The Strange Notion of “Gay Celibacy”

Of late, much attention has been given in both the secular media and Christian media to those who call themselves “gay celibate Christians.” As a man attracted to men yet committed to traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality, I find the notion both of being “gay” or “celibate” strange. Indeed, in the context of what the virtue of chastity is all about, neither of them make sense.

The gift of the virtues can be summed up by Christ’s words: be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. “The Christian man,” Gaudium et Spes tells us, is “conformed to the likeness of that Son Who is the firstborn of many brothers.” Christ “fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear” and is “Himself the perfect man.” His life is man’s paradigm and the virtues are the template for how Christ, the perfect man, lived.

The commandments are not arbitrary “does and don’ts.” Rather, they are the way man would naturally live—if man knew who he truly was. Those who have virtue will spontaneously live in accord with the commandments. They are not perceived as impositions that deny us pleasure, but as safeguards against harming ourselves and others. Such was the case with Christ.

Despite what most people might think, the virtue of chastity, like all other virtues, isn’t so much concerned with what we do or don’t do. Rather, chastity is the virtue that helps us see things truly and objectively—things as they really are—within the realm of sexuality. This clarity of vision is necessary for true human freedom and human flourishing. It is chastity that gives us the freedom to order our sexual appetites and therefore make decisions that correspond with reality. Christ lived as a chaste man, not because he followed every dot and tittle of the law (which of course he did), but rather, because he lived in accordance with the truth of what it means to be a man, made in the image and likeness of God. Like Christ, a man who truly knows who he is will naturally lead a life of chastity.

When it comes to homosexuality, then, the reason I mustn’t have a relationship with a male isn’t based on an arbitrary whim of God. Rather, it is immoral because it is irrational for human beings to live in such a way, based on the sort of creature that human beings are.

Put more simply, the reason it is immoral for me to live out a life according to my subjective desires and inclinations is precisely because I am not, in fact, a gay man.

Nor is any man.

I have written often before of the reasons I eschew the word gay to describe myself, and why I think it is a mistake for anyone to claim that label. The core question is one of anthropology: who is man, and is man the sort of creature who can rightly be described as “being gay?” (I argue here, here and here why I think this is a mistake. Eve Tushnet and I talked about the topic on the Al Kresta Show.)

The core reason I reject the term “gay” however, is out of humility to my creator. In the second reading from last Sunday’s Mass, we heard St. Paul’s words, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?”

“You are not your own” is fundamental to this question. This calls to mind words of Pope Benedict XVI speaking to the German Bundestag in 2006, when he said:

Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.

Why would I call myself a gay man, then, simply because I find men sexually attractive? This is in opposition to the way God made me and the nature he gave me. Regardless of what my feelings might tell me, my body reveals to me the truth that I am not gay, but rather a male made for a female. The Catechism is clear about our sexual identity: “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”

Accepting myself as I truly am requires that I reject a belief that I have a sexual identity other than being a man made for women. Recognizing this truth of who I am, as a sexual creature, is fundamental to the virtue of chastity. When it comes to homosexuality, however, many seem to believe that sexual continence is the earmark of chastity. But this is not so. Rather, continence, in any single person’s life, is a necessary sign of chastity, but it does not express the fullness or breadth of the beauty of the virtue. Chastity is far more than what we do or don’t do with our sexual organs. The Catechism tells us that “chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.”

We live in an age where the unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being is seen as outdated and obsolete. “Gender is between your ears, not between your legs,” Chastity Bono, daughter of Sonny and Cher, famously said on Good Morning America after beginning the process of sex-reassignment surgery.

The notion that gender and sexuality reside in the mind, or can be chosen at will, is opposed to human flourishing and the true nature of man. The Church wisely gives us the antidote to this view through the virtue of chastity. The Church speaks not of gender, but rather of the two sexes with two corresponding sexual identities. What points us to our true sexual identity is the beautiful differentiation of the body. It is for this reason that I am grateful for the wise words written by then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986, when he said that “today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

This truth about my sexual identity is the reason I also refuse to call myself celibate. Though I am living a single life, I am no different than all of my other single friends who have yet to be married. They do not speak of themselves as celibate, nor should I. They and I are single. Nor am I a part of a “sexual minority,” as some would say of a man like me. I am a male, just as Adam was, just as Christ was, just like all of my other male friends. As the 1986 Letter On The Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person wisely tells me, “every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well.” One of my challenges is that I suffer from the privation of the good of seeing women as sexually desirable—but that fact doesn’t make me a different sort of man than all of the other men in the world around me. The virtue of chastity teaches me this truth.

Thus, I find the phrase “gay celibate” a rejection of the very nature of who God made man in the Garden of Eden. I will never say of myself that I am a gay man, for I know that I must humbly “accept and acknowledge” the sexual nature that God gave me: I am a man, made for woman. I do not speak of myself as celibate since I have not taken a vow never to marry, which is what a celibate person does. While I find it very unlikely that I will ever marry, both my nature as a male and my humility to God’s direction in my life must leave me open to the possibility that God may direct my steps towards union with a woman in marriage. For me to call myself a “gay celibate” seems an act of rebellion against how God made me to be. By calling myself gay, I reject my true sexual identity, and the sort of emotional, physical and psychological creature God made me; To call myself “celibate” when I haven’t taken vows of celibacy seems a willful rejection of the potential will of God in my life that he may desire to bring to me a woman with whom I might realize my sexual complementarity. It would be hubris to close the door to the possibility that God is calling me to marriage, because of choosing to identify as “a gay man,” which therefore requires me to live a life of celibacy. This makes no sense.

The notion of “gay celibacy” is an idea stemming from an impoverished and confused view of what chastity is all about. Chastity isn’t the same thing as sexual continence, nor is it marked by celibacy. It is about living in accordance with the truth of things, and how God made us as sexual creatures. It is about lives lived with the right relationship with reality, where we view our sexuality through the “inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.” My body is a more reliable compass than my feelings are, and it always points to my true sexual identity. As my dad wisely told me when I was a child, “feelings are important, but they don’t always tell us the truth.”

Above all else, chastity is about the real nature of things. I don’t get to choose a sexual identity. Sexual identities aren’t the sorts of things that can be chosen, for we are not our own. We have sexual identities, given to us by God. We can accept the truth, and live our lives based on reality. We may reject the truth, but if we do, how can we ever live fully chaste lives?

Editor’s note: The image above is a detail from “Adam and Eve” painted by Jan Mabuse Gossaert in 1520.

Daniel Mattson

By

Daniel Mattson lives in the midwest, where he has a career in the arts. He is featured in the Courage Apostolate's documentary Desire of the Everlasting Hills and is often invited to share his testimony to clergy, schools and parishes. He blogs at LettersToChristopher.wordpress.com. Other writings may be found at Joyful Pilgrims.

  • Matthias

    What a beautiful, well thought, precisely articulated presentation of God’s design and will in our lives. I have never heard or read anything quite like this. Thank you for your witness! We need it in today’s world of confusion and our bowing down to the golden calf of feelings and tolerance. Cardinal Burke recently discussed the feminization of the Church on the New Emangelization website. We now risk the homosexualization of the Church due to the desire to “love one’s neighbor.” We need a true and full understanding of chastity to resist this and preserve truth.

    • Bill

      There is nothing beautiful about this article. Simply being kind to gay human beings does not create a “homosexulization” of your church. You should all be horribly ashamed of yourselves.

      • Be kind === please, self identify as “gay” if you struggle with SSA?

        Abhorrent logic. Broken from the start. Least to say a heretical anthropology.

        • .
          I’m not sure what sis your point, @anglicanae:disqus, but the greater number of people who struggle with SSA are the fundie thumpers who claim they are heteros.

          Most gays ain’t struggling much with their gaydom anymore, now that there’s widespread popular acceptance of people being genuinely themselves as their creator made them, thankfully.

          At least in the modern-world.
          .

          • “…the greater number of people who struggle with SSA are the fundie thumpers who claim they are heteros.”

            Where’s your statistical source on this claim?

            And what does “fundie thumpers” even mean?

            You’re not a fundamentalist? Somebody who goes around and preaches their world view to others? Funny, seems like you’re fitting that description in spades. Leftists are among the worst of the wild-eyed zealots. Project much?

            “Most gays ain’t struggling much with their gaydom anymore.”

            Again, statistical sourcing? Would it mean anything to you if your assertion were proved wrong? If it were right, does that validate anything?

            “now that there’s widespread acceptance…”
            Meh. Infants get slaughtered in their mother’s womb. It’s widely accepted. I don’t see any justification for accepting an action on the mere headcount of who is or isn’t doing something. Seems pretty utilitarian and downright dangerous on the face of it.

            “At least in the modern world.” Modernity means what to you? How is modernity a measure of progress? What is it about modernity that you believe it should be the canon of a man’s actions? Is something right merely because it’s modern? If an era and its philosophy are above criticism, how would you ever know if something is just or unjust? Do you just accept something if somebody asserts that it is modern? Is that your standard?

      • GG

        Nothing unkind in the essay.

      • S_O_T_A

        You didn’t get a fundamental premise of this article – that in fact there is no difference between any men, and there is no difference between any women. Both are made only for the opposite sex, and nothing the author stated would promote or even suggest unkindness. The author is simply stating the truth of male and female as sexual identities, therefore your “gay human beings” assumption carries no weight.

        • Kevin McGrath

          There are enormous differences beween different men and between different women, regarding all kinds of things. That includes whom they are attracted to, and in what way. Most men in fact seem to prefer to spend their social time with men, and most women seem to prefer the company of women, but without that applying to whom they find sexually attractive. However some people do find that they do not feel attracted in that way to members of the opposite sex, while feeling that attraction towards people of their own sex, or to a particular person of their own sex.

          That attraction is what is meant when people are said to have a gay orientation. In itself that is not seen as sinful by the church, as has been repeatedly emphasised. However there is a range of quasi-sexual activities which are regarded as sinful, all of which are equally possible, and equally seen as sinful, within heterosexual relationships, including marriage. The only sexual activities which are regarded as licit are by definition not possible between people of the same sex. This need not exclude the possibility of close loving and supportive partnerships, in which such quasi-sexual activities are not part.

          But to talk about gay/heterosexual/SSA orientation as if it is in itself sinful is wrong. It may even be heretical.

          • Kevin McGrath

            I should of course have written “gay/homosexual/SSA orientation” in that last paragraph. Typo.

            • .
              You can edit your posts after the fact if you are at the same computer that made the post, @disqus_WLkMHsQy48:disqus.
              .

          • S_O_T_A

            “There are enormous differences beween different men and between different women, regarding all kinds of things.”

            Of course, but the basic premise of defining them as men or women means they have certain things in common that are no different, otherwise you couldn’t call that person a man, and that person a woman. With all due respect, I consider the rest of your comment obfuscation. Overall, the point is that man is making complicated what God has made simple in order to justify sin. We can do that on an individual level all the way up to a societal level. Any paradigm that tries to subvert the ironclad categories of male and female are in error.

            • Tom Zawislak

              Except male and female are not ironclad, as the nature created by God has shown to us. Gender and sexuality are fluid in nature. It is man that tries to impose “right and wrong” into nature.

              • S_O_T_A

                Nature is fallen. It is corrupt. Using that as a yardstick is dangerous without reference to God’s Word, and that does define male and female as ironclad. Any examples that appear to be to the contrary are because of the Fall, not because of God’s original design. Consider the wider ramifications of the argument of Jesus in Mt 19/Mk 10. It is not ‘imposing’ anything to agree with God, it is obedience. We don’t long to languish in the Fall, but to break free of it.

              • MarcAlcan

                Except male and female are not ironclad, as the nature created by God has shown to us. Gender and sexuality are fluid in nature

                Sex is not fluid. Nor is sexuality. Sexuality can become corrupted as in the case of homosexuals, paedophiles and those who engage in bestialty, but all that means is that they have a corrupt sexuality.
                The deformities and abnormalities exist does not make the case for the affirmation of such.

                • Tom Zawislak

                  The deformities and abnormalities that you refer to are not abnormal all, but rather prevalent in certain species.

                  Sex and gender are different. It’s a common mistake to assume that they are synonymous, when in fact they mean different things most of the time. That’s ok, it’s something that is hard to grasp at first.

                  Do you presume to call God’s creation flawed or imperfect? The arrogance in men who taught such is astounding. Men are flawed. Their teachings are flawed. Their understanding is flawed. In nature can we find the perfection that God intended, where every life serves a purpose and systems balance.

