Your opinion on homosexual relationships

[PRmerger]

Don’t you dare gaslight me. It is me who, despite my singlehood and obedience to the Church, has been being called a disordered sinner throughout this topic and compared to adulterers, excessive drinkers and bullies.

Just for clarification, again…

IF you engage and indulge in your disordered desire, THEN you (hypothetical you) are like all other sinners (adulterers, bullies, alcoholics) are treated in the same say by Holy Mother Church: she says, repent, confess and return to Him and you will find your true joy!

 

[CatholicSheila]

You don’t understand that LGBT people don’t view thier actions as temptations. It’s as natural as breathing remember, and breathing isn’t a temptation.

Sugar coat it all you want any meaningful dialogue will have to address sin, and disorder.

You said homosexuals are disordered. That is it. You made no qualifier about the fact that you meant active homosexuals. Regardless, this is bull. You are using the terms the Church uses. You are simply out of line to claim that people themselves are disordered. The Church does not call any one disordered. Only ever actions.

Like Tagetes, I am also gay. I understand this issue better than you could ever hope to. Calling an individual disordered because of something they have no control over does not help. Call the actions disordered. Call the inclination disordered. I’ll agree with you and stand beside you but don’t attack the people.

What you are doing is no different than calling people names because of something they can’t help (remember the inclination is not a choice) and that is not a way to influence people.

If you feel there is a lack of charity on the thread you can certainly report it. I’ve said nothing wrong, nor did I gaslight.

Really? You did nothing wrong?

You called people disordered. Not the inclination, the people. Right there is your ‘lack of charity’.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

You don’t love the sinner. You wouldn’t call me disordered, even though I am celibate as the Church requires, if you did. You made this personal. You attacked us and when you were pulled up on it, you defended it. Rather than owning your mistake and apologising.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This ^^
is a nonsequitur.

Doesn’t address at all the comment that no Catholic should be calling gay people “evil”.

It doesn’t really matter what word you do or don’t use if that’s how you believe they should be treated. The message is clear.

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t really matter what word you do or don’t use if that’s how you believe they should be treated. The message is clear.

Oh, no, ma’am.

Saying that someone’s desire to have sex with someone of his own gender is disordered is NOT the same thing as saying that he is evil.

If it is, then you’re going to have to be consistent, and say that when you (hypothetical you) tell your husband that he shouldn’t have lied to you about his raise, that you’re calling him evil.

Or any time you look at something and say: this is wrong, that you’re calling that person evil.

And, if that’s what you do, call people evil, then why are you objecting to other folks doing what you get to do?

 

[at9009]

Oh, no, ma’am.

Saying that someone’s desire to have sex with someone of his own gender is disordered is NOT the same thing as saying that he is evil.

If it is, then you’re going to have to be consistent, and say that when you (hypothetical you) tell your husband that he shouldn’t have lied to you about his raise, that you’re calling him evil.

Or any time you look at something and say: this is wrong, that you’re calling that person evil.

And, if that’s what you do, call people evil, then why are you objecting to other folks doing what you get to do?

Except if you read CatholicShelia’s post (#142) and I guess mine post (136, the long ramble thing lol) shows that the issue is not being careful with language.

The issue is that very often people are not carefully referring to the ACTIONS as disordered but just throwing out the word disordered. It is easy to see it almost inferred that applies to the person (and some do mean it that way). There are a number of people (not saying you or anyone here) who like to call a person who is LGBT/ssa as inherently disordered because they have same sex attractions and they’re not referring to any actions.

The major issue here is if you want to have a perspective that a person is disordered because they have disordered desires than one has to be consistent but there is no consistency. EVERYONE (regardless of sexuality) has disordered desires due to the fall so if they want to have that perspective, everyone is disordered in some way. However, that isn’t Catholic teaching and it isn’t even applied.

