Tuesday, October 18, 2011

A two-way street

I sometimes think that the gravest danger to the Christian duty to treat people afflicted with same-sex desires with the respect and dignity owed to them as children of God is going to come, not from traditional--and true--Church teachings about the grave moral evil of every homosexual sex act, but from the repeated and coercive attempts to force society to view homosexual acts as morally benign.

Case in point:
A Connecticut high school musical causes a public walkout after two men in the cast kissed during the performance.

It happened during the “Zanna Don’t!” musical at Hartford Public High School last Friday.

“There are always circumstances (in organizing these programs) under which the values of the student or their family come into play,” said Adam Johnson, principal of the Government and Law Academy at the high school, told CBS Connecticut.

He added that many students expressed a desire to skip the show due to the subject matter.

“It’s a balancing act of individual values and the expectations of the school … (and) it was interesting, actually, seeing the apprehension,” Johnson explained. [...]

During the show, two men in the cast share a brief kiss — a lip lock that became a great point of contention.

“There was a public walkout by a bunch of students (when the kiss happened) … mostly male,” Johnson said. “It was visually evident (due to the jerseys the team was wearing) that a lot of football players got up and walked out. It was almost a symbolic kind of thing.”

Reportedly, the school began receiving a great number of phone calls. The dean of students was even allegedly paid a visit by a Bible-wielding parent that spoke about homosexuals in an unflattering manner.

Oh, heavens. A Bible-wielding parent! Who dared to speak of homosexuals in an unflattering manner! In Connecticut! You can almost sense the hysteria.

The tone-deaf school officials go on to display their complete ignorance over the reason for the push-back by some students and parents to yet-another attempt to force acceptance of homosexual activity as normal:

And with Spirit Day – a holiday during which celebrants promote awareness and widespread acceptance of the LGBTQ community – coming up on Oct. 20, the timing seemed perfect.

“Through humor … and music, we’re able to address uncomfortable topics and very serious issues for many,” Provenzano said.

“Most change that comes about does require a certain amount of movement through the uncomfortable – the change process can be a bit messy and disruptive,” Ted Carroll, president of Leadership Greater Hartford, told CBS Connecticut.

After the performance, a talk back session was held to promote a dialog between students, administrators and moderators, and materials were handed out for those seeking more information about issues that affect the LGBTQ community.

Here's a hint: when students start walking out of school plays that promote same-sex sexual activity, maybe students haven't bought into this whole "change process" thing. Maybe, just maybe, they're even getting a bit tired of being told on a near-constant basis that while it's just fine to make fun of "Bible-wielders," it's never okay to point out that, quite likely, more than 95% of the student body is heterosexual and doesn't really find same-sex kissing all that entertaining.

I think that the efforts of educators to force school kids from elementary grades on up to ponder their sexuality, question their orientation, eradicate heteronormativity, support gay "marriage" and other idiocies, and wallow in the notion that every bad thing that has ever happened to any same-sex attracted person has been the fault of insensitive bigots who just won't accept him/her for who he/she really is may quite likely backfire. After all, some critics of the DARE program say that this effort to reduce drug abuse has led to greater drug use; and anybody who has ever been around actual children knows how often a program to get them to stop doing something (bullying, drug use, etc.) will actually make them want to do more of it.

And that would be a bad thing, because even if someone is severely tempted to commit gravely evil homosexual sex acts, he or she is still a child of God and deserves to be treated like one. That doesn't mean that we lie to the same-sex attracted members of our society and tell them that there's nothing at all wrong with perversion; if we really care about them, we won't spread such a damaging lie that will not only kill their souls, but will also quite likely damage their bodies and shorten their lifespans. But it does mean that we avoid actual bullying and dehumanizing acts and speech, and teach our children to do the same.

It is, however, a two-way street. If same-sex attracted people can't understand that a play shown to children as young as 13 or so which features a same-sex kissing scene is dehumanizing to the heterosexual majority who doesn't need to have such conduct shoved in their faces at every opportunity, then the chance we all have to learn to respect each other seems to be fading.


Anonymous said...

How is showing a scene of 2 men kissing dehumanizing to heterosexuals?
Is showing a scene of a man and woman kissing dehumanizing to homosexuals? Of course not, and not even the most militant gay activists have ever claimed that.

Comments like that really leave the impression (unintended on your part, I'm sure) that the very existence of homosexuals is problematic to you, and you would prefer that they never be seen.

A single kissing scene can in no way be called "shoving conduct in their faces" by any rational person. How is it possibly "dehumanizing" to show a single kiss, even if you think its wrong? How does it insult, harm, degrade, or otherwise dehumanize the heterosexual majority of students?

morris howard said...

How about showing those heterosexuals whose feelings were so hurt the contents of Father Ratigan's computer? Since they were of girls, maybe they would feel less dehumanized.

Red Cardigan said...

Well, you'd have to follow the Wikipedia link to the whole show--I think the kissing scene was the last straw for the audience. The show sounds stupid and insulting in the extreme, frankly.

Red Cardigan said...

Besides, if heterosexuals didn't kiss, none of us would be here.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Every generation of school administrators seems to think it is their duty to "mold" their students by MAKING them do things that the students really don't want to do, or pushing perhaps legitimate endeavors in ways that students resent.

I suppose the local school administrators think they are being very "liberal." They are not. They are doing exactly the same things they no doubt resented on the part of their own principals when they were in school, so many years ago.

Students who are REQUIRED to do a play that culminates in a "lip lock" between two men may be inclined to take out the resulting frustrations on the nearest supposed "queer." There must be a certain level of give-and-take if we are going to get along without imposing a totalitarian standard. (Yes, the "Gay Pride" standard is just as totalitarian as the "homophobic" one).

If students who feel drawn to their own sex, and not to the opposite sex, are bullied and spat upon, naturally they will grow up to feel that the solution is to pound into the heads of the next generation that gay sex is NORMAL and to be RESPECTED. On the other hand, that will produce, in the minds of the students subjected to it, the notion that one must RESIST those intrusive gay bullies.

Everyone needs to back off a little. I am reminded of the lengthy litigation about a drama student who, for religious reasons, was not willing to say f***, no matter what the script, although willing to use d*** and even s***. Her drama instructors were trying to REQUIRE her to use whatever language they directed, even indulging in cheer leading "Go on Luann, say it!" (Fictional name, I don't remember hers).

There are limits to how far any authority should go, putting words into someone else's mouth. She won because it was a public university. A private college could have set any standards it wished to.

Pete said...


"if heterosexuals didn't kiss none of us would be here" ? Wrong. That's not how babies are made.

When straight people do it is - what? Natural? But when gay people do it, it isn't?

Straight people kiss bc it feels good. Period. That's also why they do a long list of intimate acts that don't create life.

You do know that many of your posts would lead a reasonable person to believe that you just hate gay people. I mean seriously, female genital mutilation in Africa, unjust war, murder, child trafficking.... I could go on. And 2 men kissing is worthy of your time?


