Home

TheSinner.net

Gay AND Catholic?

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:34 pm

I've noticed that there is a surprising absence of a debate on The Sinner on the topic of extending civil marriage to same-sex couples.

For a different perspective on the matter, Milo Yiannopoulos, a freelance journalist and writer for the Catholic Herald has appeared on 10 O'Clock Live and Newsnight in recent nights to present the view of a gay Catholic man who strives to live by Church teaching.

10 O'Clock Live (The gay marriage debate is at the beginning of the last third of the programme):
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/10-oclock-live/4od#3297480

Yiannopoulos' write-up:
http://yiannopoulos.net/2012/03/08/gay-marriage-screw-you-david-cameron

Newsnight:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dk3ss/Newsnight_15_03_2012/

Yiannopoulos' write-up:
http://yiannopoulos.net/2012/03/16/the-lingering-stench-of-gay-marriage

The Government has given assurances that churches and other religious groups will not be forced to marry same-sex couples. Those assurances now appear to be worthless after a recent statement from the ECHR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9157029/Gay-marriage-is-not-a-human-right-according-to-European-ruling.html
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby Haunted on Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:05 pm

As far as I am concerned, a church is club for members and what consenting adults do behind closed doors is no business of mine. Ergo, if they don't want to marry people they don't like then that's up to them. Course, it'd only be fair that they start paying taxes as well in that case.

Until they are no longer subsidised by the state and the taxpayer, they can't complain about being told what laws to obey by the state. Naturally they could apply for charitable status and have to jump through all the hoops that every other charity has to rather than just getting it automatically.
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby Senethro on Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:21 pm

Ok, I was going to write a post but now I'm not going to bother. That Milo guy is just awful and his nature is revealed best in his own words in his articles. That hes got a remotely public platform is just sad. Whats the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom?

Some scribbled notes during the 10oclock live interview trying to pick up on his points or just plain weird things to say:

we don't know the consequences therefore we shouldn't do it

not a debate about equal rights, its cynical posturing by cameron
patronizing
political posturing to people who won't vote for him, so bad idea

"something inside me tells me its wrong to be gay"

wrote a really quite vitriolic sentence difficult to reproduce accurately about how awful visibly gay people on the streets of soho are. boy george picks up on the self loathing suggested

he says (paraphrased): growing up gay is difficult, therefore we shouldn't put social acceptance on it.
No indication of why we should not socially endorse gayness. The assumption seems to be that any supposed deterrent effect from hardship is in fact desirable, rather than to be alleviated

"moral relativism, moral fashions", lots of tiresome reminders that the Catholic church is very old in an attempt to give it some kind of authority and that the present progressive trends are transient fuck is aquinas coming up next
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:11 am

Senethro wrote:That hes got a remotely public platform is just sad.

Why? Is it that no dissent from the line that homosexuality is normal and harmless should be tolerated?

Senethro wrote:Whats the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom?

I think that is a pretty crass comparison.

Senethro wrote:we don't know the consequences therefore we shouldn't do it

Polygamy perhaps? There have been recent human rights cases brought in Canada where marriage has been extended to same-sex couples:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/30/heterosexuality-canada-law-monogamy-polygamy

Senethro wrote:not a debate about equal rights, its cynical posturing by cameron patronizingpolitical posturing to people who won't vote for him, so bad idea

I agree with his analysis of David Cameron, but I agree with you that it isn't a robust criticism of extending marriage to same-sex couples. I do not believe that it is limiting human rights to deny same-sex couples marriage. The current definition of marriage has criteria for those who wish to be married, such as consanguinity or complementary gender.

Marriage serves a particular function in society, viz., the bringing forth of the next generation in the best environment possible. It serves the long-term interests of society to protect and uphold an institution that will maintain the needs of society, i.e., the next generation of workers to support the dependent demographic cohorts above and below them. I do not see how extending marriage to same-sex couples is going to serve those interests.

I've written before that I'd be in favour of a legal mechanism along the lines of the French pacte civil de solidarité which gives tax, inheritance and property rights to same-sex couples. It notably does not include rights to adoption or assisted reproduction since these would deny the rights of children to a mother and father or one of their biological parents in the latter case.

Senethro wrote:"something inside me tells me its wrong to be gay"

This could be construed as self-loathing. I do not have a window into his psyche. It isn't a great phrasing, but I suppose on a comedy show it doesn't allow for a detailed discussion of morality. From the Catholic perspective, it is about actions rather than feelings. Although the feelings themselves are not directed to a morally good outlet for human sexuality. However neither is fornication or contraception, so it must be put into a wider context.

Senethro wrote:wrote a really quite vitriolic sentence difficult to reproduce accurately about how awful visibly gay people on the streets of soho are. boy george picks up on the self loathing suggested

It was a pretty bizarre comment and that's his problem I suppose. It doesn't bother me.

Senethro wrote:he says (paraphrased): growing up gay is difficult, therefore we shouldn't put social acceptance on it.
No indication of why we should not socially endorse gayness. The assumption seems to be that any supposed deterrent effect from hardship is in fact desirable, rather than to be alleviated

I actually agree with Boy George more than Yiannopoulos here. The latter is reinforcing a sense of victimhood which isn't healthy pscyhologically. There is some argument that talking about victimisation in schools encourages the bullies more.