                  Egostical men in the pulpit have corrupted our understanding of God for centuries.

                  • MarcAlcan

                    The deformities and abnormalities that you refer to are not abnormal all, but rather prevalent in certain species.

                    Prevalence does not make them any less an abnormality. It simply means that there is a prevalence of abnormalities.

                    Sex and gender are different. It’s a common mistake to assume that they are synonymous, when in fact they mean different things most of the time. That’s ok, it’s something that is hard to grasp at first.

                    Which was exactly my point. Which is why I used the word sex. Because gender can apply to inanimate objects as they do in the Latin and Greek languages.

                    Do you presume to call God’s creation flawed or imperfect?

                    No. But abnormalities do happen. Would you call someone born with 3 legs and conjoined to a twin perfect? God has allowed such abnormalities but they remain abnormalities – hence less than perfect.

                    The arrogance in men who taught such is astounding.

                    Not arrogance but a clear and true apprehension of reality.

                    Men are flawed.

                    Indeed. And in some the flaw is greater.

                    In nature can we find the perfection that God intended,

                    The elephant man is therefore the perfection that God intended because that is in nature? Or how about those born with all sort of deformities and disabilities, is that perfection or the lack of it.

                    Egostical men in the pulpit have corrupted our understanding of God for centuries.

                    The greatest corruption of God is what has come about in our current secular society. Even some Christians who straddle Christianity and secularism are not even aware that in essence their ideas are more grounded in atheism than they care to admit.

                    • .
                      @MarcAlcan:disqus asked

                      “… Would you call someone born with 3 legs and conjoined to a twin perfect? …”

                      Peter Blaise answers:

                      Oh. no.

                      I’d call them an abomination.

                      Stone them to death.

                      Failing that, I’d deny them equal protection and equal rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

                      I’d fight them with every lobbying, voting, and money donation tool I could muster.

                      Now let’s talk about those broken deaf people.

                      __________

                      You don’t seem to understand, @MarcAlcan.

                      It’s not about others, it’s not perfection.

                      It’s about ourselves, it’s about how we show equivalent consideration, or not.

                      If you cannot give someone the equivalent consideration that you think you give or want for yourself, then the problem is YOU, not them.

                      There’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, nothing wrong with how they behave.

                      There’s something wrong with YOU by the way you treat them, by the way you behave.

                      So, behave.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      I’d call them an abomination.
                      Stone them to death.
                      Failing that, I’d deny them equal protection and equal rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

                      So yet again you are unable to make a sensible reply.

                      It’s not about others, it’s not perfection.
                      It’s about ourselves, it’s about how we show equivalent consideration, or not.

                      Then we must give the same consideration to the paedophiles, those who engage in bestiality, the necrophiliac and every sort of perversion under the sun.

                      There’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, nothing wrong with how they behave.

                      According to you.

                    • .
                      C’mon, @MarcAlcan:disqus

                      There’s nothing wrong ANYsexuals according to themselves.

                      And that’s all that matters.

                      Those other behaviors you mention are not alike in that they do not involve consenting adults.
                      __________

                      You know better.

                      And yet you still butcher your own arguments to obtain some raw, bloody red meat to throw around, just to sensationalize.

                      Cheap tricks like that are worth every penny we spend on them — nothing.
                      __________

                      PS — edit the extra k in your </blokckquote>
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      There’s nothing wrong ANYsexuals according to themselves.

                      And that’s all that matters.

                      Again according to you. And one’s wishes is all that matters then I suppose you are going hip hip hooray for paedophiles, those who engage in bestiality and incest.

                      Those other behaviors you mention are not alike in that they do not involve consenting adults.

                      And since when has consent determined what is wrong or right? If someone consented to be tortured, does that make torture okay?

                      So no, it is your who butcher your arguments.

                      PS — edit the extra k in your

                      What extra k are you talking about?

                    • .
                      You just can’t stop yourself from falling down your own rabbit hole, eh @MarcAlcan:disqus?

                      Or whatever hole you seem to be circling.

                      You absolutely know that pedophiles, those who engage in bestiality and incest, are unlike ANYsexuality in that they do not involve consenting adults, and as such are like any other assault and battery violence, with the the invasiveness intentionally arousing for the perpetrator.

                      Put rape in your collection.

                      And keep them all separate from the discussion at hand.

                      They are not sexual as much as they are violence.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You absolutely know that pedophiles, those who engage in bestiality and incest, are unlike ANYsexuality in that they do not involve consenting adults

                      Since when has consent been the determiner of what is right and wrong?
                      So again, if someone consents to torture then torture is okay?

                    • .
                      Please share your source of empowerment to assess and judge what is right and wrong for others, @MarcAlcan:disqus.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Please share your source of empowerment to assess and judge what is right and wrong for others

                      At some point, do you think you would be able to muster some kind of reason?

                      What in the world has that got to do with the post you replied to?

                      Here’s what your response looks like as part of our “discussion”

                      Me: Do you think protein is good for health?
                      PeterB: What makes you think that you are a scientist that you can say protein is good for health?
                      Tooooooooo irrational.

                    • .
                      Try this sequence, @MarcAlcan:disqus:

                      You: Since when has consent been the determiner of what is right and wrong?

                      Me: Please share your source of empowerment to assess and judge what is right and wrong for others …

                      Seems pretty sequential to me.

                      Maybe your screen hasn’t refreshed?

                      Reload the thread, sort by date, and try again.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Seems pretty sequential to me.

                      Sequential as in one text following another yes.
                      Sequential as in making sense and addressing the issue, No.
                      Explain how your answer is supposed to make sense in reference to my question: what empowerment has to do with whether an act is right and wrong.

                  • .
                    @tomzawislak:disqus wrote “… Sex … is hard to grasp at first …”.

                    But well worth the effort if you hang in there.

                    =8^o

                    Thanks for the comic relief.

                    Now back to all serous idiocy.
                    .

                • Guglielmo Marinaro

                  Sexuality can become corrupted as in the case of heterosexuals, paedophiles and those who engage in bestialty [sic], but all that means is that they have a corrupt sexuality.

                  See? You’re not the only one who can write daft things.

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Sexuality can become corrupted as in the case of heterosexuals, paedophiles and those who engage in bestialty [sic], but all that means is that they have a corrupt sexuality.

                    See? You’re not the only one who can write daft things.

                    Hmm, it seems you are comprehension challenged because that was exactly my point: that homosexuality is a corruption of heterosexuality in the same way paedophilia and bestiality are.
                    So yes, you did write something daft.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Yes, of course I did: there is no good reason to suppose that heterosexuality is a corruption of anything, and to suggest that it is in any way comparable to paedophilia or to bestiality is simply ludicrous. The same applies to homosexuality, which is why your comparison is likewise daft.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Yes, of course I did: there is no good reason to suppose that heterosexuality is a corruption of anything,

                      Yey, you got that right.

                      and to suggest that it is in any way comparable to paedophilia or to bestiality is simply ludicrous.

                      Obviously.

                      The same applies to homosexuality, which is why your comparison is likewise daft.

                      Not quite. Because homosexuality is a corruption of true sexuality – which is heterosexuality.

                      So,sorry your post remains daft.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      “Because homosexuality is a corruption of true sexuality…”

                      Which is about as meaningful as saying that left-handedness is a corruption of “true” handedness, or that red hair is a corruption of “true” hair colour.

                      “…which is heterosexuality.”

                      Which tells us merely that if human nature had been designed according to your specifications, everyone would be heterosexual. It hasn’t been, however, and for that we can all be grateful.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Which is about as meaningful as saying that left-handedness is a corruption of “true” handedness, or that red hair is a corruption of “true” hair colour.

                      No it isn’t because there is no such thing as true handedness. There is also no such thing as true hair colour.

                      Which tells us merely that if human nature had been designed according to your specifications, everyone would be heterosexual.

                      Which we all are. There is in reality only human sexuality – one that is ordered to procreation and is this complimentary.
                      “Homosexuality” is only a construct – a word coined by the that came up with to describe people who are attracted to the same sex. But all that describes is a sexual attraction – not a sexuality as such.
                      All that describes is a sexuality that has been corrupted.

                      It hasn’t been, however, and for that we can all be grateful.

                      We should be grateful for abnormalities? For corruption? Since when

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Of course there are such things as true handedness and true hair colour. If there were not, no-one would be right-handed or left-handed, and no-one would have a hair colour. I agree, however, that the word “true”, when used in this way, is redundant. You seem to be applying it unnecessarily to heterosexuality to make your belief that it is the only “correct” form of sexuality, and that homosexuality is somehow “disordered” – a corruption, as you put it, of heterosexuality – sound more like an objective fact, which it isn’t. You are still perfectly free to believe that if you wish. I have no convincing reason to believe it, so I don’t.

                      “Which we all are [i.e. heterosexual].

                      A patently untrue statement. A minority of us are definitely homosexual, not heterosexual, in orientation. That homosexuality does not lead to procreation and is not complementary (which is just another way of saying that it isn’t heterosexual) cannot alter that fact. Yes, the classification “homosexuality” is a construct, as is the classification “heterosexuality”. All human classifications are. But they usually describe realities, as they do in this case. Whether the classifications are necessary and, if so, for what purpose are entirely different questions.

                      “But all that describes is a sexual attraction – not a sexuality as such.”

                      A distinction without a difference.

                    • .
                      MA: “But all that describes is a sexual attraction – not a sexuality as such.”

                      GM: A distinction without a difference.

                      … and so sayeth the US Supreme Court.

                      Thanks, @guglielmomarinaro:disqus .

                      I consider @MarcAlcan:disqus my subject, not my audience, as I do not think he’s here to learn anything, he’s not ripe for education.

                      Google searchers, however, will be well rewarded if they land here and read your authentic alternative testimony — kudos.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      … and so sayeth the US Supreme Court.

                      As if the US supreme court can change nature. Dream on.

                      I consider MarcAlcan my subject, not my audience

                      Just as I thought. Delusional.

                      as I do not think he’s here to learn anything, he’s not ripe for education.

                      So much hubris. To think that you actually thought that you said something worth learning.

                    • .
                      Wow, so many words to say pretty much the same thing I said about you, @MarcAlcan:disqus.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You the so much yadda yadda nonsense that says soo very much about you?
                      Although I think your yadda yadda speaks less about you than your upvoting yourself. THAT speaks loudly about you. LOL

                    • .
                      @MarcAlcan:disqus,

                      You have a mind like a mouse trap — full of cheese and dead mice.

                      I use up/down votes as bookmark place-holders to show me how far
                      down I’ve read a thread on subsequent visits, something I’ve already
                      explained in my Disqus profile history may times.

                      Run out of legitimate on-topic things to try to win at?
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      something I’ve already
                      explained in my Disqus profile history may times.

                      Oh but of course, we must be so enamoured of you that we must check your historical post!

                      Run out of legitimate on-topic things to try to win at?

                      Oh but there is one at hand if you will only learn to address it.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Of course there are such things as true handedness and true hair colour.

                      No there isn’t. Left or write, black or brown, there is is no true or false right or wrong in them. You cannot say that one has false hair colour because she happens to be blonde. You cannot say that one has a false hand because he happens to be left handed.

                      A patently untrue statement. A minority of us are definitely homosexual

                      Which like I said is nothing more than a coined word. There is only one sexuality – that is complimentary male and female. Deviation from that is an abnormality, a corruption of what human sexuality is about.

                      All human classifications are. But they usually describe realities, as they do in this case

                      Same sex attracted is more accurate. You do not have a different sexuality, you have an attraction that deviates from what is normal sexuality.

                      A distinction without a difference.

                      Oh yes it does. You are still male. You just happen to be attracted to another male.

                    • .
                      @MarcAlcan:disqus,

                      A minority population with black skin is pretty much “wrong” for majority white populations.

                      Surely you know this.

                      Surely.
                      .

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Well, you COULD say that someone has a false hair colour or a false handedness because they happen to be blonde or left-handed. The only problem with that is that it would be rubbish, just as it is rubbish to say that someone has a false sexuality because they are homosexual.

                      Yes, “homosexual” is a coined word; technical words generally are; but like other technical words, it has been coined to describe an objective reality, not an imaginary one. You can use “same-sex attracted” instead if you like, just as you could use “other-sex attracted” instead of “heterosexual”. You could go on till kingdom come coining cumbersome alternatives to technical terms, if you had the time to waste, but no reality can be altered or abolished by inventing a different term for it. Your talk of “only one sexuality… complimentary male and female” (I take it that you mean “complementary”), “deviation”, “abnormality” and “corruption” is, as I have already pointed out, merely your way of telling us that you don’t like people being homosexual and no-one would be if human nature had been drawn up to your specifications – which it happily hasn’t been.

