your opinions on gays

[Elric]

Hmmm. I’m not sure if you are asking if it is a disorder to have homosexual inclinations or if the desire to have homosexual relations is a disordered desire.

Either or, I guess.

That is likely too sophisticated of a question for me to answer. I don’t know if there is a difference offhand. I do think that if a person desires to have homosexual relations, then this desire has the wrong thing as the object. This is not at all unique in the world. I often desire the wrong thing, or, I also often desire the right thing, but too much. People do that sort of thing.

It is against the norm, the norm being re-population/breeding, that is obvious. But it doesnt effect humanities chances of continuing our species because the population of homosexuals is quite low leaving more than enough people to re-populate the place. Besides, not everyone is meant to breed anyway.

Maybe it would be more accurate to call people with SSA or homosexuals “non-breeders” rather than “disordered”.

 

[Montalban]

Maybe it would be more accurate to call people with SSA or homosexuals “non-breeders” rather than “disordered”.

I also thought the term* monotreme** should be used but some reckoned that was pejorative - though I thought it was simply descriptive.

*from the Greek monos ‘single’ + trema ‘hole’

 

[rlg94086]

Either or, I guess.

It is against the norm, the norm being re-population/breeding, that is obvious. But it doesnt effect humanities chances of continuing our species because the population of homosexuals is quite low leaving more than enough people to re-populate the place. Besides, not everyone is meant to breed anyway.

The fact that it is objectively disordered does not have anything to do with the continuation of our species. That is a non-religious argument.

Elric:

Maybe it would be more accurate to call people with SSA or homosexuals “non-breeders” rather than “disordered”.

I never have a need to call someone with SSA anything other than a fellow Catholic. I wouldn’t call them a “non-breeder” any more than I would call a monk or nun a “non-breeder.” It is a rude term to use for a human being. I only refer to SSA as a disordered desire, when discussing the sin of homosexual acts. I do refer to someone as “gay,” when they purposely choose not to remain chaste (i.e. embrace and celebrate the “gay lifestyle”).

 

[Wampa]

I’ve lived my entire life as a celibate homosexual. I’ve never acted on my feelings, I’ve never married, never had children. I tried ignoring who I was in college and dating the opposite sex and it was a disaster. I felt like I was lying to the person I was dating and lying to myself. I don’t consider myself disordered, because God does not create disordered people. My sexual orientation is my cross, just as someone elses attraction to people other than their spouse is a cross, just as a tendency to drink to excess is a cross or a tendency to treat others with contempt is a cross.

I attend a Traditional Latin Mass, and my confessors at that parish been wonderfully compassionate and helpful to me in my struggles.

I believe that we all need to concentrate more on overcoming our own crosses and spend less time worrying about whatever our neighbor’s cross is and if they are overcoming it. If we want others to treat us with compassion in our struggles with our crosses-we need to do the same for them.

Bravo. If there were more posters like you, I’d spend more time on CA.

You’ve basically identified why I don’t spend much time talking about or worrying about gay people. I struggle and often fail to meet the very low bar set for me (married: don’t look at other women lustfully), so why would I spend time worrying about those who are called to live up to a bar 100x times higher than mine (gay: live celibate and mateless for life)?

Thank you for your post!

 

[Wampa]

As someone who has insight into the gay community, maybe you could clarify what the gay organizations are trying to accomplish by frequently, publicly offending the Church.

Catholics aren’t doing anything to gays, yet these organizations have giant sodomy parties at places holy to us, and when they aren’t doing that they publically display pornographic images of Christ and the Saints at their other celebrations.

Wow, these are some pretty big claims. Can you please provide citations for these alleged events? If these things occur, I’d be interested to read about them.

 

[Dale_M]

I also thought the term* monotreme** should be used but some reckoned that was pejorative - though I thought it was simply descriptive.’

I dunno… I read monotreme and I think of the platypus. Maybe a word that doesn’t have a scientific usage… erm… like gay?