I didn't detect what you inferred from his comments regarding that homophobic bullying is desirable. Perhaps he was suggesting that children have an innate sense of the otherness of homosexuality, which follows on from his 'something inside me tells me its wrong to be gay' quotation.

Senethro wrote:"moral relativism, moral fashions", lots of tiresome reminders that the Catholic church is very old in an attempt to give it some kind of authority and that the present progressive trends are transient fuck is aquinas coming up next

It depends on whether you think objective and universal truths exist I suppose.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:22 pm

I have never been able to properly understand in the first place why gays should be so committed to achieving such a status in the first place. Tho Ican understand why a committed member of any Church should feel that they would want to play a part and participate in what that community does.

But I can understand it from the point of view that, outside of the Church, a legal system plays its baleful part in deciding on the status of people. And in the case of gay partnerships which are NOT recognised in law, it means that neither partner is entitled to rights of inheritance or of thiose associated with pensions or insurance claims. Which means that a partner would/is not recognised as a "spouse" in the event of a partner's death or retirement. That too me is totally out of sync with the kind of society I want to live in. If two people, regardless of "sexual orientation" decide and commit to a loving caring relationship that includes a desire to ensure the future well-being and security of the other, then why, in anybody's name let alone God, should the law dictate otherwise? Yup - pretty much what anyone else does in the "privacy" of their own homes is pretty much up to them. But for the law to intervene regardless and dictate who is legitmately entitled to the results of an individual's planning and efforts over the years is a ridiculous intrusion on how they want to live.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby The Cellar Bar on Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:38 pm

Mind you - it goes back yet again - to the regressive and utterly wrong interpretation of what the Bible actually says about "sodomy" and "fornication" and all the rest of it. An informed reading of it all shows that in the first place "fornication" refers to the "act" of heading for the sleazier parts of town back then where the pros hung out. Under the arches. Fornication consisted of meeting and dealing underneath the arches. And that is what is deemed as wrong. There is no moral judgement made of the various activities cited - including sexual relations between two men or two women or woman with another male (regardless of age) or of man with another man (regardless of age). What is condemned is the practice of "climbing over the wall". Of going outside of marriage, once committed to it, in search of those things. Adultery essentially, by EITHER man or woman in a marriage is what is highlighted as being wrong. Not the practices that one might participate in, or one's sexual "orientation", before an individual commits to a relationship with another, single individual It's why it's called "adultery" AKA the process of introducing an element from outside that essentially destroys the "purity" of the original. In any area - not just "marriage". That Jewish society recognised and apparently accepted as fact the existence of homosexuality of any kind. It was only when that Jewish religion was first destroyed by "gentiles" and for some reason corrupted into a mysoginistic cult obsessed with "sex" that any sort of vituperation was levelled at those who failed to be heterosexual. Mind you, given that same Western "Christianity" had a lot of explaining to do as to how their "founder" was the illegitmate child of an unmarried teenager than you can probably understand their angst.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:34 pm

macgamer wrote:I've noticed that there is a surprising absence of a debate on The Sinner on the topic of extending civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Why in the hell should we have that discussion? Your position is well known and it will remain unchanged until the Holy See changes their view. What is left to talk about?

It is a debate over a word; marriage rather than civil-partnership. Denying that one word to gay people is in the realm of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, who haven't evolved at the same pace as the rest of society.

Marriage/civil-partnerships are (partly) about commitment and (mostly) about legality. The production of children doesn't require such a state, regardless of which word you use. Single people fuck each other too; contraception or gender be damned.

What shall we debate next? Whether or not women should have the vote or whether or not slavery is a bad thing?
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:33 am

RedCelt69 wrote:Why in the hell should we have that discussion? Your position is well known and it will remain unchanged until the Holy See changes their view. What is left to talk about?

You and others on The Sinner may be interested to know that I, like Milo Yiannopoulos, am one of those 'gay' Catholics. Although I do not adopt the 'gay' or 'homosexual' identities. It is only very recently that I've made sense of what same-sex attraction means to me and so have become more open about. So there's something else to talk about right there. This revelation from me probably explains a few things now...

Is Senethro going to call me an 'gay Uncle Tom'?

RedCelt69 wrote:It is a debate over a word; marriage rather than civil-partnership. Denying that one word to gay people is in the realm of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, who haven't evolved at the same pace as the rest of society.

Indeed it is a word, and I would have thought as some from the left you would understand the importance of that. Much of the Marxist and left-wing philosophies more generally have been very interested in the power of words and what can be achieved by changing their definitions.


RedCelt69 wrote:Marriage/civil-partnerships are (partly) about commitment and (mostly) about legality. The production of children doesn't require such a state, regardless of which word you use. Single people fuck each other too; contraception or gender be damned.

Not that I was in favour of civil partnerships, because of the extension of adoption rights to same-sex couples, but same-sex couples have a legal mechanism that expresses commitment and gives them all the same legals rights as marriage. So what is in a name? Marriage conveys, or used to, the coming together of a man and a woman for the creation of a family - children are a necessary component of that.

To be honest, in Britain the nails in marriage's coffin were driven in 50 or perhaps 80 years ago when contraception within marriage was permitted by the Church of England and then became more practical with the Pill in 1960s. Non-fault divorce further undermined the institution.