                      “You are still male.”

                      Yes, of course. It has never occurred to me to doubt or dispute it. I can’t imagine why you should have bothered to state something so obvious.

                      “You just happen to be attracted to another male.”

                      Precisely. In other words a homosexual man – or, in everyday parlance, a gay man. And I am as happy with my natural sexuality as I presume you are with yours.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Well, you COULD say that someone has a false hair colour or a false handedness because they happen to be blonde or left-handed

                      No you can’t. Hair colour and handedness has no truth valence.

                      You can use “same-sex attracted” instead if you like, just as you could use “other-sex attracted” instead of “heterosexual”.

                      Or more precisely, normal and natural sexual attraction (opposite SA) and abnormal and defective sexual attraction (SSA).

                      “deviation”, “abnormality” and “corruption” is, as I have already pointed out, merely your way of telling us that you don’t like people being homosexual

                      No. Just my way of pointing out the reality that you want to avoid.

                      Yes, of course. It has never occurred to me to doubt or dispute it.

                      Good. So if male, then obviously the normal attraction is towards female. That is the normal and natural attraction. Therefore, deviation from that is a abnormal and unnatural.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      I last encountered the word “valence” in high school chemistry classes, which is quite some years ago now. I seem to remember that it has something to do with the proportions in which chemical elements combine with each other to form compounds. I’m not sure what is meant by “truth valence”. Whatever, thank you for that interesting statement of your beliefs about “SSA”, beliefs which I have no reason to share.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      I last encountered the word “valence” in high school chemistry classes, which is quite some years ago now. I seem to remember that it has something to do with the proportions in which chemical elements combine with each other to form compounds. I’m not sure what is meant by “truth valence”.

                      Valence as in positive or negative. So when I speak of truth valence I mean truth or falsity.

                      Whatever, thank you for that interesting statement of your beliefs about “SSA”, beliefs which I have no reason to share.

                      Correction. You have every reason to share this belief for sharing this belief ultimate is towards your good. But of course at this stage you don’t see that. But I pray that one day you will see that and then be free.

                    • .
                      Oh, @MarcAlcan:disqus, is this firsthand experience of how it was for you dealing with your own homosexuality?

                      You wrote, paraphrased:

                      “… I knew that I was enslaved.

                      And no, I am not saying that I was aware of it all of the time.

                      Most of the time I managed to bury my niggling conscience.

                      But when it is quiet and when I was by myself, it came up.

                      But when it did come up, I tried even more to bury it.

                      But I prayed that one day I would learn to submit humbly to that Grace that is seeking my good, my liberation.

                      I was afraid that would not happen until I was brought completely down to my depths of my perversity in my lifestyle …”
                      __________

                      If instead you cannot sign onto the above statement as coming from your own genuine personal experience of your own ‘battle’ between your own homosexuality and your own faith in your own God …

                      … then why are you writing all that, if it’s not yours to write?
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      is this firsthand experience of how it was for you dealing with your own homosexuality?

                      LOL, Wouldn’t you just love that? To make everyone as perverted as you so that every one can wallow in the same filth you do? Yes, that is a very common desire of the sodomite, to wish everyone is as depraved as they are.

                      is this firsthand experience of how it was for you dealing with your own homosexuality?

                      How about because we are all wired for the truth and you all insist on the lie.

                      How about because we all have consciences that orient us to the truth? How else can you persist in living the perversion without a forceful suppression of your conscience and the truth that it is telling you to live by?

                    • .
                      … because I’m not you, @MarcAlcan:disqus,

                      … and I’ve been testifying to my own personal experience,

                      … and sharing the direct personal testimony of others,

                      … in response to your sheer speculation,

                      … to your projection of our fears of the unknown onto others.

                      If you come here to learn, then you will learn.

                      If you come here to pontificate, then you will potificate.

                      You keep saying how it is for homosexuals.

                      How do you know unless the words you speak are the truth for you in your own experience?

                      Apparently, sexuality for you is not a choice, and is not subject to influence to be other than it is.

                      Funny, that seems to be the same for homosexuals, too.

                      Go figure.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You keep saying how it is for homosexuals.

                      No, what I keep saying is what other homosexuals have said and also what we as human beings experience – that is sin – whether that be homosexual activity or other proclivities to sin. All of us are called to live according to what is true and when we sin we tend to rationalize the sin and try to make it a good thing so that we will not feel bad about doing it. That is true of the homosexual and every one else. But this rationalization is seen most glaringly in homosexuals because they are the only group of sinnners who are actually out there telling everyone else that the evil that they do is in fact a good.

                      Apparently, sexuality for you is not a choice, and is not subject to influence to be other than it is.
                      Funny, that seems to be the same for homosexuals, too.

                      Totally agree. Sexuality is not a choice. You are either male of female. But what you do with your inclinations you can choose.
                      It would stupid to say that paedophiles do not have a choice to not act on their perverse inclinations. Or the same of the murderer, or the thief of the adulterer.
                      How we act out (or not) our inclination to evil is a choice. That goes for the inclination towards homosexual activity.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      If you come here to learn, then you will learn.

                      From others I can learn. And have in fact learned many things.
                      But regarding this topic, it is you who need to learn. But you don’t want to learn. All you want is to keep reiterating to yourself that your perversion is a good thing. But many people who are SSA have found to their gratitude that the viewpoint that you peddle is one that keeps them enslaved. You like being enslaved in your sin and yet you think we should learn from you.
                      No Peter, you should learn from those who like you were SSA but have in fact found the way to wholeness. But the likes of you want to remain mired in their depravity and want to keep others there too. That is sad. Very sad.

                    • .
                      No, @MarcAlcan:disqus, LGBTQAS+ are just less frequently found in the population, but absolutely normal and natural.

                      As normal and natural to themselves as you or I are to ourselves.

                      I’m not sure why you care, nor why you pontificate about something you cannot know from firsthand experience.

                      Unless you have firsthand experience (and you’re not too blind or busy to type!).
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      No Peter, there may not be many perverts in the population but they remain perverts none the less.

                      I’m not sure why you care, nor why you pontificate about something you cannot know from firsthand experience.

                      Utterly, totally dumb. You are basically saying that magistrates ought to be perverts, murderers, thieves and all sorts of criminals before they can pontificate about these evils.

                    • .
                      We’re not talking about perversion,we’re talking about normal sexuality between consenting adults, @MarcAlcan:disqus.

                      If you have something else on your mind, that’s your mind and your mind only.
                      __________

                      Unrelated to the topic of sexuality, but part of LGBTQAS+, how could being ‘T’ transgender possibly be ‘perversion’?
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      We’re not talking about perversion,we’re talking about normal sexuality between consenting adults

                      Homosexual activity IS NOT normal. A perversion does not become normal merely by consent.

                      how could being ‘T’ transgender possibly be ‘perversion’?

                      There is no trans. One is either male or female.

                    • .
                      Thanks for your personal testimony, @MarcAlcan:disqus, of how sexuality and gender identification are for you, and for you only.

                      However, your personal whimsey does not extend to anyone else just because you have a Bible to thump them with.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Thanks for your personal testimony, MarcAlcan, of how sexuality and gender identification are for you, and for you only.

                      Huh? Do you even know what a personal testimony is?

                      However, your personal whimsey does not extend to anyone else just because you have a Bible to thump them with.

                      Just because the blind and deaf man cannot see the car about to hit him – makes the car whimsy.
                      There are things that are just plain true no matter how much you may dislike it Peter. And one of them is that the homosexual act is a depravity and an inclination to it disordered.

                      I do get that you want to believe that this is not so but no amount of wishing can change that fact.

                    • .
                      I appreciate that you have faith in your beliefs, @MarcAlcan:disqus

                      … but you have no reason.

                      Yet, you attack others because you think they are not using reason.

                      Pick one.

                      You can’t have both.

                      If you have reason, then you have no faith.

                      If you have faith, then you have no reason.

                      Faith is what you have when you have no reason to have faith.

                      Oddly, we agree.

                      You believe what you believe on faith, not on reason.

                      Nothing you believe is supportable by reason.

                      Even though you try to convince yourself.

                      And then come here and try to convince us.

                      The reason it doesn’t work is because it can’t.

                      Faith has no reason.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Pick one.
                      You can’t have both.
                      If you have reason, then you have no faith.
                      If you have faith, then you have no reason.
                      Faith is what you have when you have no reason to have faith.

                      See, this is exactly why my reply to you almost always opens with “This is too dumb”.
                      This one is dumber than your other posts.
                      Faith and reason are NOT opposites. It is precisely the atheistic point of view that is devoid of reason. Except that most atheists are too dumb to even realize that.
                      So precisely because you are most likely an atheist that your posts don’t make sense – they have no reason. They are too dumb.
                      While not all faiths are equivalent, faith in God (properly understood and not the caricature that is the by-product of an addled atheistic brain) is much, much more reasonable that no faith in God at all.
                      But of course, that would be beyond you to comprehend because you just have no desire at all to comprehend.

                      If you have even the tiniest bit of desire to learn – to expand your knowledge beyond the tiny confines of your self-serving atheism – the truth will come to you. But you prefer the idiocy to learning, the lie to the truth so unfortunately at this stage you will remain stuck where you are.

                    • .
                      I don’t think you know what you are talking about, @MarcAlcan:disqus ,

                      sexuality (n.)
                      1789, “action or fact of being sexual;” see sexual + -ity.
                      Meaning “capability of sexual feelings” is from 1879.
                      Meaning “sexual identity” is by 1980.

                      Various Sexual orientations

                      Asexual

                      Bisexual

                      Heterosexual

                      Homosexual

                      Androphilia

                      Gynephilia

                      Pansexuality

                      Polysexuality

                      Third gender

                      Two-Spirit

                      And, I fully expect each and every person I meet to be quite capable of experiencing their own sexuality in ways I cannot imagine, in ways that neither they nor I may be able to fully understand and communicate, in ways that may evolve and mature and fade away, in ways that are none of my business, or yours.

                      … yup, definitely, you’re an idiot, @MarcAlcan — full of fear and self loathing, but essentially an idiot.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      I hope you have realized that you have just listed coined words to accommodate deviant behaviour.
                      And yes, calling me an idiot says much about you.
                      And no I am not full of fear and self-loathing. Essentialy that is you. Or you would not be so livid. Typical.

                    • .
                      “Other” sexuality might be “deviant” for you — or, more accurately, foreign or unnatural or awkward or uncomfortable — because you are invisibly familiar with whatever sexuality you are, @MarcAlcan:disqus.

                      And all you can speak to with a chance of authority is your own sexuality.

                      And no one else’s.

                      Others use language just as you do, and find those words helpful in communicating their truths.

                      You are free to use fewer and fewer words, if that’s your want.

                      Please do.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      “Other” sexuality might be “deviant” for you — or, more accurately, foreign or unnatural or awkward or uncomfortable — because you are invisibly familiar with whatever sexuality you are

                      There is only one. The others are a corruption of this one sexuality.

                      And all you can speak to with a chance of authority is your own sexuality.

                      And only perverts can speak about perverted sexuality? Hardly. Otherwise only criminals can speak authoritatively about crime.
                      BTW are you so in need of affirmation that you need to constantly upvote yourself? You can’t see a psychological problem in that?

                    • .
                      You may have a big mouth (and hubrific ego), @MarcAlcan:disqus, but you cannot speak for anyone but yourself.

                      When you write “… There is …” and them may a non-referenced pontification about anything, you are lying by inaccuracy and by inappropriateness.
                      __________

                      I’m starting to make a mark for the carcases of anyone who comments on my own use of up/down votes as bookmark place-holders to show me how far down I’ve read a thread on subsequent visits, something I’ve already explained in my Disqus profile history may times.

                      Run out of legitimate on-topic things to try to win at?
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Run out of legitimate on-topic things to try to win at?

                      I do hope that you realize what a dumb comment that is. While we may have personal opinions, there are things that are not dependent on personal opinions.

                      I’m starting to make a mark for the carcases of anyone who comments on my own use of up/down votes

                      Wow. Truly your language is betraying your anger and your hatred. Calm down. Breathe. Relax.

                    • .
                      @MarcAlcan:disqus please respond on topic so we can have a good discussion here — thanks.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You should tell that to yourself and follow it.