And please understand

Pete said...

Also, can u ease explain why you call gay people "same sex attracted people"? I mean, I assume you live in the united states. In 2011. We call them gay people. They call themselves gay people. They never call themselves "same sex attracted people" except in those extremely rare instances when they believe (contrary to science) that there us something wrong with them.

A reasonable person would conclude that your use if that tortured phrase indicates that you just hate gay people and are making a passive aggressive attempt to denigrate

Ps. You are straight. That's the word that we use in the USA for the 97% of us who are non-same-sex-attracted.

Rebecca in ID said...

a same-sex-attracted person doesn't necessarily consent to that attraction or act on it..."gay" usually implies they consent to it and act on it...hence the distinction.

Red Cardigan said...

Pete, I have no problem with the term "heterosexual" to describe myself.

And Rebecca is right: same-sex attracted person, or even homosexual person, doesn't imply a person who commits the gravely sinful acts of homosexual sex.

Lynette said...

Never worry, Pete. I consider "bigot" to be an equally interchangeable word for "Catholic", no matter what Catholics might wish to refer to themselves as. You see the word Catholic disguises the way these individuals misuse research, cling to every bad thing they read about homosexuals, generalize with a broad brush over many people, and excuse every good example as an exception to the norm, to protect this wholesome, negative view they maintain of homosexuals. Bigot captures this reality nicely in a way that Catholic never can. To use the latter would be a lie.

You see, I know the capital T, Truth, and it would be anything but love and care and concern if I didn't tell them this. It's not offensive if you're combating a sickness and perversion of their hearts! And it's to save their souls!

[End hyperbole]

Pete, the bottom-line is you have to realize Erin is writing to her audience, which is Catholics whom already agree with her and aren't intellectually invested to challenge some of her sillier claims. She isn't out to win over any gays (or if so, she's going at it in the worst possible way).

Lynette said...

For the record:

I do not consider Erin or Catholics bigots. The point is that as Catholics, you will realize that word is incendiary, and it will assault your senses. You should be shocked!

None of you understand what it is like to have your parent, family, or friend twist their mouth with disgust, and say the word "homo-SEX-ual".

The emphasis is on the sex of the word, and don't try to deny that the reason it's preferred is a cognitive trick to view gays and lesbians through a narrow lens of sexual acts. I doubt any of your marriages could be summed by the things you do in the bedroom. And I doubt any of you would do the same to straight couples you know.

It's petty. You can pretend it's "more correct", and that "gay" means the person is active, and I will leave the decision of whether you're being honest to those far above me. But to someone who has heard it, you're not fooling anyone, and if that's not your intention, then please, try a new tactic.

Red Cardigan said...

Actually, Lynette, I have read very moving accounts of the struggles lived by celibate homosexuals. Guess what? They *hate* the word "gay," because they hate the lifestyle and want nothing to do with it.

In your rush to insist that all same-sex attracted people are "gay" by definition, you ignore those who honestly don't wish to engage in homosexual sex acts and don't wish to define themselves by their sexual attractions. Celibate homosexuals carry a heavy cross, and they're not helped by being ignored.

Lynette said...

And what exactly is the lifestyle, Erin?

I was unaware that "gay" meant anything beyond being attracted to someone of the same sex. I'm curious about the full definition.

Red Cardigan said...

Lynette, most of the time, "gay" is used to mean someone who is sexually active with people of his or her own gender.

Merely being attracted to one's own gender doesn't necessarily make one "gay," according to common usage, especially if one is committed to celibacy and never has sex.

Of course, the definitions get complicated because some gay activists insist that nobody can know for sure if he/she is gay or not until he/she experiments sexually with his/her own gender, but the usage I've outlined seems to be generally accepted.

L. said...

Coincidentally, I was a student in a foreign language magnet program at Hartford Public High in 1982-83.

Just for the record, the school isn't exactly in a posh part of the city, and Hartford's per capita income is probably still far below the high state average. HPHS was a tough and dangerous place when I went there -- metal detectors, gun incidents, and drugs. I still can't believe my parents allowed me to leave my suburban high school for half of the school day, to attend it, and I can only hope it's gotten better in the past 30-odd years. (I put up with it because it was the only way I could study Japanese in high school.)

Please, as you make your sweeping generalizations about homosexuals, their straight supporters and the people who oppose us, be careful about making generalizations about my home state.

There are some deep pockets of poverty and working-class conservatism in Connecticut -- it's not at all the solid bastion of affluence and liberalism it might seem from outside.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I got an idea, how about no one kisses in HS plays in general, girls or boys? There, problem solved.

Charlotte said...

Erin, in the book "Sexual Authenticity," written by a former lesbian turned straight homeschooling Catholic mother/wife, she explains why "same-sex attracted" is actually a term that is going to backfire when used by Catholics and the religious right. I wish I could remember her argument, but it seemed compelling.

I do believe that 2 boys kissing in a school play is indeed shoving homosexuality down the students' throats. There are thousands upon thousands of plays out there to choose from - many with "social relevancy" and "issues" if that HAS to be the criteria - without a touch of homosexuality. Why weren't those chosen? We all know why.

If homosexuals are so much part of the landscape of life in America, then why do we need to specifically highlight that fact at school? Shouldn't that all be passe by now? You can argue about that in 2 different directions.

Hector said...

Re: Is showing a scene of a man and woman kissing dehumanizing to homosexuals?

Good point, Anonymous. A lot of people assume straight sexuality is simply 'normal', and so no one should feel bothered by it, but gay sexuality is somehow 'perverted'.


Yes, I generally hear 'gay' being the term used (including by gay people who don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuality, but for whatever reason, choose not to be sexually active).

Re: I still can't believe my parents allowed me to leave my suburban high school for half of the school day, to attend it, and I can only hope it's gotten better in the past 30-odd years

It's probably gotten worse; Hartford was in a list, a few years ago, of the American cities with the highest poverty rates. It's the second richest metropolitan area (after San Francisco) and the second poorest urban core (after Brownsville.)

Ah, the wonders of American capitalism.

Indygo Wolf said...

I spent a lot of my life in grade school getting pushed around, kicked around, stolen from, and basically treated like dirt for liking another girl. I am happy that people try to show kids today that it's okay to love who you love and that it is not grounds to treat them like anything other than human.

Red Cardigan said...

And I spent nearly every day in 5th grade until my parents put me in a different school getting attacked on the playground by a female bully who liked to kick my legs until they were bloody, Indygo Wolf, for the crime of *not* having divorced parents as this girl did.

One problem I have with the gay rights/anti-bullying propaganda is that a lot of them don't really seem to give a damn about bullying unless it's happening to same-sex attracted kids.

Indygo Wolf said...

I am against any kind of bullying, my friend. It is an absolutely horrible thing and it needs to be stopped. Children (and some adults) need to be taught that treating anyone like dirt is wrong.