Rates of marriage are declining among heterosexuals, divorce is stubbornly high and the proportion of children born outside of marriage is increasing. The nation still has a sense of what marriage is, but in practice appears to have little faith in it.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby Senethro on Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:00 pm

well fuck dude how we supposed to respond to that revelation

its pretty much the worst thing when a guy is told that his nature is abomination by a sinister authoriatarion institution and bleives it and defends it

i'm really getting my sad on here its so awful

howefver have a big cup of fuck you for this paragraph "To be honest, in Britain the nails in marriage's coffin were driven in 50 or perhaps 80 years ago when contraception within marriage was permitted by the Church of England and then became more practical with the Pill in 1960s. Non-fault divorce further undermined the institution. "

edit: you're getting no more coherent response out of me tonight and maybe not atall because suddenly now its actually real and person al and a tragedy and im creeped out for it
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:41 pm

Senethro wrote:well fuck dude how we supposed to respond to that revelation

With a bit more compassion and kindness than was expressed with the following comment:

Senethro wrote:its pretty much the worst thing when a guy is told that his nature is abomination by a sinister authoriatarion institution and bleives it and defends it

When you and others write ignorant things like this it mostly runs off, but there is still a bit a pain. Insulting my faith and the Church with such egregious lies as this is a bit like you insulting my mother. It is malacious and reflects badly on you to be honest.

Senethro wrote:i'm really getting my sad on here its so awful

Ah, so there is some compassion? Well I'll take it.

Senethro wrote:edit: you're getting no more coherent response out of me tonight and maybe not atall because suddenly now its actually real and person al and a tragedy and im creeped out for it

Well I'm glad that my disclosure has allowed you to see that it isn't all easy and simple for me choosing and trying to live as a faithful Catholic as you made out in the past. Perhaps my exposing a certain vulnerability, perhaps the most vulnerable aspect of myself, has shown you my humanity.

Let's not exaggerate my position or encourage me to wallow in unhealthy self-pity. Difficult it might be, but it's hardly a 'tragedy'. Human sexuality is a powerful and fairly important aspect of our nature, but it isn't the primary thing. There is more to a person than their sexuality and you don't need me to point that out to you.

I would like to address this quote from you again:
Senethro wrote:its pretty much the worst thing when a guy is told that his nature is abomination by a sinister authoriatarion institution and bleives it and defends it

Goodness! Where do I begin?! Firstly, let me assure you I do not consider myself or others with same-sex attraction or hold gay identity abominations. Much is made of the use Church's use of the term 'disordered' when discussing homosexuality. It is a philosophical term and the nuance of it is not appreciated by many people. The Church could express its teaching on this area with better language -- an understatement.

It would be best to understand 'disordered attractions' as the seeking of the expression of human sexuality against the natural function of sexual faculties. C.S. Lewis expressed sinfulness or more especially concupiscence like this,

C.S. Lewis, Mere Chrisitianity, p. 42 wrote:But pleasure, money, power and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. I do not mean, of course, that the people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way.


Last year was the most difficult of my life hitherto. It was when I could no longer pretend to myself that I did not have same-sex attraction. I fell into a awful depression and came very close to suicide. In that darkness of despair I gave up hoping in God's mercy largely, although I still attended Mass. The neuroticism was not from my Catholicism which taught me God loves all His creatures inspite of everything. No, the self-loathing came from the bullying I received at school and from my parents' views on homosexuality -- my parents would disown me if they knew.

Luckily, I had some very good friends who helped me get through my depression. My relationship with God has been restored and I have felt His love for me again. I would go so far as saying it was a religious experience. It was a numinous sense that God exists and feels compassion for the suffering I went through. It was an immensely healing experience.

Senethro, I hope that if a friend were to 'come out' to you in the future you would show him or her some compassion and love. Believe me, I know the loneliness, self-loathing and fear. I and others like me, Catholic or not, do not want pity, just some friends or family (alas not in my case) to offer some consolation -- that someone will be there in the difficult times.

Senethro wrote:i'm really getting my sad on here its so awful

I ask you, if you knew me and I had revealed this to you in person. What would you have said or done?

Please don't be sad because I'm not, not anymore at least. Perhaps you would have shown a bit of love with a hug?

I forgive you.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:30 pm

macgamer wrote:I, like Milo Yiannopoulos, am one of those 'gay' Catholics. […] So there's something else to talk about right there.

All there is to talk about is that you have a personality-trait bestowed upon you at birth (that came into fruition as you developed as a human being). Your long-standing (or long-announced) anti-homosexual stance remains just as bad as it did before. That you, yourself, are gay makes it a tragedy (for you as a person) that you hold (or held) those views.

macgamer wrote:I fell into a awful depression and came very close to suicide.

And that's the tragedy right there. Imagine a world where Emperor Constantine didn't adopt Christianity… where Christianity was just another fringe religion that existed in secluded pockets of the Middle East and was no more pervasive in the UK as Zoroastrianism. Imagine a world where the UK either upheld pagan beliefs, or had long ago abandoned them and was even more secular than we know it. Imagine a world like that, where you would feel no more depressed about being gay as you would about having blue eyes.

That is why I (and many like me) detest Catholicism (and Christianity in general)… because of the near-two-millenia of anti-female and anti-gay bullshit that has left people like you feeling so awful about something so natural. And yet you maintain the falsehoods that leave you feeling the way you do… so don't go getting all uppity about people lacking sympathy. The stable door is wide open, if you'd only have the courage to step outside of it.

macgamer wrote:Indeed it is a word, and I would have thought as some from the left you would understand the importance of that.

