The Experiences of Homosexual Trads
#25
(02-26-2014, 09:25 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: Vox, why don't you use clearer, unambiguous terminology such as Catholics "suffering from same-sex attraction"?  (Following the lead of, say, LifeSiteNews and other orthodox, but typically *non*-traditional Catholic sources.)

Such a phrase emphasizes that all homosexual behavior is disordered and mortally sinful.

The moniker "homosexual" implies nothing about whether or not that person is engaging in the objective mortal sin of homosexual acts, or not.  It plays into the disordered, modern view of SSA which completely ignores the most critical distinction between orientation and *behavior*.

(Note: I read the first post but not the entire thread.)

I'm with Papist here. I've actually heard people say "homosexuals don't exist" -- and mean it. And think they're making some great, relevant point about "essences" and such. But I think that all that's just pedantry, muddying the waters, a manifestation of not communicating in order to truly "dialogue" (I hate that word now) but to "show off" in some way, etc. "Homosexual" means -- has as its definition -- someone who's attracted to the same ("homo") sex. It's a perfectly clear term, and folks who leap to conclusions that every homosexual is an active homosexual need to get their minds out of the gutter and do the Catholic thing of assuming the best about another.

Because of the definition of the word, I don't think that using it "plays into the disordered, modern view of SSA which completely ignores the most critical distinction between orientation and *behavior*." There is homosexuality, a mental orientation; and there are homosexual acts. Simple!

The folks who actually, seriously say "homosexuals don't exist" wouldn't say that "bipolars don't exist" or "schizophrenics don't exist" or "blonds are a mere figment of the imagination" because manic depression, schizophrenia, and blondness don't go to anyone's "essence." But when it comes to homosexuality, people get all what I consider goofy.

PLEASE know that I SO don't mean to imply that your post was goofy or that you are goofy! I don't think that for a minute! I've heard the arguments for doing such as you advise (or are at least asking about) and know that there are a number of smart Catholics disagree with me, and agree with you. But I really think that it doesn't further the cause of understanding.

An aside -- but an important one:  You wrote of the "objective mortal sin of homosexual acts." This raises the question, "What constitutes a homosexual act?" Now I could be accused of being pedantic for asking that question, but quite seriously -- extremely seriously given that Uganda wants to criminalize "homosexual acts" and imprison for life folks who commit them -- where are the lines? One thing any Catholic can (or at least should!) agree on is that any two homosexuals who put themselves in near occasions of sin with regard to each other are sinning by that fact alone -- but what of things that that might look bad to the nosy-types, but which are, in fact, innocent? For ex., two homosexuals who are not attracted to each other sexually and, therefore, for whom cohabiting is not an occasion of sin, who decide to live together for whatever cause (because of the economy, because they get along famously and are great friends and don't want to live alone, etc.).  What about kissing? What sort of kissing? (Italian males kiss each other on the cheek without anyone freaking out). What about hand-holding? (I hold my daughter's and my best girlfriend's hands all the time and, obviously (to anyone who knows I'm as straight as they come) don't mean anything sexual by it.

My take would be -- off the top of my head and thinking aloud -- that if anything is an occasion of sin for the person or people involved, it's wrong. If something is (truly) scandalous (as opposed to merely causing indignation in folks who like to stick their noses into other people's business), it's wrong. If it involves genital sexual feeling or anything that causes a desire to commit a sin of the flesh (pardon the tautology), it's wrong.

I dunno.. I think it's an interesting question, especially given that, as Loggats has correctly pointed out, lots of folks talk about "sodomy," by which they mean anal sex, wrongly assume every active homosexual engages in that, and totally ignore the fact that lots of heterosexuals engage "go there." From the Huffington Post: A report" titled 'Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Identity in the United States,' which reportedly polled thousands of people between the ages of 15 and 44 from 2006 through 2008, found that 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives."  I find this really interesting. Homosexual anal sex is generally and naturally perceived by most straight men as "disgusting" (any sort of sexual intimacy with another man would be seen that way by them, and that's OK; it's normal. They're not gay -- duh!). They have a normal visceral reaction against anal sex between two men. But the idea of their doing the same thing to some hot chick is not only not "disgusting" to them, but is often a positive turn-on, something they'd love to be doing tonight, at least something for their "bucket list." However, if that survey is to be believed (always an "if"), while almost half of straight men and over a third of straight women engage in anal sex, there's this sentiment:


So is it "sodomy" (as commonly defined nowadays as "anal sex") that the alleged 90% would find repulsive -- or just "sodomy" between two men -- or any desire for physical closeness and intimacy that might involve genital arousal between two men? If both the survey and that preacher-man's words were true, there's a disconnect somewhere. To clarify:  any sort of sexual intimacy between two men would likely and naturally be seen by most straight men as "ewwwwwwwww!" (which is probably (?) the way homosexual men would feel about sex with a woman).  But the words they often use to talk about their disgust ("That's not what a rectum is for!") don't seem to apply if the recipient of the penetration is a cute little blonde with plastic breastesses (and, of course, no pubic hair, making her look like a really weird-looking 11-year old). Here's a quote, for ex, from a message board I came across while Googling the phrase "homosexuality is disgusting":

Not So Charming Person at Some (VERY VILE Message Board Wrote:It is none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own home. If you think that sticking your peter in another guy's hairy ass is cool then so be it.

It is pretty f****** nasty, though. I'm not sure that just because you enjoy ass raping other men that that qualifies you to wed one another.

I'd bet good money that that very same guy would insert his member into the rectum of some 23-year old girl who looks like a young Heather Locklear.

I guess what I'm getting at with all this is trying to understand the real root cause of the malice some have toward homosexuals -- especially active homosexuals (though, unfortunately, the unimaginative lump all homosexuals together) -- and figuring out how and exactly where secular and Christian people draw "their lines" as to what is OK and what is not, what is "disgusting" and what is not, etc.(and, in the case of Christians, what is sinful or not).  It's all very fascinating.


Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The Experiences of Homosexual Trads - by VoxClamantis - 02-26-2014, 11:52 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)