JD Parker said...

people can make all the "well how come when straights do it it's OK??" arguments they want, and they'll never get to the obvious issue -- most straight guys just find two dudes kissing to be viscerally gross. is it "fair," i don't know, but it is what it is, and it's true for guys raised in tolerant LGBTQetc-supporting households and evil oppressive Christian ones alike. it's a natural response, not a conditioned one. if people think that means we have to desensitize kids to same-sex contact from really early ages so that they don't have that response, well, good luck with that.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I don't like cats in 3-D, but as cats in 2-D go, Erin's cat looks cute. When people start casting slurs as their primary argument, I know that they are responding to an argument they cannot refute, much as they FEEL they should be able to.

Unlike Erin, I'm not particularly concerned with whether homosexuality is sinful or not. For one thing, I'm not tempted. Adultery I need to worry about. Theft I need to worry about. I have good self control, mostly, but these CAN be tempting. Whether homosexual acts are sinful, I leave between those who are tempted, and God. I think we can all agree that UNWANTED sexual attention is a crime, sinful or not.

But, there is something objectively unnatural about homosexual acts. They involve organs that evolved for one purpose, being used for another purpose. There are some risks of damage. Perhaps this is all worth it to those who feel this is what they must do, or are called to do, or feel like doing.

Still, what makes the "gay" movement so strident is the repressed knowledge that they are, and always will be, a tiny minority of the general population. Every student in the high school can be perfectly accepting and non-bullying, still, 97% of the boys are NOT available as sexual partners for the remaining 3% of their male classmates. That sort of social tension is inescapable. Deal with it.

If a student doing a senior project wants to produce a play in which two men kiss, and can recruit two male classmates to play the role, I wouldn't have a problem. I have a problem with a school administrator choosing the play and telling students to take the roles.

Oh wait, I have an idea. In Shakespeares' time, all the women's roles were played by men, because acting was not considered a feminine occupation. How about we reverse that, and have a girl play one of the male roles in the final kiss?

Red Cardigan said...

I've deleted two anonymous comments off of this thread; please don't respond to trolls, gang. :)

And anonymous person or people, if you'd like to make your argument without insulting people, go ahead. I tend to delete silly rants which just attack without arguing.

One more thing: I'm not up for policing the thread tomorrow, so if we get more anonymous attackers, I'll have to close comments on this one temporarily.

Indygo Wolf said...

I re-read the story and it seems to me that the play was chosen by the actors and was defended by administration.

There is nothing unnatural about love. I have never liked men and I gave it a valid try. I refuse to allow people who follow a silly book and people who follow the people who follow a silly book to tell me who to be and what to do.

Second thought: Think of the world reversed for a moment; Everywhere men love men and women love women. That is the norm. Now, you fall in love with a woman. You decided to move in and maybe even marry. You are told you are not allowed to. Your family is disappointed in you. You are wrong, unnatural, and a sinner. God frowns on your actions. You have groups of people who fight for your life to be devoid of those things they take for granted (hospital visits, partner-benefits, marriage, and children [adopted or otherwise]). Would you defend your love?

I know I would.

Red Cardigan said...

So, Indygo Wolf, if I loved a man who was married to someone else, I'd have the right to defend my love and take him away from his wife?

If I loved a teenaged boy, I'd have the right to defend my love and have sex with him?

If I loved a Roman Catholic priest vowed to celibacy, I'd have the right to defend my love and become his mistress?

If I loved several men, some married to others, some not, I'd have the right to defend my love for all of them even if I destroyed all of their homes and families in the process?

The essence of true love is the willingness to sacrifice for the beloved. That means walking away from situations that are immoral and wrong. The kind of "love" that doesn't accept such a principle is nothing but selfishness.

JD Parker said...

IW -- do you know for a fact that all lesbians were born that way? there's no instances of kids who could end up going either way depending on life influences?

Indygo Wolf said...

JD- I don't go either way; I love women (one woman and we happen to be engaged). The effort was for my mother (a Christian) and to confirm what I already knew from elementary school. It was a very large mistake.

RC- Yes, you do. The destruction you talk about would only be possible if the other person involved returned the feelings. The only two I find wrong would be the priest (who should not be a priest if he cannot keep his vows) and the older man and younger boy. Depending on age difference and the ages of each person involved it could be considered either good or bad. Unless it is rape; in which case the older man should be put away for a very long time. No one should ever get away with rape.

Red Cardigan said...

You do know I'm female, right, IW?

We're a world apart in morality, then. I think that vows matter, that adults shouldn't get to walk away from them so easily, and that destroying someone else's family for the sake of "love" is a cheat and a sin.

Green Sweater said...

Red Cardigan, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you made an error in deleting my post and calling me a troll (because I'm anonymous and don't have a Google Account!?) when it is your post that shows incredible lack of insight, insult, and hate. I did not "attack without arguing, and my post was not "silly." I'm going to repost under that assumption:

As a practicing Christain, straight male, and HUMAN BEING, Erin, your bigoted, hateful, and unintelligent comments disgust me.

And @SiarlysJenkins: You seem to know nothing about the show or the circumstances under which it's being produced. An independent third party comprised of a professional director and performers have assembled to do a show housed at the high school that does nothing more than tell a story, entertain, and teach people to not arbitrarily hate another group of people for simply BEING. In the incredibly intelligent, fun, and witty Zanna Don't!, a heterosexual couple comes "out of the closet" much to the chagrin of the student population as they battle being prejudiced against for nothing more than loving each other.

Green Sweater 2 said...

No one in the production (straight, gay, or otherwise) was FORCED to do anything, and even if a school were to take on the play, it's called acting. If a student is uncomfortable with the role, they shouldn't take it. It's as simple as that. If this were West Side Story would you criticize the administration for "telling students" that they have to take the role of a murderer or a sexually active teenager?

I didn't think so.

And that, Erin, is a thoughtful, tolerant, and intelligent argument.

Red Cardigan said...

Well, Green Sweater, when several anonymous commenters start showing up and slinging mud, I tend to get busy with the "smite" button. It's my blog, after all, and I thought you were going after Siarlys Jenkins a bit harshly. He's a valued commenter here, and I don't really see how you are actually responding to much of what he wrote. You seem to be rhetorically stomping your feet against the "haters" you think we are.

Now, gloves off: your comments display an unintelligent intolerant, hateful, and bigoted understanding of traditional Catholic teaching about the grave moral evil of homosexual acts. The only way my words can "disgust" you is if your Christianity is of the variety that a friend of mine calls "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism," in which Christ having died for our sins is much less important than that we all feel affirmed in our okayness. I would be surprised if you even understand traditional Christian teaching re: sexual morality, let alone that you possess the slightest ability to articulate same in a way that would give you the barest beginning grounds upon which actually to argue against it. For you, so long as the gay kids feel good about their sins, you're happy, no? It's not like Hell is real or anybody's actually going to go there for disobeying God's law.