Why oh why do you insist on pigeon-holing people and their viewpoints? I am far to the left, but a considerable country-mile away from Marxism. Words are labels which aid communication (both spoken and neural), but they're a shortcut. Step outside of that and look at the bigger picture. Marriage and civil-partnerships are legal distinctions. The planet (and the wider universe) doesn't give a flying toss; and neither should you.

macgamer wrote:Marriage conveys, or used to, the coming together of a man and a woman for the creation of a family - children are a necessary component of that.

This discussion has been done-to-death on here already (and you took part in it) so why repeat the falsehood? If a heterosexual couple marry with no intention of having children, they aren't any less married than those that do. The same has to be true of a gay couple who want to commit to each other for life. Denying them the right to call it marriage is an act of discrimination.

macgamer wrote:To be honest, in Britain the nails in marriage's coffin were driven in 50 or perhaps 80 years ago when contraception within marriage was permitted by the Church of England and then became more practical with the Pill in 1960s. Non-fault divorce further undermined the institution.

I'm not sure how to parse those sentences. The Pill was one of the greatest steps towards gender equality since the Suffragettes. If you're somehow claiming that it undermined the concept of marriage, the only easy conclusion is that you think that women with children find it more difficult to escape unhappy marriages. In no way can I see that sentiment as something approximating praiseworthy.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:09 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:All there is to talk about is that you have a personality-trait bestowed upon you at birth (that came into fruition as you developed as a human being). Your long-standing (or long-announced) anti-homosexual stance remains just as bad as it did before. That you, yourself, are gay makes it a tragedy (for you as a person) that you hold (or held) those views.

If I was 'born this way', as further popularised by Lady Gaga, that would indeed be a tragedy because my potential downfall would have be 'pre-ordained' by the gods or my genes -- but I have not fallen down yet, or is that hubris right there? Would it be pathetic? Perhaps, in the sense that it involves suffering that was not 'pre-ordained', instead just chance.

Firstly, there is no evidence of a 'gay gene'. I might give some credence to several genes interacting with environmental factors to affect the incidence or development of SSA. If it were genes alone, then one could say that it would be a genetic 'defect' with all the horrid things that entails. From what I have read and analysing my own development, how a child interacts with his or her same-sex peers during puberty can affect the development of their sexuality.

For me, it was insecurity in my masculinity which was the focus of bullying I received. I was not affirmed in my masculinity by my father or my male peers. This made me feel different and there was a subconscious feeling of inadequacy and jealousy. This is separate to 'cultural' views on homosexuality. My emotional seeking of male attachment, is really me attempting to achieve that affirmation of my masculinity I lacked or never received. 'Reparative drive' is the term used by some psychologists.

You may be interested to know I've heard more homophobic comments from so-called liberals, people who hold themselves in high regard for their liberal values, than I ever heard from fellow Catholics.

RedCelt69 wrote:And that's the tragedy right there.

You are misusing the word tragedy. Pathetic perhaps, tragic no. I did not, thank God and thanks to friends, commit suicide.

RedCelt69 wrote:Imagine a world where Emperor Constantine didn't adopt Christianity… where Christianity was just another fringe religion that existed in secluded pockets of the Middle East and was no more pervasive in the UK as Zoroastrianism. Imagine a world where the UK either upheld pagan beliefs, or had long ago abandoned them and was even more secular than we know it. Imagine a world like that, where you would feel no more depressed about being gay as you would about having blue eyes.

Spare me the John Lennon bunkum philosophy. Examine any culture in the world hitherto very recently and you'll find very few that actually endorced the kind of homosexuality we see today. Take, for example, the homosexuality advocated in ancient Greece. It was more of the English public school boy sort, something that was proper to a period in a man or boy's life. Those that continued to practise homosexuality later into adulthood were shunned.

RedCelt69 wrote:That is why I (and many like me) detest Catholicism (and Christianity in general)… because of the near-two-millenia of anti-female and anti-gay bullshit that has left people like you feeling so awful about something so natural. And yet you maintain the falsehoods that leave you feeling the way you do… so don't go getting all uppity about people lacking sympathy. The stable door is wide open, if you'd only have the courage to step outside of it.

Anti-female really? Have you heard of Maria Gaetana Agnesi? She was the first woman to hold chair of mathematics. Who appointed her? Yes, that's right, Pope Benedict XIV in 1750:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Agnesi

Homosexual is a very new term. Prior to the 19th century, there was not the same concept of the gay identity we have today. Yes, the acts were condemned, but homosocial friendships were not frowned upon. I read Don Quixote recently. The number of instances of really close male friendships in this the first true novel from ~1605 is surprising. A modern reader is initially taken aback, thinking this is a closeness only that seen in homosexual relationships today.

Perhaps you should consider that the Soviet Union, that great atheist state, that advocate of reason and crusher of obscurantism, was against Mendelian Genetics and the Big Bang Theory (Georges Lemaitre) because clerics had proposed these theories. Neither was its treatment of homosexuals much better than the Nazis.

RedCelt69 wrote:This discussion has been done-to-death on here already (and you took part in it) so why repeat the falsehood? If a heterosexual couple marry with no intention of having children, they aren't any less married than those that do. The same has to be true of a gay couple who want to commit to each other for life. Denying them the right to call it marriage is an act of discrimination.