No, that doesn’t work either, because we need to distinguish between homosexual inclination and the homosexual subculture.

 

[Montalban]

I dunno… I read monotreme and I think of the platypus. Maybe a word that doesn’t have a scientific usage… erm… like gay?

No, that doesn’t work either, because we need to distinguish between homosexual inclination and the homosexual subculture.

Mono treme
Well it was to do with how gay men have sex. It’s pretty gross -using the same hole

I don’t like the name ‘gay’. It used to mean happy.

 

[estesbob]

Bravo. If there were more posters like you, I’d spend more time on CA.

You’ve basically identified why I don’t spend much time talking about or worrying about gay people. I struggle and often fail to meet the very low bar set for me (married: don’t look at other women lustfully), so why would I spend time worrying about those who are called to live up to a bar 100x times higher than mine (gay: live celibate and mateless for life)?

Thank you for your post!

Aint it great to sit on the sidelines while the great moral issues of our times pass you by.

The OP said homosexual behavior was OK. Should we all have either remained silent or just told him dont worrly about it-we too are sinners?

 

[Elric]

The fact that it is objectively disordered does not have anything to do with the continuation of our species. That is a non-religious argument.

Your point?

I never have a need to call someone with SSA anything other than a fellow Catholic.

I prefer to call them human beings myself.

I wouldn’t call them a “non-breeder” any more than I would call a monk or nun a “non-breeder.” It is a rude term to use for a human being.

Well they dont breed, so “non-breeder” would be apt. It all depends on how the term is intended as to if its rude or not, but I think its better than “disordered” objectivly or not.

I only refer to SSA as a disordered desire, when discussing the sin of homosexual acts. I do refer to someone as “gay,” when they purposely choose not to remain chaste (i.e. embrace and celebrate the “gay lifestyle”).

 

[Elric]

I dunno… I read monotreme and I think of the platypus. Maybe a word that doesn’t have a scientific usage… erm… like gay?

No, that doesn’t work either, because we need to distinguish between homosexual inclination and the homosexual subculture.

Well I suppose that they are probably happy, so gay could work.

It beats the other term that starts with F and used to mean bunch of sticks.

Althogh it does add a different spin to books like The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where they frequently gather and burn said F words (Im not sure if it is ok to use that word on these forums).

Maybe non-hetro would be better to differenciate between the inclination and the subculture?

 

[blacktiger057]

I don’t judge gay people just because they are gay. I’m sure that some gays would be nice people, others not so. Personally, I try not to judge people before I even know them.

 

[Bennie_P]

You, evidently, are capable of clear and logical thought, thus, it cannot be a mental illness on par with kleptomania, schitzophrenia, and so on…

What is important to remember is that God’s will is more important than our selfish desires. A gay person has control of his actions just as a straight person does, and is equally culpable for sin, where someone who is mentally ill cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions., and thus cannot sin in the traditional sense.

Kleptomania is is an uncontrolled urge to steal, homosexual behavior is an uncontrolled urge to have disordered sexual relationships, if one is a mental disorder then how could not be the other?

 

[st_lucy]

Aint it great to sit on the sidelines while the great moral issues of our times pass you by.

The OP said homosexual behavior was OK. Should we all have either remained silent or just told him dont worrly about it-we too are sinners?

He never said any such thing, he stated that he was celibate and that he carries his cross. This all the church asks of us. SSA is a cross that one must bare, and those who bare this cross should be admired. Just because one is SSA does not mean that they are going to hell. The world tells the gay community that God hates them and that they have no choice but to act on their feelings, the Church tells the gay community that God loves them and they can, with the help of God, carry this cross with dignity. Please don’t be like the world and tell them that they are worthless. As Christians we need to encourage each other daily.

 

[Elric]

Kleptomania is is an uncontrolled urge to steal, homosexual behavior is an uncontrolled urge to have disordered sexual relationships, if one is a mental disorder then how could not be the other?

Going by this logic hetrosexual behaviour is a “mental disorder” as well.