I apologize to my regular readers--I recognize that I'm sort of using a flamethrower against marshmallows, here. But if G.S. wants to engage, let's engage.

Pete said...

Rebecca at 11:26 and Red immediately following:

You're simply incorrect here.

Maintaining that there is a class of people who are same-sex attracted but not gay is as silly as saying that some straight people are not heterosexual.

I understand the attraction of clinging to a few - very few - anecdotal stories of some gay people who believe that their God-given sexual orientation is a challege that is meant to be overcome/squelched/ignored/resisted.

But those few anecdotal stories don't reasonably lead us to conclude that there is any significant class of such people. Radical Christians for years have clung to these tales in order to understand and explain the homosexual in a way that is easy to reconcile with Church teaching. I understand that. And a few people even devote their lives to such a charade.

But it is proven to be a charade every year. Why even this month another such story was exposed, the protagonist (not surprisingly of national reknown in the pray-away-the-gay movement) finally admitting in national media that gay is gay and it wont change and it cant change.

Please consider gay people blessed to be attracted to his own gender, not afflicted. The black man is blessed to be black, the almond-shaped eyes are blessed to be so. The left-handed are blessed to be so gifted....

Indygo Wolf said...

To RC: Yes, I gathered as much from your typing style.

I recommend re-reading my comment. You are saying I do not have morals. I too believe vows should never be broken but that is a person's choice. They can choose to return the feelings of someone they are not married to and defend their love. I am not saying I approve of this.

Red Cardigan said...

Pete, the words "gay" or "straight" to describe sexual orientation are just sort of nicknames, aren't they? I mean, there's no scientific definition of either term.

I prefer to stick to "homosexual" or "heterosexual" for the most part. That way I'm not impugning someone's sexual morality.

A 12-year-old boy may be heterosexual, but do we insist we can't know for sure until he's had sex? No. But when "gay" activists talk about "gay" 12-year-olds, they usually mean more than "12-year-olds who are experiencing some gender confusion and may end up being sexually attracted to their own gender."

As for being blessed to be same-sex attracted--well, the analogy for me is: I'm blessed to be a migraine sufferer. It's hard to overcome this suffering sometimes, in a week's worth of headaches (like this week, alas). It might be easier to be immoral, to abuse narcotics or alcohol until the pain goes away, etc. But I embrace this cross which Christ has selected for me, and I recognize that compared to others my suffering is small indeed.

Someone who carries the cross of being attracted to his/her own gender may think of that cross as a blessing in the same way I think of my migraines as a blessing. As he or she embraces radical celibacy out of love for Christ and His teachings, he or she may truly grown in holiness and charity. But nobody is "blessed" by sin, and homosexual acts are the kinds of sins that lead to Hell if they are not repented.

romishgraffiti said...

it's called acting.

Actually, no it isn't. Awhile back there was a story about a married actor who wouldn't take jobs where he had to kiss women. Now, a chorus of ninnies rose to say hey, you will take these roles with violence, but not kiss women? C'mon! Well there is a difference. The violence in films is fake. Granted, certian types of simulated violence are a problem (a subject for another day), but this actor knew there was no way around it: he was be asked to kiss another woman who wasn't his wife. You can't paper over that by calling it acting. I used to be bewildered by the Harry Potter craze. Not any longer. There is this widespread belief that we can do something, utter some magic exculpatory words, and poof! We aren't really doing what it looks like we are doing. It's not torture, it's "enhanced interrogation". (OOO! Could someone tell me what the Latin would be for that? :))

Eeyore said...

Hey Red Cardigan -

Who you love is not a medical condition.

and romishgraffiti -

ACTUALLY it IS called acting. Not taking those roles was the married actor's prerogative according to his own comfort level. It's a job and an art form. The actor is in character just as much as when he's committing a "murder," yelling at someone, or walking down the street on screen.

And Harry Potter is fiction and a metaphor for acceptance, tolerance, and friendship. Things of which you clearly have no understanding.

c matt said...

A lot of people assume straight sexuality is simply 'normal', and so no one should feel bothered by it, but gay sexuality is somehow 'perverted'.

Well, from a purely statistical analysis, that is undeniably true. If 97% of the population is one way, and 3% the other, obviously the 3% fall outside the norm. Gay sexuality is perveted in the natural sense that sex is ordered toward procreation, and gay sex is not, therefore it is a perversion of the proper end of procreation, as is contracepting straights.

c matt said...

to not arbitrarily hate another group of people for simply BEING.

Wow, a bit over the top there, aren't we. Who said anything about hating anyone for simply being? Who said anything about hating anyone period? If I say you are wrong on a moral point that means I hate you? I didn't realize my approval was so crucial to the emotional wellbeing of the LBGTQRSTUV community. Geez, get a grip.

c matt said...

I think you misunderstand the comparison between an actor playing a part calling for a staged murder and an actor playing the part calling for a kiss. The acted murder is not a real murder, but the acted kiss is still a real kiss. You can't really "fake" kiss in the same sense that you can fake murder (at least, that is not what most kissing parts are asking the actors to do). It's like a part that calls for you to cry on cue - you are still doing the activity of dispensing fluid from the tear ducts. It's still your fluid and your ducts. In the staged murder, you are not thrusting a real knife into the real chest causing real rupture of internal organs. In other words, the murder can be faked in ways the kiss or crying cannot (am I really having to explain this?).

JD Parker said...

IW -- i wasn't asking about you personally, you made your own situation clear. i was more wondering if you personally knew any people like that, genuinely curious. people've written about a "hasbian" phenomenon that as far as i know doesn't really have a parallel among male homosexuals -- that is, ex-lesbians who weren't influenced in that direction by Christian ex-gay ministries.

Pete said...

Erin: your analogy fails. The left-handed analogy is much closer and yet still is imperfect, since it is difficult to come up with an analogy for that part of being human that drives us to be romantically, sexually and lovingly drawn to another person. 

But comparing sexual orientation to a physical malady like a migraine diagnosis is unsupported by all reputable authorities in this field and unworthy of serious reply. 


Sexual behavior is ordered towards procreation??? What can that possibly mean other than nonprocreative sex acts are somehow wrong.  I guess you would similarly hold that masturbation is a perversion. Good grief. I guess then that - similarly- eating is ordered towards  fueling the body - and nothing else? Or do u have different rules for other core human behaviors? So, every potato chip and every cup of coffee I've ever enjoyed was similarly disordered? sinful? Look, people are not fish in the ocean that eat only as much as they need and only what fuels the fish's body.  Same for sex  The human being is much more complex than your words imply. 

JD Parker said...

i'd just add, i think it's a relevant question since people're encouraging kids to come out as gay at earlier ages, before they've had any experiences.

JD Parker said...

you guys like to get real creative with the analogies huh

Indygo Wolf said...