                    • .
                      @MarcAlcan:disqus,

                      If you assign your own unique meanings of words, then you cannot have a discussion with others.

                      If you want to discuss anything, then you have to agree to common meanings of common terms

                      You do not, so you do not.

                      If all you are doing is baiting us to see if we will argue with you, then you are not very good at it.

                      You are not even a master baiter.

                      ==========

                      Repeat:

                      I fully expect each person I meet to experience their own sexuality in ways I cannot imagine, in ways that
                      neither of us may well understand or communicate, in
                      ways that evolve, mature, fade away … in ways that are none of
                      my business, or yours.

                      @MarcAlcan, you seem incapable of staying in dialog.

                      You seem incapable of responding with new and responsive personal information.

                      In all you errant pontificating, you never identiofy why you think someone else’s sex, sexuality, or sexual preference is any of your business.

                      Or any of we-the-people’s self-governance’s business to inflict your personal choices for yourself for what is a sin as superior rights over others.

                      But I do not believe you have anything but fear and loathing driving your energies.

                      So I do not expect a response from you that starts with,

                      “… The reason other people’s sex concerns me is …”
                      .
                      Maybe this is all just titillating, and this is a close as you can get without getting all porn in your browser cache.
                      .

                    • .
                      Well, @MarcAlcan:disqus,

                      I can die and go to heaven now.

                      My life is done.

                      There’s no need for me on this earthy plain.

                      YOU are here to speak for everyone.

                      No one else ever need speak again.

                      Especially for themselves.

                      To wit:

                      @MarcAlcan wrote, no, proclaimed:

                      “… true sexuality … is heterosexuality …”

                      ==========

                      Rest
                      in the peace and loving arms of our broken hearts,
                      #LeelaAlcorn, annihilated by your heterosexual
                      Christian mother.

                      Long live the vast human experience
                      unencumbered by the crush of lifelessness inflicted by the likes of
                      @MarcAlcan.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Sigh! Are you seriously interested only in blabbering on? Or do you think you can muster some capacity for discussion?
                      But then you then you probably think you are being poetic and intelligent. I will leave you to comfort yourself with that thought.

                    • .
                      @MarcAlcan:disqus,

                      Writing “… true sexuality … is heterosexuality …” is not discussion.

                      Try this:

                      “… For me, heterosexuality is an unquestioned natural thing …

                      … but I would like to understand anyone who finds that non-heterosexuality for them is an unquestioned natural thing …

                      … do tell, I’m all ears …”
                      .

                    • .
                      Oh, @MarcAlcan:disqus, the “dialog” suddenly stops when you are challenged with a specific, poignant question?

                      Hahahah ahaha hah ah h ahhahahh ahhahhah hahhaha.

                      No, seriously.

                      Hahahhah ah ahhah h ah ha hhahhahha.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Oh, MarcAlcan, the “dialog” suddenly stops when you are challenged with a specific, poignant question?

                      Poignant question? From you ? My, my your delusion is too deeply entrenched.

                    • .
                      … because you’re the answer man, @MarcAlcan:disqus.

                      You question nothing.

                      You don’t believe in questions.

                      Like asking to understand anyone who finds that non-heterosexuality is natural for them.
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You question nothing.
                      You don’t believe in questions.
                      Like asking to understand anyone who finds that non-heterosexuality is natural for them.

                      I don’t believe in questions that have already been answered by countless other homosexuals.
                      You on the other hand do not even try to understand how someone with SSA can possibly leave that sick world and walk to freedom.

                      It is called habituation. The bad lifestyle has become so ingrained you can’t even understand that a better one is possible.

                      The issue has moved beyond why some believe homosexuality is natural because the answer is already out there: it isn’t.

                      It has gone so far as to give out this option that there is a much more fulfilling and joyful life to be had if only you had the honesty to admit that your lifestyle stinks and if only you have the courage to hope that perhaps joy – real joy – is also possible for you.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You question nothing.

                      Peter, it is you who should question yourself.
                      It is you who should question why you persist in this perverse lifestyle when a better one is available.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Writing “… true sexuality … is heterosexuality …” is not discussion.
                      Try this:
                      “… For me, heterosexuality is an unquestioned natural thing …
                      … but I would like to understand anyone who finds that non-heterosexuality for them is an unquestioned natural thing …

                      And pray tell why I should be interested why anyone would find a perversion a natural thing?
                      To take your stance, that would be like saying bestiality and paedophilia for me are abhorrent perversions but I would be interested why anyone would find that not abhorrent.
                      Why in the world would want to know that paedophilia and bestiality are good.
                      For one thing, those who favour perversion such as yourself are only too willing to spill out their rationalizations of the evil on these pages so there is absolutely no need for me to express my interest in your viewpoint. You are only too trigger happy to shoot out irrational notions.

                    • .
                      Wow, @MarcAlcan:disqus,

                      Just moments ago I wrote that you have no temperament for questions, for learning anything new, for learning about others, because you “already have all the answers”.

                      Then I read this from you — perfect fulfillment of my assessment of you!

                      I know someone who scoffed at the offering of a black history course in college — because “blacks have no history”, they said.

                      And you, too, have no curiosity about others; everything’s a settled issue for you.

                      I get that.

                      Why come here to discuss if you’ve predetermined that you’ll learn nothing new?

                      I’m learning with every post; I’m grateful for everyone’s contribution.

                      You just see it as batting practice, whack, whack, whack!
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      And you, too, have no curiosity about others; everything’s a settled issue for you.

                      What makes you think that your take on the SSA issue is so unique that it has not already been brought up by countless other SSA people?

                      More to the point, let’s turn that around. Have you learned anything from the stories of other SSA people who have now found peace, joy and wholeness by abandoning the lifestyle you espouse?

                      Have you learned anything at all about logical arguments instead of going on your standard knee jerk reactions?

                      If as YOU say, YOU are grateful for EVERY post, then you must be grateful for mine too even if you see it as nothing more than batting practice -whack, whack, whack.

                    • Most fitting that a narcissist up-votes himself.

                    • bman

                      re: “…there is no good reason to suppose that heterosexuality is a corruption of anything… The same applies to homosexuality…”

                      There is no good reason to suppose that heterosexuality is a corruption of anything, but there is good reason to suppose homosexuality is a corruption of something.

                      Thus, “sameness” does not apply.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Re: “…but there is good reason to suppose homosexuality is a corruption of something.”

                      So you assert. I find none. In this respect “sameness” clearly does apply.

                    • bman

                      re: “So you assert. I find none.”
                      —-
                      Though you find none, most find some, which includes persons with SSA like the author of the article who recognize its discordant to their biology and their identity.

                      Thus, sameness does not apply unless you arbitrarily dismiss every view but your own.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Well, speaking as a gay male myself – or as a male “with SSA”, as some might prefer to say, apparently in the irrational belief that reality can somehow be altered by the use of eccentric jargon – I find no discordance between my sexuality and either my biology or my identity. I therefore dismiss as gratuitous the notion that it is a corruption of anything. If some choose to believe otherwise, that is not my problem, and I would strongly advise others, and especially other gay people and their families, against making it theirs. Fortunately, the number likely to do so is diminishing rapidly and inexorably.

                    • bman

                      re: ” If some choose to believe otherwise, that is not my problem…”

                      So do believe otherwise, and so your reply does not establish your “sameness” claim.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      People hold all sorts of beliefs which lack any logical or empirical basis, and they are at complete liberty to do so. A good example is the belief that homosexuality is a “corruption” of heterosexuality and is somehow “discordant” with a person’s biology and identity.

                      A proposition of this kind, assuming that one can make objective sense of it, is incapable of either proof or disproof. I have therefore no intention of wasting time on trying to refute it. I am happy simply to disregard it and to get on with living my life. I would recommend others to do the same.

                    • bman

                      re: “People hold all sorts of beliefs which lack any logical or empirical basis…”
                      —-
                      I said earlier, “…sameness does not apply unless you arbitrarily dismiss every view but your own.”

                      In sum, you didn’t prove your sameness claim.

                      All you did was dismiss everyone who disagrees with your view.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      What I dismiss is a belief which lacks any logical or empirical basis. That there are people who hold that belief is neither here nor there.

                    • bman

                      re: “What I dismiss is a belief which lacks any logical or empirical basis.”

                      Rather, you arbitrarily presume that basis does not exist.

                      Its the same thing as dismissing every view but your own.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      It is up to those who maintain that there is such a basis to give a convincing account of it. They have not done so. They have merely made assertions which I have no good reason to accept, and which I therefore reject.

                      Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

                    • bman

                      re: “It is up to those who maintain that there is such a basis to give a convincing account of it. They have not done so. They have merely made assertions which I have no good reason to accept, and which I therefore reject.”
                      —-
                      Such evidence is readily available on line. Your comment is irrationally dismissive of its existence.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      There is no objective evidence, either online or elsewhere, for the notion that homosexuality is a corruption of heterosexuality or of anything else, and there is no more logical justification for regarding homosexuality as comparable to paedophilia and bestiality than for regarding heterosexuality as comparable to those things. People are, of course, perfectly free to hold those beliefs if they choose. I don’t. I rationally dismiss them as mere gratuitous assertions.

                    • bman

                      re: ” There is no objective evidence, either online or elsewhere…”

                      Of course, you just dismissed the entire Internet and everything ever written on the subject.

                      So again, you didn’t prove your sameness claim.

                      All you did was dismiss everyone who disagrees with your view.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Yes, I believe that my own view is the right one. If I didn’t, it wouldn’t be my view, would it? I mean to say, no-one holds a view that they believe to be wrong, do they? Unless, of course, they have some sort of split personality disorder. So naturally I believe that those who disagree with my view are wrong – or, as you put it, I “dismiss” them. Elementary logic.

                      Any number of dogmatic, gratuitous assertions have been put in writing and disseminated on the Internet, some of them more times than I’ve had hot dinners. That doesn’t make them true.
                      _________________________________________________

                      ‘You think everything’s true if it’s printed,’ said Cyril, naturally annoyed, ‘but it isn’t. Father said so. Quite a lot of lies get printed, especially in newspapers.’

                      ‘You see, as it happens,’ said Robert, in what was really a rather annoying tone, ‘it wasn’t in a newspaper, it was in a book.’

                      – E. NESBIT, The Story of the Amulet (1906)
                      _________________________________________________

                      If this story had been written today, perhaps Robert could have said, “You see, as it happens, it wasn’t in a newspaper, it was on the Internet.”

                    • .
                      @guglielmomarinaro:disqus,

                      Please take no offense as what I write here — it is not my intention to offend, but merely to differentiate and allow everyone to have their own truth without stepping on each other’s toes, or asking the government to do it for them.

                      Your view can only be your view, and cannot be right for anyone else.
                      __________

                      I find that it’s not a question of universal external right and wrong.

                      It’s a question of personal responsibility.

                      To believe in one’s self.

                      Enough to make space for others to have truths for them that we will never understand.

                      And thereby make equal space for ourselves to have truths that others will never, and need not, understand.

                      I would not even waste my time listening to others spout what they think is right or wrong for me.

                      It’s not a possibility that there would be any value there.

                      So let’s both not waste our time on that one.

                      I honor other people’s truth for them enough to not interfere.

                      And all I ask is the same.
                      .

                    • bman

                      re: “I mean to say, no-one holds a view that they believe to be wrong, do they?…So naturally I believe that those who disagree with my view are wrong – or, as you put it, I “dismiss” them.”

                      That is still the same thing as dismissing every view but your own.

                      Your reply also means people can “naturally” dismiss your view, using the same argument you just made.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Yes, others who disagree with me are as free to “dismiss” my views as I am to “dismiss” theirs, and to say so openly. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just to those with whom we agree.

                  • .
                    Note spelling:

                    bestiality (n.) late 14c., “the nature of beasts,” from bestial + -ity. Meaning “indulgence in beastly instincts” is from 1650s; sense of “sexual activity with a beast” is from 1611 (KJV).
                    __________

                    Agreed, it’s pretty [sic] … unless … the animal instigates, and the person is willing to satisfy, I suppose?
                    .

                • .
                  Self analysis, @MarcAlcan:disqus?

                  #LeelahAlcorn

                  .

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Are you capable of meaningful comments?

                    • .
                      Seriously, @MarcAlcan:disqus, stop lecturing about stuff you pull out of your åšš.

                      Referring to our own personal testimony of our own experience makes sense, it’s all you have a chance to know authentically and authoritatively, and it’s all I’m curious to hear from you about..

