Attitude towards LGBTQ____....???
#21
(12-09-2017, 08:14 PM)tomnossor Wrote: I am not arguing against the label because it is "bad."  I am arguing against the label because it evidences the disordered state of our society by allowing that someone IS their sexual desires.  Who one internally feels attracted too should not be such a large part of their person.  Just like ones love of chocolate or weight relative to the norm should not be such a large part of their (my) person.  

But that is, in fact, some people's sexual desires. If someone were to say "I'm a homosexual and that's all that I am," you'd have a point. But no one says that.


Quote:This is largely if not totally about semantics.  I am merely saying that there is a huge barrier between our culture and right thinking.  Choosing words that reinforce the wrong thinking of our culture only makes the barrier more difficult to surmount.

I totally agree that language is important. But not using words because they indicate disorder doesn't make sense to me at all. One could say that about the words "murder," rape," "rapist," murderer," "atheist," "Protestant," etc.

Quote:And human sexuality is more complicated than what I think God intended, namely that sex is "unitive" and "procreative."  But this is WRONG IMO.  If sex was properly understood to be for the solidifying of a marital union between a man and woman for the purpose of creating a stable family unit AND for procreation within this family unit; then it would be much less complex. 

Understanding something doesn't make it go away. We can understand, intellectually, about concupiscence, but still be cursed with it.

Quote: The arguments against gay marriage would be obvious to everyone (even those with SSA).  That society has departed from this is true.  That right thinking individuals should be inviting a restoration of true thinking is what I advocate.  I am not advocating a denial of the reality, only that God's purposes be highlighted when possible especially when this conflicts with societal reality.

What you seem to be saying is that if everyone knew the right things, then everyone would know the right things. But well-catechized Catholics know, for ex., that masturbation is wrong, but still engage in it. We shouldn't make the word "masturbation" disappear because it doesn't reflect the proper order of things.


Quote:If I could unilaterally change the semantics of our society (perhaps through some time travel where 100 intelligent right thinking individual travel back in time 100 years and set about to teach all who they can fine), I think I would change the definition of sex such that is the sexual union of man and woman in marriage.  I would apply the term "perversion" to masterbation, premarital fornication, and homosexual acts (and to voyeurism as practiced by all who watch primetime TV and by those who watch pornography).  I don't see such a change happening and part of me recognizes that God is sovereign, but still this is what I think would help in the culture war.

I hear you, but if you were to do that, then "they" would simply push perversion in the name of "perversion" rather than "sex." I can hear it now: "Just because they call it 'perversion' doesn't mean it is!"  Your idea would maybe, though, help prevent equally valuing or seeing as "interchangeable" marital sex and other sex. That'd be a good thing...

-- but I don't agree with you at all re. the word "homosexual."
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#22
(12-09-2017, 08:17 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:  I'm curious how would you respond to Joseph Sciamra's article I posted above?

Thanks! :)

I disagree with it. The FE page on homosexuality pretty much explains my thoughts on the topic...
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#23
(12-09-2017, 08:17 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 07:22 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 05:18 PM)tomnossor Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 02:42 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: http://www.fisheaters.com/homosexuality.html
I liked your article.

I am not as confident that homosexuality is analogous to “same sex attractions” as you claim it to be.

I think it is a mistake to call people homosexuals or heterosexuals.  Being male and female is biology and there are MANY traits linked strongly and weakly to this biology.  (The possession of sex organs of a certain type STRONGLY.  The possession of secondary sexual characteristics like a deep voice somewhat strongly.  Various predilections that are likely more than just cultural dolls vs. toy guns weakly).  But having same sex attraction is not SOLELY biological by any study I have ever seen (it does have biological precursors, but there is a lot of environmental conditioning, just like being prone to anger or easy laughter has both biological precursors AND environmental conditioning).

Something doesn't have to be purely biological, or biological at all, to exist.
 
Quote:(snip)

I am a child of God.  I am a male.  I am about 50% Irish.
I love chocolate, but I am not a chocophile.  I am overweight, but I am not a fatty.
I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I do not think it best to claim, “I am a heterosexual.”
 
Some people are chocoholics. Some people are "fatties." Etc. "Homosexual" simply describes the attraction to one's own sex. What one does with that aspect of one's being is where the problems come in.
 
Quote:Sex is a much larger part of our lives, identities, goals, quests, … than God ever intended.

C.S. Lewis responds to this with his image of a group attending a show in a darken theater.  They are whooping it up as a large shiny half sphere is slowly lifted up and gradually it is revealed that below this lid is a … platter with a large rack of lamb.  No sooner than the glimpse of the lamb is barely realized, the lid slams shut and the audience is invited to voyeurously anticipate the next platter of food.  You might think these folks are starving, but it is much more likely that the God-given desire for sustenance has been radically perverted by the society where these folks live.  We live in a society where the God given desire for connection and reproduction through sexual relationship has been RADICALLY PERVERTED.
 
Sure. but human sexuality is a lot more complicated than "married couple wants babies, and, so, have sex" given concupiscence, human psychology, life, abuse of all sorts, bad relationships with parents, our pornified world, the existence of The Pill, etc. That reality shouldn't be ignored or wished away, and not having labels -- words -- for something because that something isn't ideal is weird to me, sort of like refusing to say the word "cancer" because "cancer bad."

Hi Vox!

 I'm curious how would you respond to Joseph Sciamra's article I posted above?