In a certain sense they have not consumated their marriage by not having children. Their marriage is the less for it because that is the purpose of marriage. Indeed, homosexuals couples can never consumate a marriage. However the state can redefine the legal definition of marriage if it wants to. It could issue a decree saying that red was blue and vice-versa if it wanted to. As follows with the next quote, defending the definition of marriage is battle that was lost a long time ago. I'm arguing against it because it does lead to anything beneficial for society. Homosexual couples already have all the legal protection which civil marriage affords.

RedCelt69 wrote:I'm not sure how to parse those sentences. The Pill was one of the greatest steps towards gender equality since the Suffragettes. If you're somehow claiming that it undermined the concept of marriage, the only easy conclusion is that you think that women with children find it more difficult to escape unhappy marriages. In no way can I see that sentiment as something approximating praiseworthy.

If by gender equality you mean facilitating men's sexual exploitation of women then yes. Women are now almost expected to have a career at the sacrifice of having a family. Any improvements in access to affordable childcare will help in this vein. However, that puts a heavy burden on the state or small business. You cannot change the biological fact that women are the sex which bears the children. I'm not saying women should not have the freedom to choose a career, but it seems societal pressure can gone so far one way that women who choose to prioritise a family are looked down upon.

As for no-fault divorce, it like, abortion, was brought in for the 'hard cases'. None of the proponents envisaged the rates of divorce or abortion we see today. Just ask David Lord Steel.

Given the state of marriage today, I wonder why a gay couple would want it.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:48 pm

macgamer wrote:Firstly, there is no evidence of a 'gay gene'.

Since when did you care about evidence? There is no evidence of a "god", either.

macgamer wrote:I might give some credence to several genes interacting with environmental factors to affect the incidence or development of SSA. If it were genes alone, then one could say that it would be a genetic 'defect' with all the horrid things that entails. From what I have read and analysing my own development, how a child interacts with his or her same-sex peers during puberty can affect the development of their sexuality.

It might be genetics, it might be what your mother consumes while pregnant, or it might be aspects of early life. Birth traits can extend beyond genetics. Whatever the cause(s) it certainly isn't a choice… as you can (at least) repeat to fellow homophobes.

macgamer wrote:You may be interested to know I've heard more homophobic comments from so-called liberals, people who hold themselves in high regard for their liberal values, than I ever heard from fellow Catholics.

I'm not even remotely interested to know that. A liberal is perfectly at liberty to dislike gay people… so long as they don't invoke or promote discrimination against them. This is covered very neatly by the premise that your liberty extends up until the point that it prevents others from exercising their liberty. A liberal won't prevent you from adopting children. Your Catholic brethren can't say the same.

macgamer wrote:Spare me the John Lennon bunkum philosophy.

This response very nearly made me limit my reply to the sentence "Go fuck yourself." If the biblical Jesus had actually existed, you'd have hated his philosophy. You certainly don't live by it.

macgamer wrote:Examine any culture in the world hitherto very recently and you'll find very few that actually endorced the kind of homosexuality we see today. Take, for example, the homosexuality advocated in ancient Greece. It was more of the English public school boy sort, something that was proper to a period in a man or boy's life. Those that continued to practise homosexuality later into adulthood were shunned.

The University of St Andrews offers excellent tutelage in ancient history. Your "school boy sort" of misunderstanding about Ancient Greece tells me that you didn't encounter it. Go do some studying, read some books, watch some documentaries… whatever level of education you are willing to inflict upon yourself. Your starting point could be ‪Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece‬ or just ‪Sacred Band of Thebes‬.

Regardless of what did (or did not) happen in Ancient Greece (and how much olive oil it required)… let's offer an alternative reason to see blame in your church. Are you familiar with Chinese Water Torture? Near-two-millenia's worth of the drip-drip-drip...

...Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin, Abomination, Sin…

…across every generation. Your bible. Your gospel. Your mantra.

I have no idea how liberal the pre-Christian pagans were when it came to homosexuality, but the biggest homophobes amongst them would have been hard-pressed to find a natural reason to condemn it… when nature has few shortages when it comes to males fucking other males. Have you ever had a dog? (I love the British double entendre). It was the first animal domesticated by man… and they really do follow the maxim "any hole's a goal".

I've lost the will to type any more because history tells me that you will ignore every single word I've written anyway. FWD this to the pope and I'll reply to him myself. If I convince him, I'll be sure to tell him to pass it on to you, so you can change your mind, too.

But, oh… one last point…

macgamer wrote:Anti-female really? Have you heard of Maria Gaetana Agnesi? She was the first woman to hold chair of mathematics. Who appointed her? Yes, that's right, Pope Benedict XIV in 1750

I'll accept your Ms Agnesi…

…and raise you with… every single fucking example (across near-two-millenia) of women being shat-upon from a very great height from the Eve-blaming patriarchical cunt-knuckles that made your church what it is.


Please be sure that you don't forget to include that last sentence when you forward it to Pope Benedict.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby wild_quinine on Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:49 am

macgamer wrote:Last year was the most difficult of my life hitherto. It was when I could no longer pretend to myself that I did not have same-sex attraction. I fell into a awful depression and came very close to suicide.


But that's a mortal sin, too. And it's worse, because you don't get a chance to say sorry: your doctrine, not mine. Yet for some reason you put that ahead of sex on your to-do list. Of course, depression does strange things to the mind. I know that. But it still seems like you could have reprioritised.

