FishEaters Survey
#31
(03-29-2014, 03:53 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: You are mistaking homosexuality, the disorder, the sexual attraction for members of one's own sex, for sexual acts. Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual behavior.

I believe that if you look at my post, I spoke only of behavior.
Reply
#32
(03-29-2014, 05:27 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(03-29-2014, 03:53 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: You are mistaking homosexuality, the disorder, the sexual attraction for members of one's own sex, for sexual acts. Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual behavior.

I believe that if you look at my post, I spoke only of behavior.

(03-29-2014, 02:43 AM)Miriam_M Wrote: I think you have a serious misunderstanding about Catholic moral theology, which is built around Catholic philosophy.  Sexual practices within couples aside -- erotic behavior between two people of the same sex violates the core principles of the human person, according to Catholicism.  It is a violation of the order of the universe as regards human personhood, sexuality as an aspect of that personhood, the place of reproduction within that ordered construct of life and fruitfulness, the sacred concept of complementarity of the two genders as a reflection of God Himself, and as a primary vehicles (man-woman love) for the grace of God to enter into the universe.  Sexualizing a same-sex friendship destroys the God-designed boundaries between persons of the same sex.  It doesn't "intensify" that relaitonship; it doesn't grace it; it doesn't change it from something good (friendship and giving) to something better.  It does quite the opposite: it perverts that very friendship by introducing a morally toxic element into it.

See the bolded.  And this,

Quote:Sexualizing a same-sex friendship....
clearly refers to behavior.

No, I am not "mistaking"  one for the other.  :)
Reply
#33
(03-29-2014, 05:27 PM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(03-29-2014, 03:53 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: You are mistaking homosexuality, the disorder, the sexual attraction for members of one's own sex, for sexual acts. Homosexuality is not equivalent to homosexual behavior.

I believe that if you look at my post, I spoke only of behavior.

You wrote in response to my having said, "Sodomy (not the disorder of "homosexuality") is the sin that cries out to Heaven (and straight people do that, too)."

Unless maybe you're saying that heterosexual sodomy cries out to Heaven, but homosexual sodomy cries out louder or something, I'm not sure what the point is and at some point it's sort of nitpicky, really. If it is your point that heterosexual sodomy is bad, but homosexual sodomy is badder (ahem), then it sort of treats it all like a Sinnin' Contest. "Well, when we do that sin, we're not as bad as THOSE guys." I mean homosexuality is a disorder, and the desire for erotic unity with someone of the same sex is disordered (though where the lines of sin are when it comes to acts is an interesting question). My only point is that sodomy isn't just a homosexual thing and that among a third of homosexuals, isn't a homosexual thing at all for them. Numerically, more heterosexuals engage in that than homosexuals do, and percentage-wise, we're not that far apart, so if we're having a contest, maybe the homosexuals would lose in terms of their engaging involves a metaphorical megaphone aimed toward the Heavenlies, but heterosexuals lose because more heterosexuals engage in it.

But bottom line, what I'm concerned about is that people refrain from sin, which, when it comes to sex, at least means refraining from sex outside of marriage. And I'm concerned about the dearth of education about what homosexuality is and what MOST homosexuals do (we all know about "the club scene" and the horror stories involving sex acts I'd prefer not to talk about here, but most homosexuals aren't meth-snorting men hanging out in bathhouses, going from man to man like a bee in a field of flowers). I'm concerned about homosexuals being chased away from Christ's Church because of that dearth of education which leads to sloppy thinking and name-calling, etc. I just want to follow the Catechism and for homosexuals to be treated with respect, dignity, and charity. I don't want them to hide themselves away and feel shame for having a disorder. I want them to be helped, to be loved, to be healed completely (if -- barring the miraculous -- possible in a given case), to not feel alone, to not suffer alone, to be chaste and do what Christ asks of all of us.

