"Who am I to judge?" redux
#31
(03-19-2014, 12:54 PM)Heorot Wrote: Truth in journalism, Vox. Very good post. Wow. Such true! Much fact. :) It's good.

Well, I try, anyway. And I really think the whole "homosexual thing" is so much more complex than some Catholics (and other Christians) want to think.  The irony is that the same people who (rightfully!) wax poetic about the beauty of sex done right, sex according to God's plan, sex that honors the two ends of sex (the procreative and unitive), and who despise the treatment of sex as a mere sport, are too often the same ones who reduce homosexuals' sexuality to being just about sport, thereby denying their God-given desire for unity.

Homosexuals, as human beings, have the same erotic strivings as straight people. Straight people reach out to the opposite sex to feel "whole" and, to paraphrase a line from "Jerry McGuire (sp), to feel "completed," at ease, as one half of a whole, to feel as if they've found their "home." Because their sexuality is disordered, they eroticize the same sex rather than the opposite sex. But that eroticizing, that struggle to feel whole and complete, is completely overlooked and everything is reduced, of course, to a focus on the anus. That is why the video posted is insulting and cruel. And that's why it's ironic coming from a Catholic who should know better than to see sexuality as about nothing but "mere" genital acts. It's not homosexuals who "reduce themselves" to where they want to put their penises; it's some Catholics -- the same ones who think it awful that homosexuals, by describing themselves as "homosexuals" (which, according to the definition found in the dictionary, means "people who are attracted to the same sex"), are "reducing themselves" to mere genital acts.That attitude betrays an ignorance of the Catholic view of sexuality and/or it betrays a bigotry against homosexuals that sees them as not having the same desire for unity as anyone else.

Bottom line:  People need to learn more about human sexuality and stop the kindergarten focus on genital acts. They need to see sexuality as an aspect of the human experience, not that which "defines" them -- including homosexuals, who are perfectly appropriate in using the very simple word "homosexual"; to describe their orientation (not "define themselves" as if that's ALL they are). It's not the orientation that is sinful; it's how it's handled that can be. The orientation itself is not sinful, and the more people act and talk as if it is, the more people act as if homosexuals qua homosexuals should hide themselves away and shut up, the more suffering there will be in the world.
Reply
#32
The undue and society-perceived focus on the anus comes from the "straight" world's perception of the same-sex attraction itself. This association has been partly created by those gays who have, indeed, tried to create an exclusive association of themselves with sodomy. They did it only as a way to claim the title for themselves with pride: "gay", "sodomite", "fag", "homo" - they want these for themselves, as a sort of bitter victory for their cause. As for chaste SSA-ers, I am beginning to understand Francis' "who am I to judge?" more, now. If we separate it and examine it objectively, it's not all that bad. I still dislike Francis' way of speaking, by the way... but I don't think this is so egregious, if we lay down our emotions for a second.

Anyway, in all reality, as I know all too well from my own psychological tortures, it is not the anus qua anus that is sought for; it is the wish to either devour or annihilate another human being to assimilate him, or to assimilate oneself into that person. This is achieved through many avenues in the Lifestyle, definitely not just the anal manner. This also happens in real marriages too, as I'm sure many men and women can testify. It is not exclusively homosexual. SSA-afflicted people simply have developed a different sort of sin, or a different expression of the sin. I can say, for myself, that if I ever desired to commit impure acts of any kind with another man, it was so I could feel protected, loved, and held. This is the deep root, which exists in all human beings... but in some, it was not fulfilled in a healthy manner, or just never fulfilled at all.

The World's idea of homosexual matters may be right or wrong, and our ideas of truth are often wrong because of our sinfulness - but praise God, the Truth is always in the Word incarnate. All we need to do is fall down and worship Him, read of Him in the Scripture and the Tradition, and live according to His Commandments. He loves us infallibly, ineffably, and eternally. We have a mother in the Theotokos; we have a human father in Joseph, and we have an eternal Father in our Glorious, Almighty God who is Father - to whom, with the Holy Son of God and the Holy Spirit of God, be all glory and honour and thanksgiving now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
Reply
#33
(03-19-2014, 03:09 PM)Heorot Wrote: Anyway, in all reality, as I know all too well from my own psychological tortures, it is not the anus qua anus that is sought for; it is the wish to either devour or annihilate another human being to assimilate him, or to assimilate oneself into that person. This is achieved through many avenues in the Lifestyle, definitely not just the anal manner. This also happens in real marriages too, as I'm sure many men and women can testify. It is not exclusively homosexual. SSA-afflicted people simply have developed a different sort of sin, or a different expression of the sin. I can say, for myself, that if I ever desired to commit impure acts of any kind with another man, it was so I could feel protected, loved, and held. This is the deep root, which exists in all human beings... but in some, it was not fulfilled in a healthy manner, or just never fulfilled at all.