So, you have a lot of issues to work through. That's not unusual. It's going to take you a long time to make headway, but I recommend that you start. You come awfully close to admitting that being gay isn't the reason why. I'd start from there.

No, the self-loathing came from the bullying I received at school and from my parents' views on homosexuality -- my parents would disown me if they knew.


You know, the fourth commandment can be followed from a safe distance.

I'm not surprised that you're torn over, well, everything. I'm more surprised that you continue to try to find the good in things.

I recognise that's what you're doing when you twist yourself through logical loops that even my hyperactive irony-GPS gets lost in. I recognise that you consistently try to be fair minded and even handed, even through the cloud of everything you believe. But I think that you're doing a lot of wrong in the world by trying to do right, because your anchor is *wildly* off the mark.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Chrisitianity, p. 42 wrote:But pleasure, money, power and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. I do not mean, of course, that the people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean that wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way.


You brought this up. Think on it. The things you continually justify - and the way that you justify them - are genuinely harmful, and not only to yourself.

I recognise that you can't change scripture to suit your life choices, but of Faith, Hope, and Love, Faith was not the most important. Sometimes you have to think outside the box, and you continue to fail yourself here.

What I think about homosexuality and Christianity, is that it doesn't matter if it is wrong. Period. It's small fry, and I think Christians should see it as small fry.

There is more scriptural difference between different Christian sects than there is between Christians who believe gay sex is wrong, and those who believe it is not.

And, still, Christians tend to believe Christians of other denominations are still Christians, and still saved (despite the fact that their doctrines can differ significantly on sin...)

So why expend so much energy on a much smaller matter?

Protestants and Catholics have different bibles for crying out loud, and we're concerned about four or five ambigious and unemphasised lines between them?

Mac, have you ever considered leaving the Catholic Church, for some other denomination of Christianity?

Because, really, the pope is just a man.

Without his interference you could find someone, settle down, pick the curtains, all that jazz.

Are you really going to give up a chance at happiness for the unwavering love of a man? It seems so... out of character.

RedCelt69 wrote:I'll accept your Ms Agnesi…

…and raise you with… every single fucking example (across near-two-millenia) of women being shat-upon from a very great height from the Eve-blaming patriarchical cunt-knuckles that made your church what it is..


I love how people always think that *their* worldview will finally sort things out after millenia. Humanism FTW!

No, I'm sorry, but *people* always fuck things up. If that's not the obvious lesson of organised religion, then you're using God as a scapegoat.

The only place religious perspectives stretch credibility in the belief that we all fall short of some set of values, is in the notion that we ever fell from anything better.

Humanism is not going to significantly change the way we fuck things up. I've met enough lousy Humanists to know that. Ignoring for a moment that half the people on this board are not welcome in that particular club, it more and more seems to be a clique run by the most dangerous people in the world: people who are sure they're right, and that everyone else is stupid.

Good one on the sexism, though. Reminds me of the time you savaged one of the female posters on this board for not completely agreeing with you on every aspect of feminist theory. Dumb bitch.
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:04 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:I've lost the will to type any more because history tells me that you will ignore every single word I've written anyway.

The feeling is mutual I can assure you. However, there are a few items I have the energy to address:

RedCelt69 wrote:This response very nearly made me limit my reply to the sentence "Go fuck yourself."

I thought it was quite witty. Oh, and don't tempt me. :P

RedCelt69 wrote:If the biblical Jesus had actually existed, you'd have hated his philosophy. You certainly don't live by it.

You do not know Jesus and you do not know me. It won't be me than will convince you, but God's grace. It is God that does the converting of those who are genuinely receptive to Him.

RedCelt69 wrote:Abomination, Sin...

Your words, not mine. No human being is an abomination.

RedCelt69 wrote:Nature has few shortages when it comes to males fucking other males. Have you ever had a dog? (I love the British double entendre). It was the first animal domesticated by man… and they really do follow the maxim "any hole's a goal".

Thanks for likening homosexuals and me to animals. Call yourself a humanist, some optimism in mankind you have.

I don't understand why you are such an angry man. Your world view is the establishment opinion now, everything is going swimmingly for your moral philosophy. I would expect less reactionary anger and more triumphalism with a greater sense of vindication on your part. Unless you doubt the great fruits of your philosophy?

Know this, I don't hate you. I would hope that if you had a conversation with me in person you'd be a bit more measured in your language than you have been here.

I hope somewhere inside of you that you are happy. It would be pretty awful if you went around angry and embittered all the time.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:07 pm

I'm keeping my replies to your "points" brief. I'll explain why in a mo.
wild_quinine wrote:I love how people always think that *their* worldview will finally sort things out after millenia. Humanism FTW!

I'm pretty sure that I mentioned the word "paganism" not "humanism". The pre-Christians would (I have little doubt) have failed as humans can fail, in one way or another. But it wouldn't have been a matter of dogma, following the word of a holy tract. No "gay people are an abomination"; an abomination against who? The female existence wouldn't have been borne from sin... when some of their gods were female.

wild_quinine wrote:Humanism is not going to significantly change the way we fuck things up. I've met enough lousy Humanists to know that.

I've already said that I wasn't pushing my own worldview, but it's worth highlighting your use of an Argument by Personal Experience. Yeesh!

wild_quinine wrote:Ignoring for a moment that half the people on this board are not welcome in that particular club, it more and more seems to be a clique run by the most dangerous people in the world: people who are sure they're right, and that everyone else is stupid.