Reply
#34
(03-29-2014, 05:24 PM)Deidre Wrote: My comments in green.
But what I'm saying is that people might be using the word "sodomy" to refer to homosexual acts other than anal sex, such as oral sex, (which is the only other form of "copulation" between two people of either sex that I've heard of, and I'd rather leave it that way) and that if they are, they are correct, according to the definition related to moral theology (which I'm pretty sure is the definition most Catholics are practically concerned with). Just as "scandal" has a narrower definition when considered within the context of moral theology, "sodomy" apparently has a broader one. Using the word "sodomy" to refer to bestiality would be incorrect as far as moral theology goes: they're quite different sins. I agree that it is incorrect and unkind to refer to non-practicing homosexuals (or people who suffer from SSA, which I think is a more precise phrase) as "sodomites" because it's wrong to just assume that people participate in any given sin. But it might not be incorrect (or necessarily an indication of bad will) to refer to active homosexuals as "sodomites" (though I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so).

There are plenty of things homosexuals do sexually that don't involve anal or oral copulation. You said you don't want to hear about them, so I won't list a few, but there simply are. Oral sex is likely the most common practice, however, and if that fits the definition of "sodomy" (which is contrary to how most people on the forum use the phrase), then they'd be sodomites. Since "sodomy" applies to both sexes and all orientations (the "perfect sodomy" and "imperfect sodomy"), and if "sodomy" includes oral sex also, then most married people are "sodomites."

Anyway, I hear your point, but if "sodomy" refers only to oral and anal sex, then homosexuals who engage in sexual acts without engaging in those two acts wouldn't be "sodomites" either. And chaste homosexuals obviously wouldn't be sodomites. In the US, there've been married couples charged with sodomy (the laws about that in the US are all over the place from State to State, with some pertaining only to homosexuals, and others to heterosexuals as well). What's interesting is that a moral theology book mentioned here on the forum deemed oral sex OK between married persons as long as everything ends up in the right place "in the end," to be discreet about it:


Fr. Prümmer (Handbook of Moral Theology), under Unnatural Consummated Sins of Impurity:

A male committing sodomy (unnatural carnal intercourse) with another male is ‘perfect sodomy’ while when done with a female is ‘imperfect sodomy.’ Both are considered sinful. (Sec. 525, 2)


Under The Obligations of Marriage: The Lawfulness of the Conjugal Act:

Principle. The conjugal act is lawful and even meritorious as often as it is not opposed to the benefit of offspring and conjugal fidelity. (Sec. 859, 1)

The intrinsic reason for this (I Cor. vii, 3) is that the conjugal act is not only necessary for the propagation of the human race but also for the fostering of married love.  As often as one of these purposes is desired, the conjugal act is lawful, provided that no other ills or inconveniences ensue.  Consequently the partners in marriage are not obliged to exercise sexual intercourse simply for the sake of procreation.  Therefore this act is lawful even if both parties are sterile, also during the time of lactation of pregnancy, on Sundays and on feast days; but it is forbidden to exercise the sexual function by means of onanism or with serious danger to health or at the same time causing scandal to others, etc.

Circumstances of the Conjugal Act.  Not only the conjugal act itself but also touches and looks and all other acts are lawful between the married, provided that there is no proximate danger of pollution and the sole intention is not mere sexual pleasure.  Therefore in ordinary circumstances the confessor should not interrogate married persons about these accompanying acts.

Quote: So I get defensive about that because I see it as a form of scapegoating, really. And I see it as sloppy thinking, which is bad enough in itself, but much worse because it has the power to mislead and, especially sad, harm people. If I were a chaste traditional Catholic homosexual, I'd be very upset that any time homosexuality is mentioned, there's the automatic assumption of active homosexuality, which too many people apparently think MEANS anal sex (which heterosexuals do, too, and no one cares), a "sin that cries out to Heaven" along with murder. People who refer to homosexuals qua homosexuals as "sodomites" are showing ignorance or, at the risk of sounding "judgy" and only because I can think of no other good reason for it, being malicious.  Obviously, some homosexuals are sodomites (and so are some straight people). But to equate a male's attraction to his own sex with "sodomy," reducing it all to a matter of genitals and ignoring anything having to do with Eros, is dehumanizing (and, as I've said before, shows a very limited understanding of the Catholic view of sexuality -- or even just a common sense one).

I think that there should be a clarification of terms. People should either agree for the purposes of discussions here that "homosexual" means "chaste person suffering from SSA" or differentiate in their comments (should they feel the need to make any) between "practicing homosexuals" and "non-practicing homosexuals," since I agree that they're not the same thing.