Exactly! Yesssssssss! The spectrum of emotions and desires that pertain to homosexuality and have NOTHING to do with sex in itself is what is being missed in the conversations too many Catholic have and in how they think of homosexuals and talk about them. The desire to be subsumed by or to subsume another is normal; it's the desire for the two to become one flesh, which is part of how things simply ARE given the Fall. It's human nature! Homosexuals have that same desire, but it is disordered so its focus becomes members of their own sex. But all that Eros is a driving force in human life -- including the lives of homosexuals. The desire to feel at one with another.  This is why the cheapening of the conversation to always, incessantly, everywhere, go on about "depravity," "sins that cry out to Heaven," etc., simply misses the boat and causes very serious harm to homosexuals (whether they want to remain chaste as God wills, or not). It IS bigotry even if it's not born out of malice. It IS ignorance and an expression of an unwillingness or inability to think more "holistically" about others, to think subtly, to treat sexual attraction in a Catholic way that goes way, way beyond genitals and (yawn) anuses.

Quote:The World's idea of homosexual matters may be right or wrong, and our ideas of truth are often wrong because of our sinfulness - but praise God, the Truth is always in the Word incarnate. All we need to do is fall down and worship Him, read of Him in the Scripture and the Tradition, and live according to His Commandments. He loves us infallibly, ineffably, and eternally. We have a mother in the Theotokos; we have a human father in Joseph, and we have an eternal Father in our Glorious, Almighty God who is Father - to whom, with the Holy Son of God and the Holy Spirit of God, be all glory and honour and thanksgiving now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Amen, brother.  All of our desire to be one with another -- including heterosexuals' desire for that -- is ultimately only FULFILLED by God. Married heterosexuals can have a foretaste of that union, and homosexuals naturally desire that foretaste (though in a disordered way) as much as anyone else. But all of us need to focus on God first.


Reply
#34
My understanding is that not all homosexual sex is anal sex.  (I'm not an expert and don't want to go much further with this).  But all homosexual  sex (even if not anal) is nevertheless unnatural, and therefore to some degree depraved. It is not only forbidden by the Church, but by the natural law, which applies to every man.  I think it is also at least understandable that one should find both the act and the homosexual who approves of it (even if he does not perform it) repugnant.

This does not mean that the cruelty of many (including Catholics, perhaps in the video) towards homosexuals is right.  I agree that sex is more than genitals. And I understand that SSA is an attraction that shadows a wonderful attraction between male and female, and should not be mocked. But aren't most gays who "come out" (in the world at large) at least "open" to the homosexual sex act in themselves or in others; and should we say "bravo" to the courage to be "open" about that?  If they don't at the same time explain their disapproval of the "act" itself they need to be taught; not by cruelty (or continued battering with words like "depraved")  but with truth, even if it stings, and preferably by the Church.

I think the tendency these days (among probably charitable people) is to avoid what is taken as cruelty, at the expense of truth. The word "depraved" is a part of the truth.  The uncharitable are cruel and gladly use truth as a weapon; flinging about the word "depraved" with no understanding.
Reply
#35
(03-19-2014, 11:02 PM)Doce Me Wrote: My understanding is that not all homosexual sex is anal sex.  (I'm not an expert and don't want to go much further with this).  But all homosexual  sex (even if not anal) is nevertheless unnatural, and therefore to some degree depraved. It is not only forbidden by the Church, but by the natural law, which applies to every man.  I think it is also at least understandable that one should find both the act and the homosexual who approves of it (even if he does not perform it) repugnant.

MOST homosexual sex isn't anal sex!

But this is the point:  we're not talking about just "sexual acts" when we're talking about homosexuality. Well, actually, some people ARE, but they're wrong to do so, which is what I'm trying to convey here.