JD Parker- Ah okay! Yes I do know someone like that who, for some time, claimed to be lesbian. Sadly, this person was my girlfriend at the time and proceeded to cheat on me with a man.

I believe the hasbian thing comes from the fact that (and this is sad but true) for a long span of time being gay or bisexual was an "it' thing in some schools. Suddenly every girl was kissing girls and it was considered cool.

Also, from what I have seen, women are more likely to give a same-sex relationship a chance even if it doesn't work out.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Cute story line Indygo Wolf (are you related to Aloysius?) but in a world where the norm was for men to love men, and women to love women, there would be no long-term cultural bias. The whole show would be over within a generation or two. (Generation? What generation?) You have inadvertently demonstrated why heterosexuality was, is, and always will be the norm for the human species. Homosexuality is an outlier, an anomaly. That doesn't mean we have to reject, beat up, spit on, or ostracize the outliers among us. There seem to be all kinds of outliers in every generation. But I suspect the shrill tone of much of the "gay" movement lies in frustration at the fact that the feature they choose to wrap their identity around IS an anomaly and will NEVER be "the norm."

I find both JD's question and IW's answer plausible. I see no reason to doubt that some individuals find that from the moment they are aware of sexual emotions, their focus is entirely on their own sex. I see no reason to doubt that some individuals are influenced by experiences and social context toward a sexual orientation they might otherwise have never trifled with. Some might even decide they don't feel right, and "go back" to heterosexuality. Others obviously do not. IW is of course the world's leading and sole expert on her own feelings.

Green sweater: All my comments respond to what I read here. I have no other direct knowledge about the school. It appears that you are saying an OUTSIDE acting company was invited by the administration to "educate" the students; no student or faculty, willing or mandated, had anything to do with it. That is indeed a different kettle of horses. One might question whether the play was really education, or was elevating an arguable opinion to the level of mandatory principle. I don't have a strong feeling about that, I just recognize that it is a legitimate question.

All things considered, I don't support the strategy of opposing assault, battery, and rudeness toward fellow students by elevating a controversial preference to a level of universal acclaim. As an adult, I have had no problem hugging a friend who I knew was dying of AIDS. He knew I wasn't his type, and I knew you can't get AIDS from a hug. But as an uncertain teen-ager, I might want a cafeteria table between me and a male seeking a male partner, while otherwise carrying on a perfectly normal conversation.

Footnote: "All reputable authorities in this field" is a convenient myth, whether the speaker is Michelle Bachmann's husband or someone from ACT-UP. There is no recognized consensus, only some cutting edge speculation, colored by a desire to prove a point one way or the other.

Indygo Wolf said...

Siarlys Jenkins: Who is Aloysius? I know it is an impossibility for homosexuality to be the norm (as humans would die out quickly unless it became standard to produce by artificial means) but my point was to get across how it feels to be constantly told you do not get the same rights as the rest of the world. It is a very unpleasant feeling.

Yes, some people do choose to go back to whatever sexuality they first had, be it homo, hetero, or any of the others. Some never stray from their first feelings. There are a lot of factors involved in what people do. It is not a simple "Oh I am *insert something here* today!" thing. As you stated, only the person making the decision is the expert on their feelings.

I agree that is is getting out of hand when it comes down to stopping bullying (and hate crimes). If you are going to help one group of people, help them all.

[Side note to those I have been talking to: I am enjoying these conversations. I am not here to offend, defend, proclaim, persuade and what-have-you. I am here simply to chat.]

Pete said...

Sorry, SJ: there is a huge body of experts that stand in between Michelle Bachmann's husband on the one hand and ACT-UP activists on the other. We call them scientists.

Science is not a myth.

eulogos said...

Science is not a myth; it is a method for finding out certain kinds of truths.

It has nothing to say about what is right and what is wrong, as this is not the sort of question it addresses.

It could address the question of the origin of sexual orientation, if that were genetic or based on the chemical environment of the unborn. So far as I know, it hasn't found out very much along these lines.

Questions of origin in family interactions, and questions of the mutability or non-mutability of orientation would fall into psychology or sociology, which are not really science in the same way that chemistry and physics are. The sorts of studies and statistical analysis done in these disciplines are highly subject to bias in the design of the studies, the selection of subjects, and the interpretation of the results.

In my opinion "science" has really said very little on these subjects.
Susan Peterson

Pete said...

Well Susan you are wrong. The scientists, the psychologists, the sociologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and social workers have all spoken on thus. They dont call homosexuality an affliction.

eulogos said...

Pete, Is it really news to you that Catholics believe that masturbation is a misuse of the sexual faculty and seriously sinful?

Catholics believe that the sexual act is reserved for marriage, in fact it is called the "marital act" in discussion of Catholic moral theology. Catholics also believe that every marital act must be open to the transmission of life. That doesn't mean that married Catholics may only have sex when they intend to have a child, and they may choose to engage in the marital act only when they believe it is likely to be unfruitful, but they cannot block whatever procreative potential a particular marital act may have, by physical barriers or spermicidal chemicals. They may not render themselves infertile temporarily (by pills, shots or implants),or permanently, by sterilization. And even though they may at times choose to have intercourse only when they believe they are not fertile, they cannot marry planning to do this for their entire marriage. A couple who "marry" with the intention never to have children, are not considered to be married by the Church.

For Catholics, the unitive and procreative aspects of sex are both important and cannot be separated. Marriage is about establishing a family, in which the same love which engendered the children will provide them with a loving and secure home. Not only sex, but romantic love, is oriented towards this end. And romantic love is not an end in itself but is meant to lead to self sacrificial love, in which the husband and wife learn to die to self in the service of each other and their family.

Catholicism is so serious about the union between unitive marital love and procreation, that it also forbids every kind of bringing about of children outside of that situation. Artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, and the use of "surrogates" to gestate babies for someone else, are all forbidden.

Within this framework it is obvious that a manipulation of the sexual organs to produce release and gratification, without either union or procreation being involved, is a misuse of our sexuality. It should also be obvious that acts between two people of the same gender, which can never be procreative, are not moral. They aren't really even sex! In these acts, the sexual organs are turned away from their proper purpose, which is the root meaning of "perverse". The feelings involved are turned away from their proper use as well, since those feelings are meant to unite a man and a woman to form a family.

I do not appreciate it that public schools would be trying to teach students as young as 14 that perverse behavior is normal and acceptable. When I was 14 I barely knew such things existed, and that only because my parents were Unitarians and the subject had come up there, necessitating explanations. Many of my fellow ninth graders had no clue such things even existed. School certainly wasn't going to tell us, either. In fact, although of course there was romance in high school plays, no kissing on stage would ever have been tolerated. It wasn't tolerated in the halls of the school either; no "public display of affection" was the rule. It was disobeyed, of course, surreptitiously, but it was understood as the norm.