Instead there is this stigma (and as a person who deals with SSA, I can tell you it is really common in Catholic circles at times and other Christian circles) that a person who has gay/SSA is somehow less of a Christian, that the primary focus when dealing with an gay/SSA person is to make sure they are aware of what they can’t do (and re-mention it every single time), this mandate of how one can (if they are even allowed) talk about their personal cross, and there is very little charity ever applied and its seems assumed that every gay/SSA person is living a life not in accordance with church teaching (Some here even did this with the one person here saying basically that they need to repent and go seek confession despite no real mention of whether or not they fell short in any way with their chastity). So rather than support and say good for choosing a Godly path and I’m here for you in your journey within the Church, the message is basically viewing the person with suspicion the entire time and looking for failures rather than supporting successes.

It doesn’t create a very supportive or encouraging environment but one rather where it’s “don’t screw up, suck it up and stop talking about your problems/loneliness, we’d prefer if you just remained quiet, and oh by the way do you know you should feel bad and disordered because of it (just in case you didn’t know).”

The major reason why I am still Catholic is because I believe the Church and receiving the sacraments (Confession when needed and the Eucharist when I’m able) is an important supportive grace for me. If I was relying on any semblance of support from within the church from my fellow parishioners… I most likely would have left the faith a long time ago.

 

[PRmerger]

Except if you read CatholicShelia’s post (#142) and I guess mine post (136, the long ramble thing lol) shows that the issue is not being careful with language.

The issue is that very often people are not carefully referring to the ACTIONS as disordered but just throwing out the word disordered.

Or…the issue is that some people *want *to take offense so they find a message in the text that wasn’t there.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

You said homosexuals are disordered. That is it. You made no qualifier about the fact that you meant active homosexuals. Regardless, this is bull. You are using the terms the Church uses. You are simply out of line to claim that people themselves are disordered. The Church does not call any one disordered. Only ever actions.

Like Tagetes, I am also gay. I understand this issue better than you could ever hope to. Calling an individual disordered because of something they have no control over does not help. Call the actions disordered. Call the inclination disordered. I’ll agree with you and stand beside you but don’t attack the people.

What you are doing is no different than calling people names because of something they can’t help (remember the inclination is not a choice) and that is not a way to influence people.

Really? You did nothing wrong?

You called people disordered. Not the inclination, the people. Right there is your ‘lack of charity’.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

You don’t love the sinner. You wouldn’t call me disordered, even though I am celibate as the Church requires, if you did. You made this personal. You attacked us and when you were pulled up on it, you defended it. Rather than owning your mistake and apologising.

For what it’s worth, I just wanted to say that I have great admiration for those who are gay and yet live a faithful celibate life as the Church requires. Not an easy road to follow. I hope you find the support and friendship you need in the Church. Hang in there, and may God bless you.

 

[PRmerger]

The major issue here is if you want to have a perspective that a person is disordered because they have disordered desires than one has to be consistent but there is no consistency. EVERYONE (regardless of sexuality) has disordered desires due to the fall so if they want to have that perspective, everyone is disordered in some way.

You’re simply echoing what I said earlier.

Here it is again, in case you missed it…

You do realize that EVERY SINGLE PERSON that you’re in discussion with is…a sinner, yeah? That’s exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

So I’m wondering why you posted that–it seems to indicate that you believe we think otherwise?

Clearly, it’s been already stated.

However, that isn’t Catholic teaching and it isn’t even applied.

Exactly wrong. It is indeed Catholic teaching that all of us here are sinners, all of us here have disordered desires.

 

[at9009]

You’re simply echoing what I said earlier.

Here it is again, in case you missed it…

So I’m wondering why you posted that–it seems to indicate that you believe we think otherwise?

Clearly, it’s been already stated.

Exactly wrong. It is indeed Catholic teaching that all of us here are sinners, all of us here have disordered desires.

Yes we all have disordered desires, but the person isn’t inherently disordered. THOSE are two big distinctions that require careful explanation.

The issue is not that everyone is a sinner or not. That is well accepted within a Christian context. The issue is that when it comes to SSA, people seem to feel it is okay to act like a person with SSA is inherently disordered or defective and not refer to the specific acts (ie. they’re more of a sinner than others kind of attitude). This perspective of being inherently disordered is rarely if ever applied equally which only encourages self-loathing and self-hatred to a person with SSA. We all have disordered desires but the desires and not the person are disordered (THAT is Catholic teaching).