                      Generalizing and projecting our fears onto others, and then condemning them for our failed imagination, does not make sense, is a waste of time, and inappropriate to make policy on.

                      #LeelaAlcorn testified about her own experience.

                      Many others have also self-testified about their own experience.

                      None agree with lumping together homosexuals, pedophiles, and those who engage in bestiality, as having anything to do with their experience.

                      There is no need to speculate.

                      Just ask.

                      And put us out of your projection’s misery.
                      .

                    • beyond partisan

                      “#LeelaAlcorn testified about her own experience.” Except you continue to ignore the key point of HIS suicide note – that he feared if he did not get his sex change while he was still underage, he would be an UGLY woman as an adult. I put the blame for that ENTIRELY on the shallow transgender community with its ridiculous focus on make-up and appearance. You stupidly blame the mother.

          • Kevin McGrath

            That would include the Catechism of the Catholic Church presumably. “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition…They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” (2358)

            • You don’t respect a perverted mind – if LGBTs don’t want to treat their perverted psychologies, they deserve no collusion in that sense from others.

              • .
                The judge has barfed.
                .

                • MarcAlcan

                  Question: Are you capable of posting something meaningful? Or is that beyond you?

                  • .
                    @MarcAlcan:disqus, your inability to derive meaning from my posts says more about you than me.

                    Actually, I think it’s your attitude.

                    You know exactly what I mean when I respond to @alessandrab:disqus writing “… don’t respect a perverted mind …” with my retort “… The judge has barfed. …”

                    If there is a grammar school child in your house (besides you), get them to explain.
                    .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      That you think there is meaning in your post says more about you than me.

                    • .
                      Oh, say less, @MarcAlcan:disqus, go ahead.
                      .

          • MarcAlcan

            But to talk about gay/heterosexual/SSA orientation as if it is in itself sinful is wrong. It may even be heretical.

            Would you prefer disordered as the Catechism does?
            The inclination of itself is sinful because it is an inclination to sin.
            We could also say of persons inclined to murder that the inclination itself is wrong. And that distinction is applicable to all sins.

            • Kevin McGrath

              Disordered is not the same as sinful, which is why the Catechism was drafted in that way. Anyone with indigestion can confirm that difference.

              • MarcAlcan

                Good point.
                The inclination is not of itself sinful but it is an inclination towards sin.

        • .
          Unisex — it’s all good.

          Smorgasbord.
          .

      • Mary

        It is homosexualization to erode the tenets of the faith, it’s serving the interests of homosexuals, not God. Nor is it ‘kind’ to not speak the truth regarding God’s laws.

      • JTLiuzza

        Shame is a gift given to the soul whose conscience is properly formed.

        This is a fine article. There is nothing in it that should even remotely invoke shame.

        • .
          @JTLiuzza:disqus, the article is nothing but shame.

          Self inflicted now, after their childhood programmers did their worst.

          Does no one read #LeelaAlcorn, shamed to annihilation by her heterosexual Christian mother?

          Heterosexual Christian parents are exhibiting the worst child abuse to death, doing things that no homosexual atheist parent would ever do to their child.

          Can we stop it with the shame?

          Can we try compassion?

          Can we just get along? — Rodney King
          .

          • beyond partisan

            “Does no one read #LeelahAlcorn, shamed to annihilation by her heterosexual Christian mother?” You HATEFUL person, blaming that mother for her child’s death! Who truly shamed this child? The transgender community itself for making HIM believe that if he didn’t get his sex change before he was an adult, he would be an ugly woman and never find love. THAT was his stated reason for killing himself. And you are so intellectually dishonest you refuse to acknowledge it.

            • .
              @beyondpartisan:disqus,

              #LeelahAlcorn‘s mother clearly murdered her daughter when her daughter was only 4 years old.

              It took another dozen years or so for her daughter to finally carry out her mother’s annihilating intentions.

              100% of medical science clearly indicates that non-gender-specific hormone treatments are necessary before puberty to prevent the inappropriate superimposition of stereotypical gender traits, such as an adam’s apple, squaring and sharpening of features, body hair.

              That is all reversible simply by stopping the hormones, and is an appropriate approach for an under-age child who may not yet have complete understanding of all the pertinent ramifications of their decisions.

              Once they are of age, they can then start taking gender-specific hormones to manifest their true selves into their body, and that is not reversible.

              Also, they can then elect surgery to alter their genitals.

              In #LeelahAlcorn‘s case, she would have had complete success including convincing a gynecologist who had not been told of her birth conditions.

              The only missing element would be egg production, which some women, especially cancer treatment survivors, have a lack of anyway.

              So, #LeelahAlcorn COULD have had a normal life.

              Instead, she suffered a horrible life under her mother’s fear and stupidity and insensitivity manifest as anything but love — hate, I’d call it.

              And so, as a long-suffering abused child, #LeelahAlcorn ended her suffering by choosing death.

              Because her mother had worn her down and convinced her that she could not end her suffering by choosing life.

              #LeelahAlcorn‘s mother is pure evil incarnate — no one should disrespect a child so severely that the child kills themselves.

              #LeelahAlcorn‘s mother should be prosecuted for murder and separated from society forever.
              .

      • Aldo Elmnight

        At the heart of the active homosexual is severe self loathing and shame. Their heart knows what the natural law is. Because of this they seek to force others to accept their behaviors therby attempting to legitimize them. Any truth presented about human sexuality is labeled at “hate” or “homophobia”.

        • Pixlecolour

          You teach the self loathing and you Aldo will answer for it.

          Of that I am very, very sure.

          To answer for teaching children to self loathe to such a degree they self destruct.

          Off your pedestal.

          This is not a ‘label’.

          Hypocrite. You are just an ignorant, fearful, angry, judgmental hypocrite. Physician – heal thyself.

          Oh – and don’t be surprised if believed a murderer too and must answer for this. When you meet those who died before their time because of the likes of you.

          I will pray for forgiveness. Sincerely, as I wholly and sincerely see and believe you completely blind to the fact of needing same repentance, forgiveness and healing of your heart – from stone to flesh.

          Ora pro nobis.

          • Aldo Elmnight

            Your post is not rational.

            • Pixlecolour

              And you are, how ? My post is irrelevant. I am not. Neither are you or anyone else here. Which is the point. But that usually flies over the heads of the majority of religious people. Fear based faith is not ‘rational’ either. As y’all say, “Go figure !”

              • MarcAlcan

                Aldo is right that your post is not rational. You said nothing sensible that addressed his point. It was a personal attack that is born of hyper emotion.

                • .
                  Evil is in the mind of those who see evil, apparently.
                  .

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Or in those who think evil is good so they keep doing the evil because they think it’s good. That’s absolute and total corruption of the moral compass.

                    • .
                      … or in the back pocket of those with spare change, nothing to loose, and a long walk ahead of them.

                      … wait … what?
                      .

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Is that what you found in yours?

            • .
              @Lagosunshine:disqus’s post is super rational (wisdom, equivalent consideration, experienced as love).

              Yours, @aldoelmnight:disqus, is super emotional (fear, separation from assumed ‘other’, experienced as hate).
              .

        • .
          Wow, speaking for your own projected self, @aldoelmnight:disqus?
          .

      • Joseph Lammers

        Huh? We should be kind to everyone, but encouraging people to live a disordered life (or lifestyle, as many moderns would say) is a false kindness. Sometimes it is necessary to tell people unpalatable truths, which they might not perceive as kindness but in reality is.

      • David

        The irony of you saying “gay human beings” in the comments of this article wins the irony award for the year imo. I doubt you read it.

      • MarcAlcan

        Define what you mean by being kind to gay ( I presume here you mean SSA) humans.

    • The Truth

      I was happy to see 48 thumbs up, of course I knew some people wouldn’t grasp the article.

      • .
        “… grasp the article …”?!?

        … so, he’s “celibate” other means …?
        .

      • .
        Are you sure those were thumbs they were grasping?

        Doh!
        .

  • LRC

    Beautifully said, Daniel.

  • Mark Millward

    Wise, beautiful, humane!

  • Kevin Aldrich

    This is very illuminating. I would recommend reading this in conjunction with chapter 3 of the catechesis for the World Meeting of Families “Love is Our Mission.” Chapter 3 is “The Meaning of Human Sexuality.” I think Daniel’s testimony and the chapter can shed a lot of light on each other.

  • Jeanna

    Such a refreshingly sane and precious article. Thank you for your courageous witness, Mr. Mattson!

  • Don

    This is truly insightful and timely. A message for all persons.

  • joanofarc

    Thank you for sharing these profound thoughts with such honesty, humility, and faithfulness. You expressed the nature of chastity so beautifully. I will enjoy re-reading this to go deeper in my own knowledge of the nature of man and woman, and will share with my friends who are always eager to read authentic and faithful witness.

    • Jeanna

      The author has a wonderful blog, called “Letters to Christopher”, which I highly recommend for further reading

  • GG

    Excellent piece. God Bless you. Keep up the good work.

    Can you explain why folks like Tushnet and Selmys keep pushing the “gay” identity thing?

  • There is a reason that the Church highly recommends the term SSA for those of us who struggle in this area, and I in fact wrote on this very thing both on my blog and on the Public Discourse site this last year. I have “same sex attraction”–I AM a Catholic Christian man. One actually is me in my essence, one is part of my Cross which I daily am called to carry. And all of us carry the Cross in one way or another. The trend to marry the two is frightening to me and, with every respect for those who are trying to do so, I believe a mark is sadly missed in that process. And I say that gently, believe me. Thank you for saying so in such readable and eloquent terms.

    • Amatorem Veritatis

      Your comment is equally readable and eloquent. Pax Christi

    • The Truth

      Wow. God bless you.

    • rei42728@yahoo.com

      I’m glad you mentioned we all have a “cross”. We all do in different ways and must realize after reading Pope Leo’s locution (popeleoXIII) that this is the devil’s world. He saw to it that soy is put in everything, messing up our hormones and it was given to babies as formula many years ago producing homosexuals abundantly to bring their souls to him!!! —those who are not a child of God. and there are many of those today. also ck out wnd.com/2006/12/39253 The devil is also causing nudity in women to lure men who are not of God. Every sort of sin is out of control in this world of today and soon we will be experiencing the 3daysdarkness. Ck that out also and be ready for after that happens -those of us who are left on this earth will be experiencing living with only non evil people but also without electricity, cars, phones !!!! and we will have to back to the earth to survive. Better get ready for only God knows when this will happen —can humanity get much worse without God crushing this world’s existence. It was said in some apparitions of the BVM that she was holding his hand from our end but I surely am ready for it. I hope she is too at last.
      PRAY for your loved ones who has gone the route of the world and forget they have a soul to take care of for a forever existence.

    • Aldo Elmnight

      Amen! and thank you.

  • Stunning and beautiful defense of a biblical anthropology. How we answer, “What is Man?” decides everything.

    Thank you and blessings for this honest and courageous piece. You are a warrior among men.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    I found this in my commonplace book: it was from someone’s blog and I don’t have the source so I apologize:

    “I am, myself, same-sex attracted and the thing that best helped me to see it in perspective was a passage in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics (Book VII: 5) that I encountered in my last year at school,where he talks of ‘morbid states” [νοσηματώδεις], such as “the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even eating coals or earth, and in addition to these, sex with males [τῶν ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν];for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.’”
    On a first reading, I thought his comparisons, frankly, bizarre, but, on reflection, I realised he had captured perfectly the pointless and obsessive character of these activities. Gay Pride? Oh! Please.”

  • elarga

    “Celibacy” can mean either abstention from sexual intercourse, or vowing to abstain from marriage. To live a chaste life as a single person means to live as a celibate in the first sense, so it is confusing for the author to insist he lives chastely but not as a celibate.

    • He is not a celibate by calling, but called to live chastely while he is yet married. That’s his point. He leaves open the possibility God might still call him to marriage. A celibate believes his vocation precludes marriage.

      • And he will write another dozen polemics to illuminate the faithful without confronting any real issues. He tells adherents something that they want to hear.

        • GG

          He has confronted the central issue. You just do not like the answer.

          • Again, I hate being a simplistic foundationalist but I can do no other:

            Secular humanism/materialism cannot consider the real question, What Is Man? It must begin with, Man was not made so he has no definition, ergo we must make ourselves, and by extension our state rulers give us our rights and dignity in the face of certain annihilation, so let us imbibe in pleasure since the only joy we can have are coterminous with our pleasures.

            • GG

              That is a perfect summation.

        • And you’ll write hundreds of posts to irritate the faithful without “confronting real isssues”.