To my mind (and acc. to the scientific, dictionary, and most common definitions), "homosexual" just means "a person who is attracted to members of his own sex," and it says nothing, in itself, whatsoever about whether they're active or not. I think that, as Catholics, we should assume the best -- that they are chaste -- unless it's proved to be otherwise. That keeps things pretty simple. What do you think?
Reply
#35
New comments in orange.
(03-29-2014, 06:10 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-29-2014, 05:24 PM)Deidre Wrote: My comments in green.
But what I'm saying is that people might be using the word "sodomy" to refer to homosexual acts other than anal sex, such as oral sex, (which is the only other form of "copulation" between two people of either sex that I've heard of, and I'd rather leave it that way) and that if they are, they are correct, according to the definition related to moral theology (which I'm pretty sure is the definition most Catholics are practically concerned with). Just as "scandal" has a narrower definition when considered within the context of moral theology, "sodomy" apparently has a broader one. Using the word "sodomy" to refer to bestiality would be incorrect as far as moral theology goes: they're quite different sins. I agree that it is incorrect and unkind to refer to non-practicing homosexuals (or people who suffer from SSA, which I think is a more precise phrase) as "sodomites" because it's wrong to just assume that people participate in any given sin. But it might not be incorrect (or necessarily an indication of bad will) to refer to active homosexuals as "sodomites" (though I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so).

There are plenty of things homosexuals do sexually that don't involve anal or oral copulation. Then wouldn't those acts (assuming they qualify as "copulation,") fall under the definition of sodomy as well? For all I know, they do.You said you don't want to hear about them, so I won't list a few, but there simply are. Oral sex is likely the most common practice, however, and if that fits the definition of "sodomy" (which is contrary to how most people on the forum use the phrase), then they'd be sodomites. Since "sodomy" applies to both sexes and all orientations (the "perfect sodomy" and "imperfect sodomy"), and if "sodomy" includes oral sex also, then most married people are "sodomites." This sounds reasonable. I'm not familiar enough with the Bible story of Sodom to know if the sin "that cries out to heaven" only involves people of the same sex, or people of opposite sexes.

Anyway, I hear your point, but if "sodomy" refers only to oral and anal sex, then homosexuals who engage in sexual acts without engaging in those two acts wouldn't be "sodomites" either. But no one says that it does relate only to oral and anal sex. Those are the only unnatural sexual practices that I've heard of. If "copulation" means any sexual practice, rather than just the...normal one, and the more common ones just mentioned, the definition of "sodomy" could be very broad indeed.And chaste homosexuals obviously wouldn't be sodomites. Obviously.  :)In the US, there've been married couples charged with sodomy (the laws about that in the US are all over the place from State to State, with some pertaining only to homosexuals, and others to heterosexuals as well). What's interesting is that a moral theology book mentioned here on the forum deemed oral sex OK between married persons as long as everything ends up in the right place "in the end," to be discreet about it:


Fr. Prümmer (Handbook of Moral Theology), under Unnatural Consummated Sins of Impurity:

A male committing sodomy (unnatural carnal intercourse) with another male is ‘perfect sodomy’ while when done with a female is ‘imperfect sodomy.’ Both are considered sinful. (Sec. 525, 2)


Under The Obligations of Marriage: The Lawfulness of the Conjugal Act:

Principle. The conjugal act is lawful and even meritorious as often as it is not opposed to the benefit of offspring and conjugal fidelity. (Sec. 859, 1)

The intrinsic reason for this (I Cor. vii, 3) is that the conjugal act is not only necessary for the propagation of the human race but also for the fostering of married love.  As often as one of these purposes is desired, the conjugal act is lawful, provided that no other ills or inconveniences ensue.  Consequently the partners in marriage are not obliged to exercise sexual intercourse simply for the sake of procreation.  Therefore this act is lawful even if both parties are sterile, also during the time of lactation of pregnancy, on Sundays and on feast days; but it is forbidden to exercise the sexual function by means of onanism or with serious danger to health or at the same time causing scandal to others, etc.