Also FYI your attitude in comment 146 is completely unhelpful and is uncharitable towards people with SSA. Whether you want to admit it or not, people with SSA have been in the past at times treated atrociously by other Christians. So, it is not all that surprising that many have put defensive walls and careful wording is needed to correct any misconceptions and alleviate fears (It is not compromising teaching but rather being specific and concise in wording).

 

[PRmerger]

Yes we all have disordered desires, but the person isn’t inherently disordered.

Right.

This is Catholic teaching. And this is what Catholics are professing here.

 

[PRmerger]

Also FYI your attitude in comment 146 is completely unhelpful and is uncharitable towards people with SSA

Really?

You are saying that people with SSA are people who want to find offense here?

 

[PRmerger]

Whether you want to admit it or not, people with SSA have been in the past at times treated atrociously by other Christians.

Oh yes. That is indeed a great tragedy.

No one here is denying that people with SSA have been treated atrociously by other Christians.

And this should stop.

Just like people who oppose the normalization of this disordered desire have been treated atrociously at times by others.

That, too, should stop, yeah?

 

[at9009]

Really?

You are saying that people with SSA are people who want to find offense here?

You said this : “Or…the issue is that some people want to take offense so they find a message in the text that wasn’t there.”

That essentially implies this message: I don’t have to worry or be careful in what I say or if it could be misinterpreted because those people are just going to take offense at anything. It’s on them and not me, so I don’t really see any issue with further clarifying what I was trying to say. It wasn’t your intention but that is how that could be easily read (especially within an internet discussion where certain non-verbal cues are lost).

 

[PRmerger]

You said this : “Or…the issue is that some people want to take offense so they find a message in the text that wasn’t there.”

Emmm…*you *were the one who inserted “people with SSA” into my “some people”.

Not me.

 

[at9009]

Emmm…*you *were the one who inserted “people with SSA” into my “some people”.

Not me.

Well people with SSA where the ones who had issue with some of the statements you said which they have misinterpreted. It is not a huge leap to read your statement as directed to them.

However, I don’t want to distract from the overall goal of this thread more than I have already done. So maybe it’s best to just let this drop so it can be refocused to the original topic at hand.

 

[PRmerger]

Well people with SSA where the ones who had issue with some of the statements you said which they have misinterpreted. It is not a huge leap to read your statement as directed to them.

If they are the people I am referencing, and they want to take offense, then they are the people I am referencing.

If they are not people who want to take offense, then they are not the people I’m referencing.

Please stop trying to read implicit attacks where none are being made.

 

[PRmerger]

For what it’s worth, I just wanted to say that I have great admiration for those who are gay and yet live a faithful celibate life as the Church requires.

I echo this.

 

[PRmerger]

Whether you want to admit it or not, people with SSA have been in the past at times treated atrociously by other Christians.

Incidentally, I could see a little bit of uncharity in the remark "Whether you want to admit it or not’…it’s a kind of jab, isn’t it, as it insinuates that I may indeed wish to lie about whether people with SSA have been treated atrociously by Christians?

But I’m not going to dwell on that statement.

I’m going to read it, take it in, and move forward.

 

[Tagetes]

I don’t suppose that it is possible to dispute with a person, who even after having been told this:

I don’t feel lust towards women. At all. What I’ve felt anytime I’ve fallen in love with a woman, was intense emotional affection, admiring her like she’s a work of art, wanting to talk about silly things that made her or me happy, be there for her if she’s in trouble, take care of her if she’s sick, be the most important people for each other, grow old together…

See? Even a celibate person, who doesn’t have sex and doesn’t even want to have sex and has never wanted, sins by being in love.

Keeps stating that:

Saying that someone’s desire to have sex with someone of his own gender is disordered

Clearly, such a person doesn’t even bother to read the opponents’ messages and just regurgitates stock phrases at them, like an AI bot.

 

[Tagetes]

I also discourage everyone here present to believe what was told here about my ethnicity. It’s jumping to a conclusion, which happens to be wrong. The person, who made an assumption, is not to contact me privately: I am having the same sort of a panic attack as a hypothetical Jewish person would, having come across an avatar with a swastika on it.