        • Phil Steinacker

          No. It’s something you – in your obtuseness – refuse to understand.

    • Elaine Steffek

      The Church defines celibacy as a state of being unmarried.
      So, a person can be celibate but not chaste.
      Celibacy and chastity are two different but connected
      disciplines.

      • elarga

        No. To live chastely as an unmarried person is live celibately. Lots of unmarried persons do not live chastely, meaning they do not live celibately, meaning they have sexual intercourse.

        • Elaine Steffek

          Celibacy and chastity are two different but connected disciplines. If they were the same there would be no need to differentiate between them with different terms. Please refer to the Catechism.

          • elarga

            Nobody said they were the same.

            • Elaine Steffek

              The Catechism will give you the info you need.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Your understanding is incorrect. Celibacy is the state of not being married. It can be de facto, or arise from taking a vow. For a Catholic, however, to be celibate is also to be abstinent. Failure in this regard is an egregious sin.

      Without taking a vow to be celibate, a single man living a chaste life is celibate until
      such time as he enters into marriage with a single woman.

      • elarga

        Based on what you wrote, you seem to agree with me. Celibate has two meanings, as do many words. So a single man who intends to be married is living a chaste life if he is celibate (meaning abstaining from sexual intercourse, but not in the sense of a vowed state of permanent singleness).

  • Marie

    Thank you, sir. What a bold and honest writer.

  • Carol Leeda Crawford

    Thank you for such a concise and wise explanation regarding our true identity as male and female made in the image and likeness of God, and how sexual desire does not define us, no matter how strong it may be. I also appreciated David Prosen’s article, I am not gay I am David on Holy Spirit Interactive. I am blessed to know two men who participated in same sex behaviour, who had identified themselves as “being gay”, one a strong activist and writer for the cause, who are now both happily married. Aquinas best explained the affect of habit, hence attraction seeming to be embedded within one. My point being one may still have episodes of same sex attraction out of habit while being attracted to the opposite sex. The blessing being as reasoning beings we may choose how to respond to such attractions.

  • If allowed, I would like to share a link to my blog, where I wrote some similar thoughts last year–and thanks again to this author for his great insights and eloquence in sharing them…https://catholicboyrich.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-a-gay-catholic-christian/

    • In polite society we address people as they choose to be addressed. If you prefer “same-sex attracted” to “gay” — fine with me. Moreover, I understand the difference between the two terms.

      I have no problem with your personal choices. Indeed, you confirm the very point that some are unwilling to accept; Sexual orientation is not a choice. Choosing to essentially opt-out is something that only a minuscule percentage of gay people could (or perhaps should) do.

      Can you respect the fact that the overwhelming majority of gays need to express their sexuality and to form unions? I was with my late partner (a conflicted Catholic) for over 30 years. I cannot imagine what life would have been like without him.

      • ForChristAlone

        “Can you respect the fact that the overwhelming majority of gays need to express their sexuality and to form unions? ”

        Only if you can accept the fact that murderers need to express their violent passions toward the object of their affections. Sentimentalism is usually unproductive.

      • You’re confusing intimate friendship with sexual intimacy.

        You don’t have to treat a man like a woman (or yourself treated as such) to declare: “My friend made all the difference in the world to me.”

      • GG

        Not every identity or choice people make deserves respect.

        If people choose to be identified by bigamy or wipe-swapping I am under no obligation, social or moral, to affirm such nonsense.

      • “In polite society we address people as they choose to be addressed.”

        For example: “Homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, troglodyte, “denier”, “anti-choice”, “hater”.. have I missed any?

      • BPS

        I perfer “Youth attracted” to pedophile. Do I qualify?

        • Guest

          Will up-vote

      • Hi David–I am not sure if you have checked out any of my writings or not but I have always taken care not to condemn those who have come to different conclusions as me. I am so very sorry for your loss, and would just say I see your point just as you see mine. Thanks for sharing. My only question would be regarding the idea that the majority need to and should form unions. I would say that to our heterosexual sisters and brothers too. I am not sure that the vast majority “should” be in lifetime relationships with one person. I do not know that. I do know, however, that when you care deeply for someone you wish the best for them, and certainly pray for your peace. The idea that your love is somehow less real than those in the majority world is not correct either, in that many who are actively LGBT have very loving and deep relationships based on that same self-giving love. But that is not at issue here. The issue is what is honestly best for us personally and society as a whole. And the Church, while teaching celibacy for those of us with SSA, leaves room for very deep and loving friendships, whether with the same or opposite gender. That is something that was not taught well in the “ex gay” movements for the most part, and one of many reasons why they eventually collapsed. But that is not the understanding of Catholicism on the issue. In any case it is between you and God ultimately, and I definitely respect your view and your concerns, God’s peace be with you.

      • Contrary to this inane claim that sexual orientation is not a choice, human sexuality cannot function without multiple levels of choices. In part because you choose many of your sexuality-related thoughts and your thoughts about others – and also because most LGBTs today choose not to go treat their deformed and perverted minds – that is a choice.

  • JP

    Last week there was a story in the news about an 18 year old who is carrying out a sexual relationship with her 36 year old father. They live in New York and plan to move to New Jersey in order to live together without living in fear of arrest ( it turns out that incest isn’t a crime in New Jersey). The article never once mentioned the word incest to describe their relationship; but, instead got some shrink to label it something like Genetic Attraction.

    My point in mentioning story is that there is probably less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the population that suffers from that depravity. Forty years ago the gay life style was below the radar, despite that fact that the number of gays as a percentage of the population was no different than today (about 4%, but the Census has it at less than 3%). Yet, today were are obsessed with all things gay. I concur with this writer 100%. But, how long do we remain on the defensive? Already, those who advocate polygamy are on the move to normalize it. And incest seems to be right behind them. Will there eventually be a Pro-Polygamy block within the Church? Will some future bishop use the language of “Mercy” and the theory of Gradualism to “welcome” our brothers and sisters who practice incest to the Communion Table?

    • That’s because Marxist atheism needs to flatten humanity into a dignity derivable only by the state. Traditional categories smack of the idea that there is something outside of the state that holds man into account. Sexuality is a tool of the revisionists, not because they specifically care one bit about same sex attraction, but because it is a useful pretext in order to denounce religion.

    • Glong

      Sorry, but you’re implying a “slippery slope” where there isn’t necessarily one.

      • But there is one: sinful man will find every justification for celebrating depravity. Exhibit “A”: History

      • GG

        Oh, the slope is well beyond slippery.

        • It’s just a damned rocket-propelled dive into the abyss.

        • No society has slipped so quickly down into the sexuality sewer such as ours. We aren’t seeing a slippery slope, we’re experiencing an avalanche slope.

      • Glong

        Sure, there may be “evidence” that one could lead to another, but you’re implying that it’s a foregone conclusion…which is a logical fallacy. And if we’re all trying to keep it real and logical (as the author seems to try to do), then it’d be good to stick to basics. Further, using “we can all agree” pseudo-logic isn’t going to persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree (and neither will gross generalizations about people who don’t agree or ascribe to the same belief). If your goal is to help people understand your position, even someone you might classify as a “troll,” mean-spirited comments have no chance of supporting your goal. Sure, meeting a hostile comment with another hostile comment might be justified, but it’s certainly not helpful.

    • Reading that article made me wonder if I was already dead and condemned.

    • Aaron Taylor

      Right. Because homosexuals being *celibate* will lead inexorably to daughters being allowed to marry their fathers …. which universe are you living in, again?

      • I love it when somebody responds with viseral indignation and not much else.

        The entire premise of marriage now is that it is a radical contractarian enterprise that provides the status of public recognition of the jointure of the individuals involved. It can be formed or dissolved at will. Its formation requires nothing but mutual assent.

        If we must extend the franchise to two men or two women on that basis, there is no logical reason to limit it to two people or to limit it to persons with less than a certain degree of consanguinity. I can’t wait until the oral arguments where the SCOTUS is engaging in those verbal gymnastics they so enjoy to explore whether some state’s allows third cousins to marry, but not second is arbitrary and capricious, after of course, they decide what basis of review to employ.

        If “Justice” Kennedy could strike down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas with the mere observation that sodomy is customary, what stops fundamentalist Mormons or Muslims from asserting that polygamy is “customary” in their faiths?

        Unlike homosexuals, Mormons and Muslims have children, both groups are actively recruiting new members, and there’s plenty of Muslims to immigrate here. Both groups are growing as proportions of the population.

        Once one of those groups reaches a conspicuous electoral mass, those coreless cretins we call our “elected representatives”, will suddenly be “enlightened” about polygamy in the ever craven chase for votes.

        • Aaron Taylor

          And I love it when someone responds with a totally irrelevant rant.

          What do celibate homosexual Christians who accept traditional Christian teaching on sex and marriage have to do with the push to redefine marriage, abolish sodomy laws, and promote polygamy?

          • In a subtle way, Christian anthropology that morphs into the coddling psychologizing that the Left drinks to the dregs, it sets up a culture by degrees amiable to the same sex union (but it’s monogamous!) cant quickly spreading in churches. And don’t fool yourself if you think a rift in the Roman Communion can’t occur on this front.

            By analogy, most people who first accepted contraception wouldn’t have dreamed it would open a flood-gate to abortion.

            • Aaron Taylor

              People with same-sex attraction exist whether you like it or not. Still waiting for an explanation of how them being chaste and celibate is going to open the flood gates to incest.

              • Did I say chaste people will open the floodgates to incest? Where did I imply that? You are reading something I never wrote.

                • Aaron Taylor

                  I didn’t say you said it. But you were responding to a comment I wrote in response to JP, which was about precisely that. Lets keep on topic.

                  • If you would snap out of your stupor, you might notice this is a sub-thread spawned by your response to DE-173. I gave you a plausible answer as to how one thing relates to another. You didn’t like my answer or couldn’t follow it, so you responded with something that was not immediately relevant to my response.

                    “Keep on topic.” Indeed, let’s.

                    • Aaron Taylor

                      If you would snap out of your own stupor, you would almost certainly notice that DE-173’s comment is responding to my original response to JP.

                      Still waiting to hear how all this talk of same sex unions and schisms in the Church of Rome over the issue of homosexuality — let alone incest — is relevant to the topic in question, viz. homosexuals being celibate.

                    • I read the whole thread. Nobody claimed a celibate who happens to be attracted to the same sex will lead to those things.

                      And please pardon my bristle and abrasive response, I have no reason to believe you are an insincere or misinformed catholic.

                    • Aaron Taylor

                      No worries. God bless.

                    • michael susce

                      To put it simply, a celibate homosexual is the same as a celibate pedophile. No one is a celibate to sin. Only in not partaking of a inherently moral act reflects the proper definition of celibate. a celibate homosexual implies that the act itself is inherently moral.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      A celibate homosexual implies by definition that the act itself is inherently moral.

                      That is a very insightful summation. Bravo.

              • Obviously the majority of people with a homosexual/bisexual problem today vociferously promote the attitude that they are right in being so, that simply because their mind generates a perverted desire, that this is normal and should be acted upon. This is obviously the attitude and ideology of choice for every kind of pervert, since it absolves them of any accountability and normalizes their perverted psychologies. This is primarily what is driving all sorts of normalization of sexually harmful and perverted attitudes, feelings, and behaviors in society.
                As for the homosexuals/bisexuals who claim to be chaste, their minds and feelings certainly aren’t. And we can feel this when interacting with them, which is noxious. Such people are responsible for at least trying to treat their homosexuality problem with therapy and any other action that provides benefit throughout their lives. It’s not because they have a warped psychology problem that their are right in having it. Just like pedophiles exist whether we like it or not. Doesn’t change the fact that they are responsible for treating their mind.

            • There’s much worse coming – the CC is already corrupt beyond repair, with it’s entrenched homosexual mafia having power up to the very top, and its large mass of liberal Catholics in the West. I don’t predict a rift, we’re already watching a take-over from the inside by the insidious corruption of the hierarchy plus the core ideas/teaching of the Church, which go (used to go?) against the dominant GLAAD-type normalization of homosexuality agenda. Instead of the Church standing firm, more and more Catholics say they don’t have a problem with having a homosexual priest or with “gay Catholics”, homosexuality, homosexual acts… Terrible.

          • ‘What do celibate homosexual Christians who accept traditional Christian teaching on sex and marriage have to do with the push to redefine marriage, abolish sodomy laws, and promote polygamy?”

            Absolutely nothing, and everything to do with your sort of your strange response to JP, who said nothing about chaste homosexuals but made an observation about the hegemony of small minorities.