As to the use of language, the sin that cries out to Heaven is sodomy. It isn't frottage or mutual masturbation (or oral sex, depending on how "sodomy" is defined), all of which are sins in themselves for homosexuals with members of their own s ex, but aren't the sodomy that "cries out to Heaven" like defrauding the wage earner. But to use words like "repugnant" to refer to actions that, if performed by heterosexuals, isn't considered "repugnant," aren't sinful in se, or are not a near occasion of sin IN FACT for the persons committing the act (as opposed to in the imagination of the beholder), is, to me, a sign of bigotry. I mean, all sin is repugnant, and near occasions of sin are a really bad thing to put oneself into, but few talk about a 17-year old boy having sex with a girl his own age as being "repugnant" or "depraved," or would call a straight, male student attending a co-ed college "repugnant" for putting himself in a near occasion of sin.  There's this singling out of acting on homosexual desires as the be all, end all of sin. It's scapegoating.  It's undoubtedly true that most straight guys would think "ewwww, gross" when it comes to thinking about kissing another man. That's fine and normal. But to morally judge another on the basis of one's FEELING "ewwwwwwwwww"  -- that makes no sense to me. I think "ewwww!" when it comes to eating liver, but know that partaking of a little braunschweiger with mustard is no more morally repugnant than two men holding hands if their holding hands isn't a near occasion of sin for them (most hand-holding isn't a near occasion of sin for straight people. I doubt it's any different for homosexuals). What is personally repugnant doesn't always equate to morally repugnant.

But worse than scapegoating even active homosexuals, and what I'm most concerned about, is the scapegoating of homosexuality in itself, and the assumptions made about homosexuals (e.g., that if they let it be known they're homosexual, they're therefore active homosexuals, that if they're active homosexuals, they're into sodomy, etc.)

Quote:This does not mean that the cruelty of many (including Catholics, perhaps in the video) towards homosexuals is right.  I agree that sex is more than genitals. And I understand that SSA is an attraction that shadows a wonderful attraction between male and female, and should not be mocked. But aren't most gays who "come out" (in the world at large) at least "open" to the homosexual sex act in themselves or in others; and should we say "bravo" to the courage to be "open" about that?  If they don't at the same time explain their disapproval of the "act" itself they need to be taught; not by cruelty (or continued battering with words like "depraved")  but with truth, even if it stings, and preferably by the Church.

It is absolutely not so that all gays who "come out' (i.e., who don't hide the fact that they are homosexual) are willing to engage in homosexual acts. We have PROOF of that right here on this forum. If "most" homosexuals who do come out do engage in sex (and I'd bet that most do engage in sex, just as most heterosexuals do), that doesn't make "coming out" any less beneficial.  The best way for me to respond to all this is to refer you to the list of questions I asked earlier in this thread.

Quote:I think the tendency these days (among probably charitable people) is to avoid what is taken as cruelty, at the expense of truth. The word "depraved" is a part of the truth.  The uncharitable are cruel and gladly use truth as a weapon; flinging about the word "depraved" with no understanding.

Yes, and they use it to refer to homosexuals themselves, to those who are honest about who they are by "coming out," etc., and while making assumptions that anyone who is gay wants and is into anal sex, that anyone who "comes out" is sexually active (and, therefore, into anal sex), etc.  Homosexual sodomy is no more depraved than heterosexual sodomy, is it? (or is it not?) If so, then why is no one talking about the depravity of -- what was it? 44% of the men and 36% of the women who engage in sodomy, whatever the numbers are? Why are there no lengthy articles about how "repugnant" and "depraved" these heterosexuals are?

Really, I think too many people take things that'd freak them out personally if they were personally involved (say, two men holding hands -- even though that's totally normal in some cultures) and think "depraved!" just because it makes them extremely uncomfortable (their discomfort being absolutely fine and normal). They then take their discomfort and use it as a weapon against others. "Ewww, that'd totally make me uncomfortable. That YOU'RE doing it makes you 'depraved' and 'repugnant'!" Throw in the kindergarten, cartoon (and un-Catholic) view of human sexuality, and the extra-cartoony view of homosexuality as just being all about that butthole, then you get the hyperbolic language, the scapegoating, the unwillingness to really try to understand homosexuality and what it IS, the "whys" of it, what its "goals" are. And the goals are the same as straight people's: to become one with another.***


*** Of course, there are a million reasons why it doesn't work out for homosexuals. For one, they're not designed by God to be with others of the same sex. They've suffered trauma or a family dynamic -- likely coupled with a genetically-based temperament that makes homosexuality more likely. Homosexuals AS A GROUP tend to be promiscuous because they're men --i.e., people with lots of testosterone and no fears of pregnancy to get in the way. Put those two together, and then there are "scenes" where the "coupling" can be frantic, very neurotic, exceedingly sinful, and physically disastrous. Because it's neurotic, drugs can often be involved, which makes everything even worse (esp. when it's meth -- whew!) But not all homosexuals have anything whatsoever to do with the "club scene." And many are chaste or at least have that as their ideal. And among those in the club scene, sodomy isn't always the goal. Many homosexuals just don't do that.
Reply
#36
Catholic Thinker,

I totally agree with you wholeheartedly. Someone with SSA (which is an unnatural attraction to someone of the same sex) is on the same basis with someone that is attracted to children, or to animals or like the guy on "my strange addiction" that was "attracted" to his red car. I think all of these are not something someone should just "come out" and proclaim as "this is who I am". None of these are something that is natural or normal. These are attractions that need to be controlled and dealt with, with the utmost care, through spiritual guidance by a good priest/confessor. Coming out as "this is me and what I'm attracted to but I'm not interested in acting on"...well why come out at all? Seek help-privately.