Circumstances of the Conjugal Act.  Not only the conjugal act itself but also touches and looks and all other acts are lawful between the married, provided that there is no proximate danger of pollution and the sole intention is not mere sexual pleasure.  Therefore in ordinary circumstances the confessor should not interrogate married persons about these accompanying acts.

Quote: So I get defensive about that because I see it as a form of scapegoating, really. And I see it as sloppy thinking, which is bad enough in itself, but much worse because it has the power to mislead and, especially sad, harm people. If I were a chaste traditional Catholic homosexual, I'd be very upset that any time homosexuality is mentioned, there's the automatic assumption of active homosexuality, which too many people apparently think MEANS anal sex (which heterosexuals do, too, and no one cares), a "sin that cries out to Heaven" along with murder. People who refer to homosexuals qua homosexuals as "sodomites" are showing ignorance or, at the risk of sounding "judgy" and only because I can think of no other good reason for it, being malicious.  Obviously, some homosexuals are sodomites (and so are some straight people). But to equate a male's attraction to his own sex with "sodomy," reducing it all to a matter of genitals and ignoring anything having to do with Eros, is dehumanizing (and, as I've said before, shows a very limited understanding of the Catholic view of sexuality -- or even just a common sense one).

I think that there should be a clarification of terms. People should either agree for the purposes of discussions here that "homosexual" means "chaste person suffering from SSA" or differentiate in their comments (should they feel the need to make any) between "practicing homosexuals" and "non-practicing homosexuals," since I agree that they're not the same thing.

To my mind (and acc. to the scientific, dictionary, and most common definitions), "homosexual" just means "a person who is attracted to members of his own sex," and it says nothing, in itself, whatsoever about whether they're active or not. I think that, as Catholics, we should assume the best -- that they are chaste -- unless it's proved to be otherwise. That keeps things pretty simple. What do you think?
I think we're on the same page here.
Reply
#36
Grr, I can't believe this benign thread announcing a survey about multiple subjects became another gay debate!

I have same-sex attractions, and I've never gone near another man's anus!  :LOL: Now stop treating us like lab rats and get on with your lives!

There's more to Fishies than naked men.  :blush:
Reply
#37
(03-29-2014, 07:47 PM)Deidre Wrote: There are plenty of things homosexuals do sexually that don't involve anal or oral copulation. Then wouldn't those acts (assuming they qualify as "copulation,") fall under the definition of sodomy as well? For all I know, they do.You said you don't want to hear about them, so I won't list a few, but there simply are. Oral sex is likely the most common practice, however, and if that fits the definition of "sodomy" (which is contrary to how most people on the forum use the phrase), then they'd be sodomites. Since "sodomy" applies to both sexes and all orientations (the "perfect sodomy" and "imperfect sodomy"), and if "sodomy" includes oral sex also, then most married people are "sodomites." This sounds reasonable. I'm not familiar enough with the Bible story of Sodom to know if the sin "that cries out to heaven" only involves people of the same sex, or people of opposite sexes.

Our posts are getting colorful! LOL

Anyway, you're asking the same sorts of questions I wonder about myself and would love to get answers for. In a recent thread somewhere, I said something to the effect that I'd LOVE to hear debate and conversation from traditionalist moral theologians who've studied psychology and are sexually educated talk about all this stuff. Me, I can't claim to know where the lines are or what constitutes "copulation" per se, and the definition of "sodomy" is all over the map.

Per the dictionary, sodomy is defined as (Merriam-Webster): "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also :  copulation with an animal."  The word "sodomy" definitely stems from the name of the city of Sodom and, I would assume, refers to when Lot had the two angels in his house, and some of the men of the city came and told him to send them out so they might "know" them. In the Book of Jude, though, it says -- Jude 1:5-7: "I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:  And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day.  As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh [Vox: I assume that last refers to bestiality(?)], were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." So though the word "sodomy" comes from the city of Sodom and is based on the story of how that group of men treated -- or wanted to treat -- the angels, it seems that the sins of Historical Sodom were those of general sexual immorality, which would include active homosexuality, but also plain old fornication by straight people and, if I'm understanding the meaning of "other flesh" correctly, bestiality (IOW, Sodom was just sexually decadent, pretty much like the US of today).