Half the people... what? Sure they're right (that applies to everyone with an opinion, else they wouldn't hold that opinion in the first place... unless you're trying to apply a higher degree of certainty to one position than to others, in which case you're building a strawman) everyone else is stupid (really? just... really? Are you trying to prove that point by personal example?)

wild_quinine wrote:Good one on the sexism, though. Reminds me of the time you savaged one of the female posters on this board for not completely agreeing with you on every aspect of feminist theory. Dumb bitch.

And this is why I've been (relatively) brief. I'm left with a few possible conclusions as to why you posted this comment (along with your previous strange misinterpretations of what I posted):-

1) You woke up with a blinder of a hangover or are (for some other reason) not functioning at full capacity.
2) You are a lot less intelligent than you think you are (and I hoped you were)
3) You're actually being a troll

It's one of those three. None of which are sufficient leverage to explain (yet again) why feminism isn't about egalitarianism. Go read that thread again if the concept still baffles you. Unless you're being a troll. In which case, go fuck yourself.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby Hennessy on Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:24 pm

There is absolutely nothing wrong with same-sex attraction that a person may choose not to explore during their life. Indeed, briefly glancing at friends and colleagues in the Tory party I'd suspect it would be (even more) rife with buggery if it so chose to be. Oddly though I suspect these individuals have chosen to overcome the human fascination with where the penis goes and have dedicated themselves to a life with wider horizons (or more limited ones if you're not a Tory :D)

A self-denying ordinance set upon one's deepest, secret desires is an extremely potent thing, and a very brave thing as well, and I for one congratulate Macgamer on having wrestled with it so long before committing to a life without. In Western and Eastern philosophies the ascetic qualities of this decision would once have drawn high regard. One door has closed, Macgamer, but others will open for you.

Personally I think as long as the gay community continues to celebrate its much-hyped "otherness"* to us breeders it won't ever integrate. Until it integrates marriage should be off-limits. Simple as that.

*Sodomy and cross-dressing really isn't that interesting anyway - why the fascination?
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby RedCelt69 on Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:29 pm

macgamer wrote:You do not know Jesus and you do not know me.

I know him as well as you do. Given that there's only one source.

macgamer wrote:Your words, not mine. No human being is an abomination.

Uhm... not my words. The acts are an abomination according to the bible. I didn't say anything about the humans performing the acts being an abomination.

macgamer wrote:Thanks for likening homosexuals and me to animals. Call yourself a humanist, some optimism in mankind you have.

Humans are animals. Humanism isn't about optimism. Again, I'll recommend self-education.

macgamer wrote:I don't understand why you are such an angry man. Your world view is the establishment opinion now, everything is going swimmingly for your moral philosophy.

You are oblivious to my moral philosophy; if you think that the world reflects it so heartily.

macgamer wrote:Know this, I don't hate you. I would hope that if you had a conversation with me in person you'd be a bit more measured in your language than you have been here.

Know this, I'm exactly the same in-person as I am online (it is a matter of principle); I treat people how they treat me (and others around them), from a default position of neutrality. Decent people are treated with the utmost decency by me. I'm friendly, sociable and work just fine both online and offline. Unless someone is a dick. Then they get treated like a dick. Until they stop acting like a dick.

e.g. If you were to renege on your position wrt to condom-use in 3rd World countries, I'd be a *whole* lot less dickish to you. But that would involve you disagreeing with the pope.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:05 pm

wild_quinine wrote:But that's a mortal sin, too. And it's worse, because you don't get a chance to say sorry: your doctrine, not mine. Yet for some reason you put that ahead of sex on your to-do list. Of course, depression does strange things to the mind. I know that.

Firstly, thanks for being a bit more civil and fair-mined with me than the last two...

I don't want to have to explain my thought processes during my depression in too much detail because thinking on that brings tears to my eyes. For someone who has not be severely depressed or suicidal you'd think, 'Suicide, that's a clear-cut mortal sin if there every was!' Depression indeed does strange and horrible things to the mind. The worst part is when you are no longer repulsed by the idea of suicide and it seems reasonable. The true rational part of your mind is screaming inside begging yourself to snap out of it or for someone to stop you. Mercifully, I never got that far.

How free was I or is anyone in that situation? Mortal sin requires full freedom of action, I'm not sure whether a suicide victim had that. For me, I remind myself that God is infinite in goodness and mercy. Moral philosophy can appear pretty cold and legalistic.

wild_quinine wrote:But it still seems like you could have reprioritised.

Changing one's 'priorities' is not as easy as that especially if one is depressed.

wild_quinine wrote:So, you have a lot of issues to work through. That's not unusual. It's going to take you a long time to make headway, but I recommend that you start. You come awfully close to admitting that being gay isn't the reason why. I'd start from there.

As I said to RedCelt69 above, you don't know me. I say it to you, not with anger just as a factual statement. If you did know me you'd be able to see how much progress I made in a relatively short space of time. You may be interested to know that the friends that helped me through the depression were Catholics and non-Catholics.

My Catholicism isn't the reason why, but my denial of SSA attraction was. The internal defence processes which prevented from truly accepting the existence of my SSA were from my parents and my childhood / adolescence. That has been swept away now you'll be glad to hear.

wild_quinine wrote:You know, the fourth commandment can be followed from a safe distance.