          • David

            It seems strange to identify yourself with a sin that you do not do, and conflate with that the term celibacy, which has nothing to do with aberrant sexual behavior. What would you think about someone identifying themselves as a “celibate pedophile Christian”? That language uplifts the sin, and degrades the pedophile, by turning his identity into not “A Christian man”, but something always referencing some sin he is prone to. Really this is too much. We all have problems… but I will never identify myself as a “Non-masturbating, porn addicted Christian”. Do you understand how outrageous that would be? Now do you see how outrageous your chosen name for your identity is?

            • disqus_rjmpTqGKyV

              Right on David….we need to loose the labels….we already know we’re sinnners…can we leave it at that and try avoiding the sin and to be more like Christ!

            • GG

              That is exactly it. Celibate Gay is nonsensical.

          • disqus_rjmpTqGKyV

            It’s not about ‘celibate’ or ‘homosexual’, it’s simply Christian. The moment you start adding adjectives is the moment that marriage has to be ‘redefined,’ etc. God created men and women, period.

            • Aaron Taylor

              Someone calling themselves “celibate” will lead to the redefinition of marriage? How?

              • disqus_rjmpTqGKyV

                Because someone will then want to have a ‘celibate’ marriage

                • Aaron Taylor

                  Interesting how the Church has honoured celibacy for two thousand years and Christians have called themselves “celibate,” and yet this problem — of celibacy leading to the redefinition of marriage — has never occurred in the entire history of Christianity.

                  By “Church” I of course mean the Church Catholic. Perhaps you follow one of the schismatical sects.

          • I think the biggest problem is that they apparently refuse or do not see it as their responsibility to go do therapy to treat their dysfunctional psychology.

            • Aaron Taylor

              If homosexuals have a “responsibility” to seek therapy why doesn’t the Church say so? Why do organisations like Courage which are approved by the Church see therapy as at best an optional extra, not an obligation? Modern America may regard sitting in a comfy chair and blubbing to a therapist about how daddy never loved you as a kind of sacrament of healing. The Church does not.

              • Clearly, the CC approach is to increasingly normalize
                homosexuality as some kind of inborn and unchanging characteristic of the individual, and to paint it as normal and acceptable, or something so minor that it could be completely overlooked, as if a person’s entire sexual psychology, especially when it is deformed and perverted, would not matter at all.

                Second point, the CC, which may be good in its moral teachings (or
                should I say was good until Pope Francis), is as ignorant as the liberal masses still stuck in their “Eugenics” beliefs about homosexuality being “inborn and genetically determined.”

                Contrary to what the Pope believes, the problem is exactly that “one
                has this tendency.” What the Pope calls “a homosexual tendency” is in reality a deep psychological, sociological, and ideological problem.

                As for the rest of the CC, since it is mostly incapable of
                investigating and treating any homosexual problem in any individual, its approach smacks of its own ignorance of human psychology and it is left with an attitude that increasingly resembles a “move along, nothing to see here with our profound, corrupt homosexual mafia and followers.”

                What the Catholic Church needs to go back to realizing is that having a perverted mind is a sin.

                While an individual cannot be blamed if their mind produces a desire
                they can’t control, and especially a perverted or perverse desire, they are responsible for what they do about it and how much they feed their perverse desires, thoughts, fantasies, etc. Not investigating the underlying problems that are contributing to the generation of that desire is neglectful and irresponsible, and only contributes to maintaining the psychological/social/ideological problems that generate the perverted desire in the first place.

                People with a homosexuality problem need to investigate the etiology of their problem and resolve it. The Church, which cannot provide clinical therapy, is mostly ineffectual in this respect and thus largely incapable to help deal with many root issues.

                I’m underscoring this because a lot of people who have perverted
                minds do NOT want to *deal* with their problems – they just want
                acceptance, they simply want to feel better – that’s all. It’s just like
                the Church shuffling along its homosexual pedophiles: Oh, let’s put
                them in another parish, we’ve already asked them to repent, problem solved. And then they abused again. A surprise to whom?

                ====================
                p.s. “Courage” isn’t therapy, doesn’t provide it, and as far as I can tell from their site, therapy is something they are completely ignorant about. NARTH, for example, actively does research on the etiology of homosexuality, including through therapy.

                • Aaron Taylor

                  Except the Church didn’t *just* shuffle along paedophile priests. In America, at least, it very often sent them to *psychologists* (just as you seem to be recommending), who then gave them the OK to go back into parishes, where they abused and raped again. And some of the psychologists who were complicit in the scandals were precisely those psychologists who are pushing the theories about homosexuality that you seem to be endorsing (read about the Bishop Finn case, for example). The problem was precisely that the Church in the 1970s (when the highest numbers of abuse cases occurred) stopped treating child abuse as a *crime* for which people should be *punished* and started treating it as a psychological “issue” for which pervert priests should receive “treatment” and “therapy” and “healing.” Thus, it is no surprise that the clerical abuse scandal was *worse* in America that almost any other country in the world, since America is the country where the therapeutic culture is most entrenched.

                  • As far as I understand, the Church in the 70s didn’t stop treating pedophilia as a crime – since they weren’t doing that before. They were intent in covering up the crimes, and protecting their own from criminal justice. Isn’t this how this corrupt Catholic Church normally behaved for decades?
                    The problem is the victims only started coming forward and organizing into a movement to demand justice following that period. As to how complicit the therapists involved were, I’m sure they were largely so and I don’t know enough to know why they apparently have not been brought to justice. If some therapists honestly underestimated how much progress their pedophile priest had made, it doesn’t make it right to make the same mistake again.
                    And we’re talking about this same corrupt and vile Catholic Church that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits against the victims to silence them and to protect these priests and bishops from justice. Obviously the abusive priests should have been criminally investigated at the time or as soon as a denounciation was made. A pedophile that has committed a crime belongs in jail. But putting him or her in jail is not going to treat his deformed mind. This is why it’s important for people with a sexually warped mind to seek to treat their minds, before they act on it.
                    The reason why there have been many more lawsuits in the US has much more to do with the legal system in the US having advanced more to enable victims to successfully sue – in many other countries this is hardly possible, or it took a lot longer. Many scandals are still happening in Europe and other places for example. Many victims simply do not have the resources to fight a multi-millionaire corrupt Church.

          • MarcAlcan

            And I love it when someone responds with a totally irrelevant rant.

            Meaning you did not understand what DE wrote.
            I suggest reading it again.

        • MarcAlcan

          Brilliant!

      • michael susce

        I choose to live in any universe that pleases me and will destroy anybody that gets in my way in achieving it. Survival of the fittest you know. It’s science!!!!

      • I’m living in the universe where people normalizing homosexuality are also normalizing porn, S&M, promiscuity, SSM, underage sex, and incest, to name a few. This universe is called the US (but has spread to all the West really)

        • Aaron Taylor

          You think that celibacy is a perversion like S&M? That would be news to the Catholic Church…

          • That’s even another question – about heterosexual celibacy – but I also think it’s unhealthy, especially if enforced by an institution. However as it was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, regarding homosexuals, refraining from engaging in male sodomy for a man who wants to do so doesn’t change the fact that his mind is perverted towards other men and constantly feels and thinks in sexually warped ways. Furthermore, I also certainly doubt how in control people who claim to be “celibate” are. I wonder how much they act out in their perverted ways, even without a degree of phsicality, and simply don’t admit it.

            • Aaron Taylor

              Ah yes, the old canard about “enforced” celibacy being “unhealthy” … put out there by liberals who want the Church to change her teaching on premarital sex, remarriage after divorce, and so on.

              • Calling it a canard doesn’t change it’s unhealthiness.

            • MarcAlcan

              refraining from engaging in male sodomy for a man who wants to do so doesn’t change the fact that his mind is perverted towards other men

              Perhaps he is inclined towards other men. But unless neuroplasticity is not correct, then refusing to engage in perverse acts does retrain the mind.

    • Arnold Ian Reeves

      JP describes the proportion of homosexuals to the rest of the population as being “about 4%, but the Census has it at less than 3%).

      Actually even these low numbers could well be inflated. The July 15, 2014 issue of The Washington Post – hardly most people’s idea of a newspaper hopelessly addicted to Jansenism – gives the figures for America as lower still: 1.8% for men, 1.5% for women (with less than 1% of the population, either male or female, being bisexual). Further details here:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/15/what-percentage-of-the-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-or-bisexual/

      Of course the old-style “one in 10” theory of homosexuals’ numbers vis-à-vis the general American population has no more legitimate basis than Kinsey’s out-and-out lying, which Judith A. Reisman comprehensively exposed decades back.

  • Aaron Taylor

    This is very odd. Its one thing to say people shouldn’t identify as “gay,” and even to say people shouldn’t therefore identify as “celibate gays,” … but apparently now people aren’t allowed to identify as “celibate” simpliciter? Its a very unorthodox position indeed for a Roman Catholic to take.

    [Quote]”To call myself “celibate” when I haven’t taken vows of celibacy seems a willful rejection of the potential will of God in my life that he may desire to bring to me a woman with whom I might realize my sexual complementarity. It would be hubris to close the door to the possibility that God is calling me to marriage.”[Quote]

    The argument makes no sense. The Church has never taught that only those who have taken ecclesiastical vows can call themselves celibate. Its not like marriage, where one rightly can’t call oneself “married” unless one has taken vows of marriage. Marriage is a sacrament. There is no sacrament of celibacy. Its simply a state of life. Why would it be “hubris” for an unmarried person to think that one is being called to live in this state? Contrast Mattson’s claim that it is “hubris” to think God is calling you to celibacy unless you have taken church vows with the teaching of Pope Pius XII:

    [Quote]”When one thinks of the women who voluntarily renounce matrimony in order to consecrate themselves to a life of contemplation … immediately there comes to one’s lips a luminous word: vocation! … [But] this vocation, this call of love, makes itself felt in very diverse ways … The young Christian woman who remains unmarried in spite of her own desires may, if she firmly believes in the providence of the heavenly Father, recognize in life’s vicissitudes the voice of the master … In the impossibility of matrimony, she discerns her vocation.”[Quote]

    The reason for the divergence between Mattson and Pius XII, it seems to me, is quite simply that Pius XII has a traditional Catholic view of celibacy, while Mattson does not (which is not to say he explicitly denies it; he doesn’t). Pius XII would have found it rather odd if someone had suggested to him that his “nature as a male” could only be fulfilled (or could be best fulfilled) by “union with a woman in marriage.”

    • The author’s logic is ironclad:

      (1) Man by nature is called to union with Woman (Gen. 1 & 2)
      (2) Some men, for the sake of the Kingdom, are expressley called to no earthly union to their sexual counterparts (St Paul)
      (3) Having a same sex attraction is not equivalent with reality #2 – though it might mean that.

      • (1) Most people have black hair
        (2) Some people have brown hair
        (3) Ergo, no one can have blond hair

        • GG

          Sex is binary. Male or female.
          Pathology exists within the world.
          There fore same sex attraction is normal and healthy.

          • I am not sure that I understand your point but you seem to be confusing gender with sexual orientation. Gender is also a continuum with male and female at extreme ends. That’s the science.

            A statistically significant number of births have some form of gender ambiguity. A portion of those even present chromosomal ambiguity.

            • GG

              I was pointing out the illogical reasoning you offer us.

              Ambiguous genitalia is pathology. Just because we live in a fallen world does not mean same sex attraction is normal or healthy.

            • Gender is language, not biology, but like biology is binary.
              There’s no science involved with your preposterous claim of a continuum-it is a poltical construct, born of linguistic engineering, not replicable observation.

              • But, see, “nature” is so multiform and colorful and unpredictable, so why make artificial and oppressive rules around people who are equally as such?

                I like this argument: “There are gay sheep, ergo I should be able to abuse someone of the same sex (and myself by consequence) since I am really no different than a brute animal.”

                The logic is stellar, no?

                • It seems more like the time after the star collapses into infinite nothingness than when it burns bright, but I suppose that stellar is still the correct adjective.

            • Phil Steinacker

              That’s not science. That’s contrivance.

            • Gender is not a continuum, it’s binary (male or female). That’s reality and science. If you are using “ambiguity” to refer to “intersex”, intersex is not a normal development of the fetus, just like many other congenital defects. When fetus develop correctly, they will be defined into either male or female.