Vox,

This is your forum and you are entitled to your opinions as such but I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. There is no difference in SSA with the attractions stated above. Let's not play favorites here just because we have some people with SSA on the board. Would you be so happy for and excited for a man that tells you he likes young children to come on the board and then tell you he wants to start a group at the church? What's the difference if he's not wanting to act on his "attraction"? I also have to say that for whatever reason YOUR preoccupation with mentioning the evil deeds of active homosexuals in a public forum is both scandalous (since you are a self proclaimed trad) and appalling. We all know what the word sodomy entails we don't need a more detailed description of it. Just like I don't need to think about the details of men/women who sexually abuse children or men who love animals, or the guy and his red car. The topic of homosexuality with it's details of sodomy is appalling on this site and not something that trads or even Catholics in general should be speaking about. Remember scripture says "For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of." Ephesians 5:12 Douay Rheims bible.

I'll just say that and end it there. I won't be going to the "hellos goodbyes" forum I'll just say GOODBYE here. I hope you seriously consider what I've said. I'm not the only one that thinks so either. Feel free to delete this if it offends your sense of justice for people with SSA, at least I'd know you read it and I didn't just stay quiet and say nothing being passive aggressive.
Reply
#37
So, there are plenty of ignorant people who conflate homosexuality with pedophilia? There really is no place for that sort of argument in any civilized conversation. We need to step beyond masking crass ignorance with claims to faith. If it isn't geocentricism, it's a fundamental misunderstanding over issues of consent. Maybe some Catholics don't need catechesis as much as they need basic schooling. The fact some of you are home-schooling your kids and filling their heads with this junk really is cause for considerable concern.
Reply
#38
(03-20-2014, 09:19 PM)loggats Wrote: So, there are plenty of ignorant people who conflate homosexuality with pedophilia? There really is no place for that sort of argument in any civilized conversation. We need to step beyond masking crass ignorance with claims to faith. If it isn't geocentricism, it's a fundamental misunderstanding over issues of consent. Maybe some Catholics don't need catechesis as much as they need basic schooling. The fact some of you are home-schooling your kids and filling their heads with this junk really is cause for considerable concern.

Well, homosexual behavior and pederasty (which is often mistakenly referred to as pedophilia) are highly correlated.  This is factual.  Of course that does not imply that all men predisposed to SSA are also predisposed to pederasty. 

You could start by reading Goodbye, Good Men if you're interested
Reply
#39
(03-20-2014, 10:00 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(03-20-2014, 09:19 PM)loggats Wrote: So, there are plenty of ignorant people who conflate homosexuality with pedophilia? There really is no place for that sort of argument in any civilized conversation. We need to step beyond masking crass ignorance with claims to faith. If it isn't geocentricism, it's a fundamental misunderstanding over issues of consent. Maybe some Catholics don't need catechesis as much as they need basic schooling. The fact some of you are home-schooling your kids and filling their heads with this junk really is cause for considerable concern.

Well, homosexual behavior and pederasty (which is often mistakenly referred to as pedophilia) are highly correlated.  This is factual.  Of course that does not imply that all men predisposed to SSA are also predisposed to pederasty. 

You could start by reading Goodbye, Good Men if you're interested

You said "young children" not "young men." And again, without entering into what age a person is ready for sexual contact of any sort (remembering that it wasn't too long ago that puberty was the benchmark) there are laws of consent in the West that regulate these behaviours. If homosexual men are predisposed to pederasty, then heterosexual men are predisposed to having sex with girls just shy of sexual maturity - because that's the nature of the beast. You want to reduce all sexual contact to a matter of fertility? Why not think about that, rather than indulge a prurient interest in SSA.
Reply
#40
(03-20-2014, 09:19 PM)loggats Wrote: So, there are plenty of ignorant people who conflate homosexuality with pedophilia? There really is no place for that sort of argument in any civilized conversation. We need to step beyond masking crass ignorance with claims to faith. If it isn't geocentricism, it's a fundamental misunderstanding over issues of consent. Maybe some Catholics don't need catechesis as much as they need basic schooling. The fact some of you are home-schooling your kids and filling their heads with this junk really is cause for considerable concern.

The overall obsessive defense of perverts is more of a concern than the people homeschooling their children.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)