are just drawn to other gay people through common interests. It’s also why we’re so good at “gaydar” (and why straight people are so bad at it).

Also, to correct you, fantasizing about same-sex non-sexual romance is not sinful, unless it puts one at high risk of sin (assumedly masturbation or lust). Lust requires a sexual, objectifying component.
 
FormerXCatholic said:
I’m seeing a lot of well meaning Christians on here spreading a dangerous theology on homosexuality. That being gay is just “who you are” and acting on it is a sin.

“Who you are” is not determined by preferences. If you are intentionally giving life to homosexual thoughts because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings about romance and sex, you are committing sin, by choice.

Hearing people keep saying “who you are” is like hearing Michael Jackson say “heal the world” in that corny song from the nineties. It’s a meaningless phrase that just sounds nice.

Why don’t people define objectively what “who you are” means? Is it who I am today? Yesterday or tomorrow? Is “who you are” a collection of organs and blood? Is it a spirit, that possesses a body? Or a body that posseses physical objects and makes physical actions?

End with the euphemisms, if you have a vagina, it is physically “what it is”. Use it for its purpose, peeing and the coincidently pleasurable process of procreation. Same goes for male body parts. If you have deformed genetalia that can still procreate, then procreate. Nobody is born anything. You know nothing about sex until you learn about it. Heck most people first sexual experience is with themselves. Does that make you “gay”
Click to expand...
And what do you think would happen if you told a gay person (in person) that “You’re not gay, you only think you’re gay”??
 
SMGS127 said:
Sexual orientation determines our interests, friend groups, social connections, work/job stability, and so much more. It is by no means merely confined to “who you want to have sex with,” as many conservatives in the Church would demand. Even before I knew I was gay, I hung out with lesbians in high school. And one by one each of us came out as bi or lesbian. Gay people are just drawn to other gay people through common interests. It’s also why we’re so good at “gaydar” (and why straight people are so bad at it).
Click to expand...
This seems a bit overstated, to me. Some gay people don’t like to hang around other gay people, at all. Some do little else. It varies. 🤷
 
SMGS127 said:
Also, to correct you, fantasizing about same-sex non-sexual romance is not sinful, unless it puts one at high risk of sin (assumedly masturbation or lust). Lust requires a sexual, objectifying component.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that? Romance is the precursor to intercourse (once married of course) or it ends. It isn’t an end in itself.
 
As a lesbian, I don’t find heterosexual sex pleasurable. Been there, tried that, and male genitalia physically repulse me. So no, I will not “suck it up and procreate.”

The fact is, I am exclusively attracted to women romantically and sexually and have been all my life. We can argue semantics and genetics and early childhood experiences. I don’t pretend to speak on behalf of anyone but myself but I was"born this way." I have never experienced an ounce of desire to have anything more than friendship with a man. I have desires towards women. They are not intentionally lustful, but they exist and no amount of prayer, conversion therapy, or whatever will change that.

I’ve spent years of my life hoping enough time with the Blessed Sacrament would cure me and it was such a waste of energy. I am who I am and that person, incidentally, likes other women. There’s a word for people like me: queer, a lesbian, a gay person, a homosexual. I use those words out of convenience when explaining my sexuality to others (for example, when I’m asked why I don’t have a boyfriend) and because in using them, I connect with a community of people with similar experiences.

So yes, I’m gay. I’m also French and Catholic and a dog-lover. These are all valid identifiers that describe an aspect of my person. If you don’t like it, then fine. Lucky for you, your sexual identity is common, assumed, and accepted.
 
ringil said:
lololol!!
Click to expand...
I appreciate the innocence. 🙂

I know a cradle Catholic who didn’t think fish was meat because Catholics weren’t allowed to eat meat on Fridays, and his family always did [eat fish].

A more beautiful soul I’ll never meet again in this life.

God bless.
 
LongingSoul said:
(Just correcting a technicality. Women don’t urinate from the vagina.)

Back to regular programming.
Click to expand...
Really, the fact that the OP thinks women pee from the vagina should really clue us into his level of sexual knowledge. 😛
 
FormerXCatholic said:
I’m seeing a lot of well meaning Christians on here spreading a dangerous theology on homosexuality. That being gay is just “who you are” and acting on it is a sin.

“Who you are” is not determined by preferences. If you are intentionally giving life to homosexual thoughts because it gives you warm and fuzzy feelings about romance and sex, you are committing sin, by choice.

Hearing people keep saying “who you are” is like hearing Michael Jackson say “heal the world” in that corny song from the nineties. It’s a meaningless phrase that just sounds nice.

Why don’t people define objectively what “who you are” means? Is it who I am today? Yesterday or tomorrow? Is “who you are” a collection of organs and blood? Is it a spirit, that possesses a body? Or a body that posseses physical objects and makes physical actions?

End with the euphemisms, if you have a vagina, it is physically “what it is”. Use it for its purpose, peeing and the coincidently pleasurable process of procreation. Same goes for male body parts. If you have deformed genetalia that can still procreate, then procreate. Nobody is born anything. You know nothing about sex until you learn about it. Heck most people first sexual experience is with themselves. Does that make you “gay”
Click to expand...
It is inappropriate to make the argument, as some gay advocates do, that “I am attracted to persons of the same sex, therefore it is right for me to seek out and to have a same sex sexual partner”.

It is also inappropriate to believe that one’s sexual attractions, significant though they be, dominate the person and subordinate all other attributes.

Beyond that, I don’t understand your point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top