Indeed, it is honour not obey in everything and have to live one's life in the shadow of one's parents.

wild_quinine wrote:I'm not surprised that you're torn over, well, everything. I'm more surprised that you continue to try to find the good in things.

I used to be, not any more. If I can't see and find the good in things, where would I find hope and enjoyment in life? When I lost that temporarily I fell into a depression. The virtues of Faith, Hope and Love, as you rightly point out are ones which I always ask God for the grace to increase in me. I always try to see the good in all people, things and events.

wild_quinine wrote:I recognise that's what you're doing when you twist yourself through logical loops that even my hyperactive irony-GPS gets lost in. I recognise that you consistently try to be fair minded and even handed, even through the cloud of everything you believe. But I think that you're doing a lot of wrong in the world by trying to do right, because your anchor is *wildly* off the mark.

That makes me a little sad that you think I'm doing wrong or harm in the world.

wild_quinine wrote:You brought this up. Think on it. The things you continually justify - and the way that you justify them - are genuinely harmful, and not only to yourself.

I recognise that you can't change scripture to suit your life choices, but of Faith, Hope, and Love, Faith was not the most important. Sometimes you have to think outside the box, and you continue to fail yourself here.

That quotation from C.S. Lewis had a great impact on me. It is a good way of seeing how God's mercy works. You see, because I have a particularly rigid conscience more is expected of me. It does mean I can be hard on myself, but I'm more lenient on others because I always assume I'm worse than them. Do not take this that I hate myself. I fail in many ways, but that only shows me that I am reliant on God's grace and mercy. It was St Paul said that he was proud of his weaknesses because it meant he was reliant on Christ for strength.

wild_quinine wrote:What I think about homosexuality and Christianity, is that it doesn't matter if it is wrong. Period. It's small fry, and I think Christians should see it as small fry.

There is more scriptural difference between different Christian sects than there is between Christians who believe gay sex is wrong, and those who believe it is not.

And, still, Christians tend to believe Christians of other denominations are still Christians, and still saved (despite the fact that their doctrines can differ significantly on sin...)

So why expend so much energy on a much smaller matter?

Protestants and Catholics have different bibles for crying out loud, and we're concerned about four or five ambigious and unemphasised lines between them?

In some ways it is small fry, but you do not love or care for someone by withholding the truth or lying to them. You'll note that I don't reference the bible much when it comes to homosexuality. I find natural law philosophy convincing, which is appeals to my scientific background. Although I know it isn't convincing many people here :P

wild_quinine wrote:Mac, have you ever considered leaving the Catholic Church, for some other denomination of Christianity?

Because, really, the pope is just a man.

Not for a moment have I thought about joining another denomination. Jesus', 'You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church' is pretty convincing to me. No, if I wasn't Catholic I'd be an atheist / agnostic. It's either true or complete nonsense. It's also about humility and faith in the Church. My Catholicism is my identity, you cannot understand or know me properly unless you have some understanding of Catholicism.

wild_quinine wrote:Without his interference you could find someone, settle down, pick the curtains, all that jazz.
Are you really going to give up a chance at happiness for the unwavering love of a man? It seems so... out of character.

Wild_quinine, I am human and so this has crossed my mind. It's an intrinsic human need to love and be loved. I don't need to have sex to have access to that. However, I realise that acting on the sexual impulses won't do me any good. I spoke about the sense of insecurity in masculinity and it is clear to me that having a physical relationship with a man will make that worse, much, much worse. Do I have to have sex to be fully human?

I do have a friend, who is 'straight', for whom I have strong feelings and I've discussed it with him. He was good about it. We have a close friendship that is mutually supportive, seeking the good of the other without selfishly seeking benefit for oneself. It is not 'love' in today's sense, but a chaste love that can be found between close friends. It makes me very happy and brings me joy.

Yes, I feel lonely sometimes, but, hey, doesn't everyone? I'm not alone, I've good friends who care for me and for whom I can show my care and affection.

Thanks for showing concern! I'm happy to answer any other questions.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Gay AND Catholic?

Postby macgamer on Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:17 pm

Hennessy wrote:A self-denying ordinance set upon one's deepest, secret desires is an extremely potent thing, and a very brave thing as well, and I for one congratulate Macgamer on having wrestled with it so long before committing to a life without. In Western and Eastern philosophies the ascetic qualities of this decision would once have drawn high regard. One door has closed, Macgamer, but others will open for you.

Thank-you, that was really touching.

Hennessy wrote:Personally I think as long as the gay community continues to celebrate its much-hyped "otherness"* to us breeders it won't ever integrate. Until it integrates marriage should be off-limits. Simple as that.

*Sodomy and cross-dressing really isn't that interesting anyway - why the fascination?

The otherness of the 'gay community' is rather off-putting. Your point about integrating or lack of it is a pertinent one. It seems very reactionary, defining themselves but what they are not. However, that may just be a vocal or visible minority of homosexuals. When I told my friends they were fairly surprised.

I would not be welcome by that 'gay community' because I'm they would see me as a embodiment of a criticism of the way they live their lives. You saw how Milo Yiannopoulos was treated on Newsnight, initially with incredulity and then resentment.

Being a Catholic with SSA can be immensely isolating. Liberals hate me and some Catholics may get the wrong impression.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Next

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

cron