Those were much safer and healthier times!

Susan Peterson

Pete said...

Susan, Of course it is not news to me. Is it news to you that some other religions believe that ANY feeling of sexual gratification by a woman is a misuse of the sexual faculty and seriously sinful?

Sometimes the human experience flies in the face of traditional religious and culture beliefs, teachings and practices.

Indygo Wolf said...

To Susan: You have just taught me quite a bit I did not know and I thank you. I understand their point of view about procreation and what not but and that seems like a very OLD way of thinking from back when the population was small. (I am not saying children are a bad thing I am saying there is no need to have everyone reproducing anymore.)

You are not the first person I have heard to say that it was better when zero PDA was allowed in schools. As times have changed however, hugs and kisses have become standard and unstoppable. Most of it is innocent.

What I think needs to happen is mandatory sex-ed classes at the middle school level that teach children the facts about sex without protection and STDs. That would help stop the early pregnancies and what not making schools safer and healthier.

eulogos said...

Which religion believes that sexual pleasure in women is in itself wrong? And please make sure you have more than a vague impression that this is what a certain religion teaches, before you say so. In any case, I think my religion is the true one, not that one, whichever it is.

Now about your statement that "scientists, psychologists..etc" don't call homosexuality an affliction, can't you see that that is not a statement that science has anything to say about? Science could say something like (this is all made up) "82% of men and 61% of women who self designated as homosexual or gay were found to have X gene pattern." or "Medical histories taken of 1000 gay men in X city found that 68% of them reported that their mothers "took X medication during pregnancy," or "had high blood sugar during pregnancy", or any kind of objective chemical distinctive of prenatal environment. A sociological study of the families of origins of homosexual men and women could conclude either that some common factor was found in those families or that no common factor was found.

But science qua science just cannot determine whether something is "an affliction" or not. Scientists, psychologists, and all the rest, may have opinions on the subject, but they are not scientific opinions, one way or the other.
Susan Peterson

Siarlys Jenkins said...

"Well Susan you are wrong. The scientists, the psychologists, the sociologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and social workers have all spoken on thus. They dont call homosexuality an affliction."

Very smug, but not in the least scientific. As Eulogos says, science is a method for finding out the truth. Actually, as my father, a retired chemistry professor emphasizes, science can never prove something true. It can present a very high probability that something is true, because it explains consistent data repeatedly.

So, IF it were true that NO scientist gave the slightest credibility to the notion that homosexuality is an affliction, that still would not be proof that it IS NOT. It would be proof that no scientist now living has found evidence that it is. Of course those scientists now living MIGHT be influenced by cultural preferences... scientists often are. Pete is appointing himself the Pope of Science, and pronouncing what he wants everyone to accept to be scientific fact.

The other weakness in Pete's politicization of science is, he refers to "THE scientists, THE psychologists..." etc. In no field of science is there unanimity on much of anything. On the existence of zinc, yes, hemoglobin carries oxygen around the body, yes, although something new could turn up about that. The most you can state with integrity would be along the lines of "in the last twenty years, 93% of research papers published in umpteen journals have offered strong support for the understanding that..."

But, we weren't talking about whether homosexuality is an "affliction." At least I wasn't. We were, as far as I saw, discussing whether it is in some manner distinct from a well-established norm, statistically and biologically. I don't see even the beginnings of a plausible set of facts which contradict that it is.

That said, there is no reason to jump all over an INDIVIDUAL who happened to come out of the biological lottery with that anomaly. There are many ways to handle it. Some who have this preference truly accept that to ACT on it is a sin. So they don't. Others reject the notion that it is a sin, and try to develop a happy, fulfilling, even monogamous life for themselves, exercising their preference. I'm really not bothered by either one.

IW has it about right. When people decry sex education, they forget that before we all lived in nice sterile urban homes where everyone has their own room, most children got their sex education watching pigs, cattle, ducks, chickens and horses mating, and sometimes peered through the floorboards of the upstairs rooms at what mommy and daddy were doing downstairs. (Leon Uris dealt with this rather well in Trinity.

Sex education should also frankly acknowledge that there is, in every generation of humans, a tendency for a small percentage of men and women to prefer their own sex. Since the dawn of time, some cultures have honored this, some have suppressed it, some have treated it as a power trip. In our country, where we try to allow each individual to build their own life, it is no reason to be rude to your fellow students. It is also not rude to your fellow students to say "Sorry, I'm not your type." Many religions teach that acting on homosexual emotions is a sin. Given that we have freedom of religion in this country, you can choose to believe that, or not, to be obedient to the obvious conclusions in your own behavior, or not, to join a church that teaches this, or not. There are also churches which openly welcome and celebrate homosexual unions.

eulogos said...

Pete-"the human experience"-what exactly does that mean? It seems that you mean that you are using "what feels right to me" as the determinant for what is right or wrong for human beings. You are making yourself the measure of moral truth. Religious people believe that God who made us loves us, knows what is best for us, and has the right to command us, because He is God.

Sometimes our "human experience" immediately confirms that God was and is, right, and sometimes it takes a whole lifetime to learn that.

Susan Peterson

eulogos said...

Indygo Wolf,

You really seem like a nice person. I think I would like you if I met you.

But I have to quarrel with you when you say,

"What I think needs to happen is mandatory sex-ed classes at the middle school level that teach children the facts about sex without protection and STDs. That would help stop the early pregnancies and what not making schools safer and healthier."

This has not been proved to be the case. Either sex education has not reduced early pregnancies, abortions, and STD's, or it has actually increased it. Why is that? One reason is that in the first place, it is not ignorance of the possibility of pregnancy or disease which causes teens to take risks. It is the nature of teens to take risks and to believe themselves invulnerable. A second reason is that talking to teens and preteens (middle school goes down to fourth grade in most places!) as if it is to be expected that they will be sexually active, gives them the idea that this is normal and expected behavior, even if lip service is paid to waiting until you are mature enough etc etc. A third reason is that the use of contraception makes people feel safe to have sex so they have more sex, and contraception sometimes fails, especially when used inconsistently and inexpertly by young teans, and more pregnancies result than if teens tried to be abstinent out of fear of pregnancy and some failed, as was the case in my day. A certain reserve around the subject of sex teaches without having to say anything, that this is something of mystery and power, not something to be played with.

Which is the most important lesson young people could learn, because there are a lot more important consequences of young teens having sex and of any people having uncommitted transient sexual relationships, than STD's and unplanned pregnancies. (Which is a relatively good consequence if it leads to a baby, which is always in itself a good thing, even in the worst of circumstances. I mean, having a baby then might not be the best thing, but the baby itself, being a human being whom God loves and has a plan for, is an intrinsic good. )
to be continued

eulogos said...