Not everything that goes against the norm is a “mental disorder”, otherwise we would all be in trouble.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just a question. A number of you have expressed that homosexuality is a “cross to bear”, requiring a celibate life. This implies that God chose to inflict this particular person with this “cross” does it not? Same for children born with severe chronic health problems, or mental deficiencies. These are life-long crosses too that God imposed? I assume then, that as to such things, our free will is not at issue. God doesn’t ask if we wish to take on this cross certainly. Is this just one of the mysteries of God’s plan?

I thought and was taught that we have free will to accept or reject God’s crosses?

 

[mercygate]

Just a question. A number of you have expressed that homosexuality is a “cross to bear”, requiring a celibate life. This implies that God chose to inflict this particular person with this “cross” does it not? Same for children born with severe chronic health problems, or mental deficiencies. These are life-long crosses too that God imposed? I assume then, that as to such things, our free will is not at issue. God doesn’t ask if we wish to take on this cross certainly. Is this just one of the mysteries of God’s plan?

I thought and was taught that we have free will to accept or reject God’s crosses?

We can order our lives according to the divine and natural moral law or we can choose not to do so. Crosses are also gifts.

Calling an unavoidable, or unwilled, condition a “cross” is a way of viewing what others might see as a “problem” as an opportunity for self-giving: “always andfor everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.” (Eph 5:20)

 

[estesbob]

He never said any such thing, he stated that he was celibate and that he carries his cross. This all the church asks of us. SSA is a cross that one must bare, and those who bare this cross should be admired. Just because one is SSA does not mean that they are going to hell. The world tells the gay community that God hates them and that they have no choice but to act on their feelings, the Church tells the gay community that God loves them and they can, with the help of God, carry this cross with dignity. Please don’t be like the world and tell them that they are worthless. As Christians we need to encourage each other daily.

OP means “original poster.” Please go read post 1 in this thread . That is what I am refering to.

The Church does not tell those who engage in homosexual behavior that God hates them. And absolutely no one in this thread has said they are worthless. And of course they can carry their cross with dignity. However we are discussing the contention that it is no cross and that homosexual behavior is not a sin and is perfectly acceptable. As Chritians we are NOT to encourage people to continue sinning.

 

[Dale_M]

Just a question. A number of you have expressed that homosexuality is a “cross to bear”, requiring a celibate life. This implies that God chose to inflict this particular person with this “cross” does it not? Same for children born with severe chronic health problems, or mental deficiencies. These are life-long crosses too that God imposed?

SpiritMeadow, my understanding is that God doesn’t impose homosexuality or congenital health problems on individuals, but he allows them to happen as part of nature.

I thought and was taught that we have free will to accept or reject God’s crosses?

I think we have free will in how we cope with our crosses.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I agree it is a cross, but how is it that fellow Catholics know you have SSA? I woudn’t view a single person who doesn’t have any visible, physically intimate relationships as anything but a fellow Catholic. I certainly wouldn’t know or assume they had SSA.

Once you reach a certain age and you haven’t married and haven’t had children and/or if you don’t dress or act like society believes a person of your sex should dress and act-you will get defined. I’m glad to hear that you’re not one who does that, but believe me-they’re out there. I left a parish because a rumor got back to me about my innocent friendship with another woman. There was nothing to the rumor, as I said earlier-I have never acted on my SSA and the woman I was friends with was heterosexual. She has remained my friend and didn’t want me to leave, but once the chatter began it was impossible for me to stay.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, my understanding is that God doesn’t impose homosexuality or congenital health problems on individuals, but he allows them to happen as part of nature.

I think we have free will in how we cope with our crosses.

I could agree with that, yet God allows someone to be born into this state. Then He, through his Church, imposes restrictions on this individual’s sexuality he never consented to. So aren’t we back at the same place? The Church doesn’t impose special “crosses” to someone born with Cerebral Palsy or severe retardation does it? Am I still missing something?