Here’s some more, from our bishops:
You can be wary (that’s fine) but that would be a perfect time charitably ask the person about it. Too often it feels like it is automatically assumed gay = sexually active hedonistic lifestyle. Now, this is probably a generational thing in some cases, but for many, gay means person who experiences exclusive same sex attractions (no comment on sexual activity). In most cases it is not a central identity they have built themselves around.
Interesting. TY.
Since when? I don’t understand where this whole “Using the word ‘gay’ means you’re celebrating the ‘gay lifestyle’” thing got started. I don’t assume anything about the word “gay” other than it means homosexual. Using rose-collared-glasses terms like “SSA” doesn’t magically invalidate Church teaching on homosexuality, which is what it’s properly called.
I think that is because the Church is focusing on sexual actions. Many people experience same sex attractions. Some are like me who experience it without opposite sex attractions possibly for life, some experience transient same sex attractions, some experience both opposite and same sex attractions, some only experience in certain fleeting situations, etc.
But just to be clear: the Church does not use the term “Gay”.
No, I understand the preference for SSA. That is fine. I can see the arguments for it. It is all of the other baggage associated with those kind of organizations that are a huge turn off and in general the use of SSA (including basically mandating it) is often a common feature of those organizations. For me, their views and approach is definitely mentally and spiritually toxic.
USCCB is not the Vatican. Like I said: There’s no usage of the term “SSA” by the Magisterium. Doesn’t exist.
What I was trying to same, some have that view that gay = sexually active hedonistic lifestyle. Hence why they prefer terms like SSA. I don’t have that perspective, but I’m aware of it being out there so I think it is important to keep in mind when talking about this particular issue which mean often including clarifying words like chaste and celibate.
Aren’t terms like “gay” and “celibate” more clearly and more universally understood since those terms already define what you’re trying to say? Whenever I see “SSA,” I think of the Social Security Administration.
Great.
Ah. I knew that was coming.
How is not uncharitable to automatically assume all gay people are actively engaged in sexually active hedonistic lifestyles? Couldn’t you make the exact same generalizations about heterosexual people who hook up on Tinder? Yet, I’m supposed to “automatically assume” the worst about gay people? How is that not uncharitable, particularly when the same standard isn’t applied to straight people?
Here is what I was saying. The person is saying that when they hear gay they from experiences seen that to mean someone who has a sexual ethic and view that is not in accordance with Church teaching. Hence they are often subconsciously wary of someone using the term gay.
I try to and I don’t assume someone who uses SSA is automatically ex-gay viewpoints. I guess I was trying to explain why someone like me might be wary of it because for many it does have an association with ex-gay pushing organizations. Like I said I try to use both and write things like gay/ssa celibate Catholic to avoid confusion. But if confusion happens, I would hope people would feel okay with kindly asking for clarification (as long as it didn’t begin as an attack where I had to defend myself).Great.
And I would suggest that you, too, use the same paradigm when you see an organization/person use the term SSA instead of gay.
I don’t normally have conversations like that with people, Id say let them assume your heterosexual and if they want to delve into those subjects, then you could just mention that your gay and chaste.
Yup, they do it with heterosexuality too, trying to encourage sleeping around.
And when you go down the street and see all the advertising and see someone’s Facebook page, they are mostly facades.
We can always hope, but while ever they are doing the same thing with heterosexuality, I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon. We can hope though. There are still some great movies without that stuff in it, I watched a movie called ‘Spectral’ the other day and really enjoyed it, was a cool story line, yet no vulgarity or agenda or anything like that.
With close family, I would probably let them know given the political climate if you feel comfortable with it, but given the wider community, depends who you are referring to, because there is a lot of just really bad advice out there. Nevertheless, you could be a good example for others. I don’t personally know yourself or your family to say one way or the other unfortunately.
A good litmus test is, how many people have heard of Wesley Hill? and how many people have heard of Elton John? And when most people talk about ‘gays’ or whatever, they can be insensitive to people like yourself, because in their mind they are referring to people like Elton John and others who are the typical understanding of ‘coming out’ meaning a homosexual relationship and same sex marriage etc.
I’m sorry, but I’m not certain that’s true. I’ll grant that orientation-change is not as common as some “ex-gay” movement literature makes it out to be, but I’m not prepared to say that there couldn’t be rare cases where it does happen.
Hi PRmerger. I haven’t read too many of your recent posts, but I’m guessing you’ll remember me from our conversations on the Non-Catholic Religions forum a number of years ago. In any case, I just want to “second” both of those points.