No, the worst consequences of sex between people who are not committed to each other and mature enough to make such a committment and carry through on it, is what this does to people's hearts and souls. The ability to bond through sexual love gets worn down. The ability to invest a physical sexual act with love and self giving and deep meaning is weakened, injured, sometimes destroyed. This is the most important truth people, including young people, need to learn about sex, and I don't think public schools are really able to teach this. Families teach it best, and parents teach it best to children as young as middle school by their love and respectful behavior towards each other. School would probably teach it best through great works of literature, I think; those that show happy families, and in the later years of high school, those that show, for instance, the destruction which comes with adultery, for instance. (for the bright students, Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, for instance.) Early middle school children would be better off reading stories of healthy family life such as the "Little House" series, showing how Laura's parents pulled together through difficult times.

The problem even with teaching "Family Life Education" through literature in public schools is that we the citizens do not agree about what is to be taught. Parents do have the right not to have their children taught beliefs and values contrary to what they want to teach them. Since parent in the community have radically different beliefs and values, I think public school should stay out of deliberately trying to address these issues at all. They should pick literature for its literary value, while considering the developmental stage of the children and teens.
They should teach biology as biology They should NOT try to teach kids what to do or not to do about sex. They certainly should not be pushing contraception. And believe me, not doing so will not increase pregnancies and STDs, because there has never been a young person of normal intelligence who could not find out these things for him or herself if the information was anywhere available. And today, this information is pretty much everywhere available.

Susan Peterson

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Eulogos, I am not an expert on this subject, but I recently saw a written assertion that since a comprehensive sex education program was introduced in Milwaukee public schools, which taught both methods of contraception AND abstinence, the teen pregnancy rate was cut in half.

Kids talk about this stuff. I heard about it from boys in seventh grade BEFORE we had any sex education. My little brother told me kids in his 5th grade class had told him about "a disease you can catch by sitting too long on the bus." He couldn't remember the name at first... turned out it was gonnorhea. Not being sure what his mother had told him, I explained carefully that you can't get it from sitting too long on the bus, if you get too close to too many women (he's seen some steamy fully clothed embraces on street corners) you are running a risk, and if you wait until you marry, then stay with the same woman, there is no way you can ever catch this disease.

But I doubt very much that sex education is CAUSING children to consider it normal to experiment. Peers and their own hormones (which for some reason are entering the bloodstream at a younger age) take care of that.

Indygo Wolf said...


Why, thank you!

I'm always up for a friendly disagreement.

You have a valid point. Mayhaps combining the emotional damage consequences of sex would be better. The subject of birth control and condoms should be taught as well along with the information that these are not foolproof. It should be taught, not as reproduction or just this thing people do, but as a true act of love. Not something to be handle lightly. Leaving sex a mystery could be another reason kids today want to try it early.

I do not think children should be taught something against the parent's values (I just turned down a 17 year old friend of mine when she asked me to be her teacher) but at some point kids must learn.

I know some families out there that do not even mention sex under their roofs. As was stated though, kids do talk about it. It should be something they learn the facts about and not rumors.

An age limit would be wise though. Seventh grade seems right to me.

Pete said...

Read. Her. Condescending. Inaccurate Posting.

I maintian: no reputable scientific, sociological, psychiatric, pediatric, psychological, psychoanalytical, or psychotherapy body would professionally refer to gay people as "people afflicted with same-sex desires."

Smug? Please.

Pete said...

SP: By the human experience, I mean our understanding of our lives, our bodies, our selves. For example, for thousands of years, and until only last century, "Female Hysteria" was a common medical diagnosis, - painfully treated. It is no longer recognized by modern medical authorities as a medical disorder. You know, like homosexuality. Do you think God wants us to return to those days, those musunderstandings, those treatments? Yeah, me neither.

Red Cardigan said...

You know, Pete, even if a person disagrees with my standpoint, think about what being attracted to one's own gender means:

1. It means you can never reproduce *with your sexual partner* but only outside the relationship;
2. It means that your dating pool is limited to one half of the roughly 4% of human beings who also like to have sex with people of their own gender;
3. It means a shorter lifespan (look it up--that's a statement based on scientific data) and significant illnesses related to the sexual behavior, especially in men;
4. It means that you and those like you will never be in the majority and can't, despite all efforts to the contrary, restructure society to stifle and suppress heteronormativity;
5. It means that the vast majority of the worlds' people will, based on their deeply held religious views, deeply held cultural or social values, or some combination, see you as at best a regrettable anomaly and at worst as a threat (I'm speaking mainly of non-Western cultures, here);
6. It means that most of your sexual partners will not value monogamy and will expect you to put up with their sexual cheating...

...and that's just for starters.

I think that "afflicted with same-sex attraction" is not an impossible view even from a totally secular viewpoint.

Pete said...

Red, it's offensive, no matter how you slice it.

And I'm very sure that you mean to be offensive in most of your posts about gay people. And to use your words, that is evil behavior.

But I have faith that God will turn your heart.

Pete said...

And please know that your satements in 1-6 actually cause suicide in children. I'd hate to overhear your confession.

And for any teens reading, I hope they watch a few "It Gets Better" videos and know that:

1 is interesting.
2 is interesting only in that it explains the predominance of gay people in cities.
3 is an old lie.
4 is paranoid and a little funny.
5 is probably true of Roman Catholics as well.
6 is untrue. You should see the old lesbians next door to me.

Indygo Wolf said...

Really RC..


1. There are straight couples that cannot reproduce with their partners. (Adopting is always an option and love it not always about makin' babies.)

2.There are a lot more people out there than you think. Sadly, a lot of them hide away out of fear.

3.I just looked it up. Seems every site shouting about increase risk of illness and shorter lifespan is also run by some sort of religion (the first four on my search being Catholic.) AIDS and what not is just as common between heterosexual couples.

4.No one is trying to change a norm, we are just trying to get basic rights. I could care less what you think is a norm, I just want to marry my fiancee. I should have just as much right to legally proclaim my love as you do.

5.Some people just do not care about other peoples religious views and most will never travel where it is unsafe.

6.Not one of the gay/lesbian/bi people I have ever spoken to approve of cheating. It is not tolerated. Ever.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

You get an A for passion Pete, but as far as rational thought, you've abandoned the field. (Walks off mumbling curses at everybody).

IW, I voted against my state's "Defense of Marriage" amendment. It passed anyway, but did not turn out the massive Republican electoral result that was the real motivation for the sponsors. I wouldn't really lift a finger to advance or stop a legislative act to recognize same-sex partnerships as a marriage, or as something similar.

I'm not sure it is a "right" though. You already have the right to make your own choices, in the privacy of your own home, with a consenting adult. You can get your partnership blessed at any Metropolitan Baptist Church, many UCC churches, some Lutheran churches, or without benefit of clergy.

But issuing a marriage license is formal recognition by the entire community that X status, partnership, whatever, is something we all want to recognize and honor. What if its not? I don't buy the notion that same-sex partnerships are "the same thing."