One of the four sins that "cry out to Heaven" is listed as "sodomy" -- but then we're back to the problem of ascertaining the precise definition thereof (the other three are willful murder, oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their wages). The Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649, Chapter XX has this to say about it: "The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex." I

I do know, though, that when the word "sodomy" pops up on Catholic forums, it is invariably used to mean "anal sex" -- and, then, almost always to just anal sex between homosexuals (ha, of course).

Quote: Anyway, I hear your point, but if "sodomy" refers only to oral and anal sex, then homosexuals who engage in sexual acts without engaging in those two acts wouldn't be "sodomites" either. But no one says that it does relate only to oral and anal sex. Those are the only unnatural sexual practices that I've heard of. If "copulation" means any sexual practice, rather than just the...normal one, and the more common ones just mentioned, the definition of "sodomy" could be very broad indeed.And chaste homosexuals obviously wouldn't be sodomites. Obviously.  :)In the US, there've been married couples charged with sodomy (the laws about that in the US are all over the place from State to State, with some pertaining only to homosexuals, and others to heterosexuals as well). What's interesting is that a moral theology book mentioned here on the forum deemed oral sex OK between married persons as long as everything ends up in the right place "in the end," to be discreet about it:

I've found that "anal sex" is exactly how the word is typically defined when the topic comes up on Catholic forums, so that's the definition I refer to when in those conversations. I don't think the word Historically was or is now typically used to include things like frottage or mutual masturbation, for ex. Both of those would still be sins, but I don't think they'd constitute "sodomy" -- at least insofar as how the word is most often used. But that's just me guessing based on all the stuff I've read. I mean, if there's a rape case in a Court of Law, and the victim is described as having been "sodomized," it's understood that she or he was raped anally.


Quote: (snip)
To my mind (and acc. to the scientific, dictionary, and most common definitions), "homosexual" just means "a person who is attracted to members of his own sex," and it says nothing, in itself, whatsoever about whether they're active or not. I think that, as Catholics, we should assume the best -- that they are chaste -- unless it's proved to be otherwise. That keeps things pretty simple. What do you think?
I think we're on the same page here.

I think so, too, D. But still, I'd love to hear some well-educated TRAD-minded moral theologians break all this stuff down.



Reply
#38
(03-29-2014, 08:34 PM)Heorot Wrote: Grr, I can't believe this benign thread announcing a survey about multiple subjects became another gay debate!

I have same-sex attractions, and I've never gone near another man's anus!  :LOL: Now stop treating us like lab rats and get on with your lives!

There's more to Fishies than naked men.  :blush:

Look at how the segues happen. There's kind of no choice on my end of things, really. I mean, no "real" choice:  I can ignore questions and statements that reveal serious ignorance about homosexuality, or I can increase understanding. As long as homosexuality, homosexuals, and homosexualist activists are in the news, these conversations are bound to come up, and when they do, I want them to reflect educated minds and be marked by charity. Treating homosexuals like lab rats -- or worse, like mistakes of nature and wretched sinners (that is, sinners more wretched by nature than any of us other sinners)  -- is what I'm trying to fight against.
Reply
#39
Vox, (and I forget which post you mentioned this) I agree that name-calling is never appropriate.  Theology, however, is a neutral (not "personal") exercise.  I hope you can understand that moral theology, for example, is essentially dispassionate.  It doesn't seek to condemn persons, ever.  (Or we would all be condemned!)

Hope that clears up any misunderstanding, should I have contributed to that..
:)
Reply
#40
(03-28-2014, 02:55 AM)jhfromsf68 Wrote: Completed the survey. I made a suggestion of creating some new sub forums. One would be a debate forum, where Catholics can debate Protestants or Atheists or any representative of a group who feels the need to debate a Catholic. Another one would be a anything goes type of sub forum where anything under the sun could be discussed, including controversial topics. this forum would not be moderated and discussions could become heated. Just some suggestions, is there other sub forums that members would like to see created?

As much as I regret having to 'derail' the conversation about homosexuality (j/k), I just wanted to add that I LOVE this idea from jhfromsf68.  I think civil debates between traditional Catholics and others (protestants, atheists, and more liberal Catholics) is a great idea, and having a section dedicated to that goal would be GREAT! 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)