Thanks! :)

I liked the article you pasted into the thread.
I have long thought the slogan "traditional marriage" is a looser.
The article you shared explains why we need to change the dialogue.  One is not a "celibate gay man."  One is a celibate man who deals with temptations.  I am not an adulterous man.  I am a married man who is faithful to his wife, but is not immune to unrighteous sexual feelings.
I see wins and losses in the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" debate.  I see God's side winning very few battles in the "traditional marriage" vs. "marriage equality."  Our culture has ceded too much ground to the celebration of sex to make a rational and compelling stand against gay marriage and the celebration of homosexual sex (like the celebration of non-marital sex).  
God is still in charge, but I think those who follow Him should use the best tools we have to support His truth as we understand it.
Continuing to support the title, "gay man" is not IMO the best course of action.
Charity, TOm
Reply
#24
(12-09-2017, 10:25 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 08:14 PM)tomnossor Wrote: I am not arguing against the label because it is "bad."  I am arguing against the label because it evidences the disordered state of our society by allowing that someone IS their sexual desires.  Who one internally feels attracted too should not be such a large part of their person.  Just like ones love of chocolate or weight relative to the norm should not be such a large part of their (my) person.  

But that is, in fact, some people's sexual desires. If someone were to say "I'm a homosexual and that's all that I am," you'd have a point. But no one says that.


Quote:This is largely if not totally about semantics.  I am merely saying that there is a huge barrier between our culture and right thinking.  Choosing words that reinforce the wrong thinking of our culture only makes the barrier more difficult to surmount.

I totally agree that language is important. But not using words because they indicate disorder doesn't make sense to me at all. One could say that about the words "murder," rape," "rapist," murderer," "atheist," "Protestant," etc.

Quote:And human sexuality is more complicated than what I think God intended, namely that sex is "unitive" and "procreative."  But this is WRONG IMO.  If sex was properly understood to be for the solidifying of a marital union between a man and woman for the purpose of creating a stable family unit AND for procreation within this family unit; then it would be much less complex. 

Understanding something doesn't make it go away. We can understand, intellectually, about concupiscence, but still be cursed with it.

Quote: The arguments against gay marriage would be obvious to everyone (even those with SSA).  That society has departed from this is true.  That right thinking individuals should be inviting a restoration of true thinking is what I advocate.  I am not advocating a denial of the reality, only that God's purposes be highlighted when possible especially when this conflicts with societal reality.

What you seem to be saying is that if everyone knew the right things, then everyone would know the right things. But well-catechized Catholics know, for ex., that masturbation is wrong, but still engage in it. We shouldn't make the word "masturbation" disappear because it doesn't reflect the proper order of things.


Quote:If I could unilaterally change the semantics of our society (perhaps through some time travel where 100 intelligent right thinking individual travel back in time 100 years and set about to teach all who they can fine), I think I would change the definition of sex such that is the sexual union of man and woman in marriage.  I would apply the term "perversion" to masterbation, premarital fornication, and homosexual acts (and to voyeurism as practiced by all who watch primetime TV and by those who watch pornography).  I don't see such a change happening and part of me recognizes that God is sovereign, but still this is what I think would help in the culture war.

I hear you, but if you were to do that, then "they" would simply push perversion in the name of "perversion" rather than "sex." I can hear it now: "Just because they call it 'perversion' doesn't mean it is!"  Your idea would maybe, though, help prevent equally valuing or seeing as "interchangeable" marital sex and other sex. That'd be a good thing...

-- but I don't agree with you at all re. the word "homosexual."

I do not think we are diametrically opposed in this debate and I see your points.
I think labeling "masturbation" is fine, I think people claiming, “I am just a masturbator” or people claiming, “you are a masturbator” is a negative for the restoration of morality within society.  This linked to the idea that we “love the sinner but hate the sin.”  I the individual is their sin because we label them as such, it is harder to “love the sinner but hate their sin.”


Concerning the recent “invention of homosexuality and heterosexuality,” these two articles were very influential for me.

Article from supporter of same sex marriage: 'The invention of the heterosexual'.
 
Article from a Christian point of view 'The invention of homosexuality ... and heterosexuality'.

Anyway, I am not sure we are too far off.  If I invent a time machine to go back 100 years, your thinking is plenty solid IMO if you would like to head back to change the culture.
Charity, TOm
Reply
#25
The words we use to define ourselves can also become a sort of prison or self-fulfilled prophecy.

I have a disease is better than I am diseased.

I have a disability is better than I am disabled.

I have an eating disorder is better than I am disordered.
[-] The following 2 users Like Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • In His Love, Jeeter
Reply
#26
What about this recent entry of "Asexuality" into the LGBTQ____ spectrum...? Although, I don't support those who identify as "asexual", been a part of the "Asexuality Spectrum Movement"  and have now joined hands with the LGBTQ___ movement... But what about those who identify as "asexual", under general circumstances...? 

Like I read in some book regarding Catholic Saints that St. Casimir was an asexual... 

So, what would you have to say regarding "asexuality" and "asexuals"...?
[Image: y4mYRN-ummmkmVnvHhXskhcmGwkdRP6s0fIGNOHH...pmode=none]
Reply
#27
Just a clarification to the above post :

Asexuals are people who not sexually attracted to either the same or opposite gender...

Sent from my SM-G610F using Tapatalk
[Image: y4mYRN-ummmkmVnvHhXskhcmGwkdRP6s0fIGNOHH...pmode=none]
Reply
#28
(01-30-2018, 05:44 AM)AndreasIosephus Wrote: Just a clarification to the above post :

Asexuals are people who not sexually attracted to either the same or opposite gender...

Sent from my SM-G610F using Tapatalk

Some people have a low or no sex drive.

Some have been traumatized and are turned off to sex.

Some may have a supernatural calling to the religious life or single life.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)