Equal rights accrue to individuals, not to demographic groups. You can marry. You don't want to. You have a different partnership. You want that recognized too. Well, maybe it will be -- it was in New York. Maybe it won't. If it isn't, you can still live your life -- you just lack the blessing of a consensus of your fellow citizens for this particular aspect of your life. Maybe most people just want to ignore it. So what?

Charlotte said...

This is why I don't go here (gay topics) on my blog anymore. It's been a long time; it's only ocassionally I touch on something that really gets my ire up.

It's definitely worth it (in the long run) discussing the gay stuff, since it's making sure the Truth gets out there. But in the short run, it's exhausting, because the gay cabal will wear you out with their politically-correct arguments, and then turn to the "you're filled with hate/you're a bigot/you have no soul" arguments. So God Bless you if you can stand it. I fought the fight on my blog for a long, long time, and then had to quit in order to find peace.

And the fact that one used to be in the lifestyle (like moi) never adds any credibility (i.e. I know all their bogus arguments). Rather, it's made me a "bitter, confused" person, since of course, one same-sex orgasm automatically places a person into the gay camp... and if you resist, well then, you're denying your true self. Heavy sigh. It's all or nothing with them.

It's a losing battle. Sorry to sound so negative. Worse -if you persist in covering these topics - then they get all their friends and post on blogs so that you get creamed with trollish comments.

Anonymous said...

Cracking up = the word verification on this one is "retch"

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I think it is worth the effort Charlotte, but then, I'm prepared to offend almost everyone with strong feelings on the subject.

At face value, I accepted when the "gay liberation" movement surfaced that, yeah, there is no good reason to insult people who have homosexual preferences, or harrass them, certainly no reason to arrest them.

Then I began to find the demanding noises a bit shrill. You know, I have no obligation to love, accept, approve, only to leave people alone AND, in the myriad of ways we don't differ from each other at all (enjoying national parks, shopping for food, riding the bus, etc.) not even thinking about "are you gay?" But the really shrill voices are saying "I want to rub your face in the fact that I'm gay and expect you to give me a big hug and a kiss for it." Ain't happening.

I thought it was great that in New York, the highest appeals court turned down the contrived constitutional argument that states MUST license same sex couples, but the legislature voted to do exactly that. If enough people really care about it, they will vote in legislators who will repeal the law. If not, and I suspect not, the law will stand.

However, I know, as many of the most shrill voices on both sides apparently do not, that the legislature of New York has zero jurisdiction over what a church recognizes or hosts. Even if the legislature had not been at some pains to make exceptions for religious freedom, any church would have won the legal case hands down. There are some whining narcissists complaining about that. Too bad.

Live and let live I say. And get out of my face.

Tony said...

Pete @4:15 said:

Sexual behavior is ordered towards procreation??? What can that possibly mean other than nonprocreative sex acts are somehow wrong.

There you go, you're touching around the edges of actual Catholic teaching with regards to the design and proper use of our bodies.

Procreation is a necessary component of the sex act. Intentional disruption of the procreative aspect, renders the act disordered and sinful (this does not apply to those sterile through no fault of their own).

I guess you would similarly hold that masturbation is a perversion.

Yup, you are starting to get it, aren't you! Yes, masturbation is disordered and sinful.

Good grief. I guess then that - similarly- eating is ordered towards fueling the body - and nothing else? Or do u have different rules for other core human behaviors? So, every potato chip and every cup of coffee I've ever enjoyed was similarly disordered? sinful? Look, people are not fish in the ocean that eat only as much as they need and only what fuels the fish's body. Same for sex The human being is much more complex than your words imply.

Wow!!! You are delving into Catholic teaching and hitting the nail directly in the head. You'll be able to teach this stuff soon.

Eating which does not supply nutrients to the body is disordered. Those who enjoy the tastes and sensations of eating and then throw up are using eating in a disordered way. This, I believe, is covered under the sin of gluttony.

So those who engage in non-procreative sex, are comperable to those who are bulimic.

Would you simply ignore someone who was bulimic because all eating is cool, and it doesn't matter what they do afterward? Or would you try and help them to understand that they had an eating disorder and try and help them?

So why do you have a problem with those who try and explain to someone that they have a sexual disorder be they homosexual or contracepting heterosexual?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Tony is logical and consistent. One can disagree only be questioning the truth of his premises.

Indygo Wolf said...

I'll argue with Tony. What happens when a man or woman who is with a partner of the opposite sex cannot have children but they still have sex?

Is this a sin?

What if the couple in question is Catholic?

Indygo Wolf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Indygo Wolf said...


I think the hate/bigot/no soul argument thing is annoying too.

The only problem I have with the religious is that they are clueless to the pain they put some people through. They take away the dreams of that very special and important day of the wedding just because they do not agree with someone's personal preference.

If the same happened to them, there would be the world's largest protest.


If you are straight you are straight and if you are gay you are gay. There are people who have tried both and went with the one most comfortable. The only person who can put you in a "camp" is yourself.

(PS: only idiots troll people.)

Tony said...

Indygo Wolf said...

What happens when a man or woman who is with a partner of the opposite sex cannot have children but they still have sex?

Asked and answered above, counselor

I said...

(this does not apply to those sterile through no fault of their own)

I'll expand. The reason that this is not sinful is they are not blocking the procreative aspect of their marital relations. They are using sex for both the unitive and procreative aspects (though without the direct intervention of almighty God odds are they won't get pregnant.)

Just like someone with a disease that interferes with the absorption of nutrients from their food, are not using food in a disordered way when eating.

Indygo Wolf said...

Ah, okay. I must have skipped that line.

Now, here is another question; what if a couple who is capable of having children naturally or artificially would rather not? Are they misusing sex now?

This applies to both straight and gay couples.

These couple is perfectly capable of love. Love is different from making babies. And yet, one type of couple is allowed to marry (in the legal sense) and the other is not.

I think if a male/female couple that does not want to have children but can should not be allowed to marry. Why? Because they are wrong in that they are marrying without intent of having children. Therefore they are sinning.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I believe Catholic churches, at least some of the time, will refuse to marry a couple if the priest knows that the intend not to have children. On the other hand, as Red has pointed out in some detail, the church does not object to natural family planning. I'm not sure why this is not sinful, if God wants married couples to procreate as often as possible -- but NFP does mean foregoing sexual pleasures during times most likely to produce pregnancy. That doesn't really answer the question, is it a sin to try not to have children, but at least the sin is atoned for immediately by the loss of pleasure?

I think this is all mislocated, because affection between male and female have greater spiritual significance than solely making babies. One possibility is that it reunites the two halves of the image of God. (Genesis is quite clear that the act of creation of man was "male and female created he him"). That doesn't offer Biblical solace for same sex couples, but perhaps if that is the way their biology plays out, God has a purpose for their affections as a manifestation of "love one another as I have loved you." Or maybe not. That's between them and God. I have no idea what makes a man attractive.