        • I am about to employ an ad hominem and genetic fallacy (though well within the realm of truth), but worth it since reason seems to escape you at every turn:

          Your comparison is illogical because you reject reason. You reject reason because you are rebel against God who hates Him, and reason testifies of His power and Godhead and rule. Ergo, you must resort to your contrived self-made religion that worships the self. But since you see the image of God in you (whom you hate anyway), and you can’t stand what you see, you must refashion your image into that of brute beasts in order to justify your rebellion. Your self-made religion (don’t worry, it’s common, most men do this as rebels) has a liturgy, a chant, and a sacrament: that is avoid God, declare monotonously you are god, and baptize all into promiscuity since sexual pleasure is the last bit of transcendence you hold on to that honors your origins while maintains your idolatry.

          Yeah, I’ve got sinful men figured out: I’m one myself. The difference, I’m a sinner saved by grace alone on the merits of Christ alone.

      • Aaron Taylor

        The people whom the author is criticizing generally do not assert (3). In fact, some of these people actually *are* married (to the opposite sex, of course), so they’re certainly not all saying that being same-sex attracted automatically equals a call to be celibate without discernment

        St Paul, moreover, doesn’t say anything like what the author says. He says it is preferable for all of the unmarried to remain in that state if possible (1 Cor 7:8). He makes no suggestion that it is something only for those who have taken ecclesiastical vows.

        • Ecclesiastical vows is a later, formal development, granted. The larger point is that some are specifically given the charism of celibacy for the work of the Kingdom of God.

          The extended question of, What if I find the opposite sex undesirable, really doesn’t come under the aegis of Paul’s recommendation (however, he positively denounces any idea of two men fulfilling sexual desire in one another); but the general principle: Man is made for Woman is the controlling thing. The good and necessary conclusion is, Nobody is compelled to marry at any given moment, so chastity must reign in all situations whether or not marriage results.

          The author is simply saying, I am a man. I may not be called to celibacy, so I won’t identify my vocation as such. I am, however, always to be chaste, as all men are to be.

      • GG

        It is ironclad. The author has not renounced marriage. It is quite clear.

    • GG

      Pope Pius would agree with Mattson strongly. Celibacy has traditionally been understood as the renunciation of marriage for a higher good. Mattson has not renounced marriage.

      Your quote from the pope is not counter to Mattson position at all.

      • Aaron Taylor

        Read the quote. The Pope isn’t talking about people who have “renounced” marriage but people who want to get married and yet cannot.

        And I respect Mattson’s decision *not* to renounce marriage and to leave himself “open to the possibility that God may direct [his] steps towards union with a woman in marriage.” Good for him. But that doesn’t mean everyone in Mattson’s situation must make the same choices as he does.

        • GG

          He was talking about a vocation that does not include marriage.

    • Jim Russell

      Hi, Aaron–not sure how you see Dan’s view as contrasting with what Pius XII is saying here–(btw, can you link to a source or ID the document you’re citing? Thanks). In context, Dan’s referring to something quite orthodox, namely that the Catholic understanding of “celibacy” is not precisely the same as that often asserted by someone identifying as a “celibate, gay, Christian.” In that “celibate gay” context, there is often (though I’m sure not always) a sense in which the person sees themselves as literally incapable of marrying and thus consigned to “celibacy” with no hope of marriage at all.

      Dan is ultimately making the same point made by those with SSA who unexpectedly (perhaps) experience other-sex-attraction and *do* enter a “mixed-orientation marriage.” I think we’d all agree that there can really be no a priori closing of that door. And anyone who does not promise “celibacy for the sake of the kingdom,” objectively, is keeping that door to marriage open as a “single” person.

      The Pius XII quote does not seem to contradict this concept, which seems to hint more at consecrated virginity as “vocation”–but I’d like to see the cited text in original context before saying much more than that.

      Thanks for any clarifying you might offer on this, Aaron–I appreciate your comments!

      • GG

        From what I can find it seems to be from a 1945 address he gave to Italian women. I have not read the entire address, but from the parts I have seen he seems to have said that if you cannot get married then embrace the calling/vocation to celibacy.

        That is not inconsistent, with what Mattson is saying.

        • Jim Russell

          Thanks GG! I found a translated text of the address from Pius XII, and the following is the paragraph noted by Aaron, in full. The Holy Father first praises the vocation of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, and *then* remarks on the vocation of the single woman who is single “in spite of herself.”

          And yes, I think it’s quite consistent with Dan’s framing of the issue–particularly *because* the “Catholic girl” in the Pope’s description isn’t someone for whom marriage is categorically “impossible” but is someone for whom marriage is “denied.” She greatly desires it but it does not come to her, and in that absence she discerns a “vocation” but does *not* ever reject the possibility of marriage in the midst of practicing the vocation she discerns as a single person….

          ****’Vocation’: this is the significant word which springs to our lips when we think of those girls and women who voluntarily renounce matrimony to consecrate themselves to a higher life of contemplation, sacrifice, and charity. It is the only word that fits such a noble sentiment. This vocation, this loving call, makes itself heard in many different ways, as many as the infinite variety of accents in which the Divine voice may speak: irresistible invitations, affectionate and repeated promptings, gentle impulses.
          But there is also the Catholic girl who remains unmarried in spite of herself; and she too, if she believes firmly in the Providence of her Heavenly Father, recognizes the voice of the Master in the life that has fallen to her lot. ‘The Master is here and calleth for thee.’ [John 11: 28] And she answers the call; she abandons the fair dream of her adolescence and young womanhood, surrenders her hope of having a faithful companion to share her life, of making a home and family of her own. In the impossibility of marriage she discerns her own vocation and, sad at heart though resigned, she too devotes herself entirely to the highest and most varied forms of beneficence.*****

      • Aaron Taylor

        Jim: with regard to your last point, as I’ve explained before (in other comments on this very piece … ), none of the SF crowd are saying that gay people are “required” to live a life of celibacy. Some of them/us are married! If Dan’s point is merely that being attracted to the same sex does not in and of itself constitute a call to celibacy, then I agree with him, but in that case, he should not have framed this (as he quite clearly does in the first paragraph) as a critique of the SF crowd and their sympathisers. Its clear, however, that Dan’s critique is going beyond this point, since he argues that to call oneself “celibate” when one hasn’t taken ecclesiastical vows constitutes “a willful rejection of the potential will of God.”

        My retort is quite simple: the Church does not teach this, and never has, which is presumably why Dan cites *zero* authorities other than himself for his claim that self-identified celibates who have not taken vows at an altar are rebelling against God’s will.

        Regarding Pius XII, here is the document: http://www.enchiridionfamiliae.com/z_componer.php?codigo=0458

        Note that Pius contrasts celibacy “volontario secondo il consiglio evangelico” with the situation of the “cristiana rimasta suo malgrado senza nozze.” He doesn’t say, “if you find yourself unmarried after a little while, just go and join religious life or become a consecrated virgin.” You might say he is “hinting” at that, but (1) he doesn’t say it, and, more importantly, (2) the fact that he specifically distinguishes *consecrated* celibacy from the other kind of “vocation” he is talking about suggests he cannot be “hinting” that the unmarried should all become consecrated celibates. The only reason to torture Pius XII’s words by putting that interpretation on them seems to me to be if we start with the assumption that the Protestantized view of celibacy put forward by Dan is infallibly correct, and therefore the Church’s actual teaching must be bowdlerized to conform to it. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s not a good interpretive principle!

        Unless all of the men in the world were dead (and they weren’t), the unmarried women whom Pius XII was addressing could not have known with any certainty that they would have to remain unmarried all their lives. In fact, it was probably *more* likely that any one of those women would end up getting married that it is for a lot of people with same-sex attraction. The fact is that what Dan calls a form of “hubris,” Pius XII specifically says can be a possible indication of a vocation to celibacy.

        Nice to hear from you, Jim, and God bless.

        • Jim Russell

          Thanks for the response, Aaron–I do think it’s *really* important to keep Dan’s original context in place–namely, that it’s not “mere” objective celibacy vs. celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. Rather, it’s the particular “gay-celibacy” in question. What I infer from Dan’s context and phrasing is that it is the public attestation of “gay celibacy”–made in a context in which “gayness” is permanent and fixed and thus *celibacy* is construed as permanent and fixed–runs counter to that openness of vocation that Dan alludes to, found in the very “spousal” meaning of man and woman’s sexual identity. On a practical level, Pope Pius is of course right about the discernment of “vocation” in the midst of the single life even for those hoping for marriage. But Dan’s right, too, on a practical level, to guard against the “fait accompli” implied in the resignation to not marrying that often accompanies gay self-identification.

          • Aaron Taylor

            I agree its important to keep Dan’s original context in place, which is that he specifically frames this as a critique of the SF-ers. Since he names no one in particular, he has left the door open for himself to deny it, of course, but its not credible to say that “much attention has been given in both the secular media and Christian media” to some other group of “gay celibate Christians.” In that context, the thing Dan is criticising (“gay celibacy, and celibacy *because* gay”) is a chimera which no one is advocating. For a start, as I’ve already said, not all of the SF-ers are celibate. Some are married. And those who are celibate support the idea that it is possible for same-sex attracted individuals to have a vocation to marriage. Secondly, among those who are celibate, almost all have arrived at the conviction that they are called to celibacy only *after* quite a long exploration of other possibilities including orientation change and mixed-orientation marriage. There’s no “fait accompli” being advocated.

            I expect critiques of gay Catholics being celibate from pelvic proigressives, but from you and Mattson?! Its a little odd. Very sad that I — who am usually the one being accused of promoting some sinister gay agenda within the Church — now find myself having to defend the idea that same sex attracted people can live celibately against those who really should know better. I was aware that the satanic smoke of Protestant critiques of celibacy had entered through the broken windows of the American Church. I wasn’t aware that it had penetrated quite so deeply!

            • Jim Russell

              Even when we disagree, I can’t help but admire how eloquently you state your view! 🙂 “Satanic smoke of Protestant critiques” got me!

              Okay, I’m going to give some thought on your objection. I do think Dan’s post raises an objection discernibly different from the Protestant calculus on celibacy. I’ll try to come up with some examples of language that at least would seem to fall into the category being considered in the article above. All in all, though, Dan explains his view quite well–it’s a persuasive claim, I think, to say that publicly identifying as a “gay celibate” contains an implicit restriction relative to marrying. It may not be terribly intentional, too, but it’s a consequence of using “celibate” rather than, for example, “continent.”

              • Aaron Taylor

                Thanks. God bless, Jim.

              • Phil Steinacker

                Jim Russell.

                I so enjoy your comments when I encounter them. I regret you took down your TOB blog; your contributions to discussions involving sexuality have been consistently expressed in the TOB context.

                You and I shared an exchange with someone who struggled with Church teaching on sexuality some time ago, and you told me you liked how I used the story of my own fall from grace and subsequent redemption through Jesus and His Church to clarify for our friend some TOB bullet points relating to our exchange.

                It’s a privilege to have heard that from you, but nowhere have I encountered a site or blog where you post regularly. The Church needs your voice. Are you able to say why you took down your blog? Do you have a new site, or do we have to go on meeting like this? 🙂

          • GG

            Excellent and you, I believe, have hit the key point. It is this novel “gay celibacy” that seems to be the issue here.

    • bonaventure

      Dan Mattson’s point is exceedingly clear: those who call themselves “gay celibates” (i.e., some among the “New Homophiles”), actually identify as homosexual, while there ism in fact, no such identity.

      The ONLY human identity when it comes to sexuality is “sexual,” as God created us ALL: a man is attracted to a woman, and a woman is attracted to a man. One of each opposite sexes alone can complement each other. Everything else comes from our brokenness, which itself comes from sin, which comes from the Enemy of God, Satan.

  • Mr. Mattson is an openly gay man who refrains from having gay sex for religious reasons. He prefers to call himself “same-sex attracted.” Fine with me. I admire Mattson’s commitment to the teachings of his Church.

    Sexual orientation is a continuum with homosexual and heterosexual at the extreme ends. As we get closer to the ends (as most people do) we identify as homosexual or heterosexual. Mr. Mattson leaves open the possibility that he may be – at sometime in the future – attracted to a woman and marry. Only he knows (for he does not disclose) how realistic that is and he is not getting any younger. If that proposition seems impossible then it seems reasonable for an individual to describe himself as a celibate gay.

    When gay men marry women the results are usually disastrous ( http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2014/09/witherspoons-latest-victim-claims-that.html ).

    • RufusChoate

      Are you Catholic? I know you are not. If not what is your compulsion or point to publish inane self-rationalization for your personal sins and faults for people who really don’t care what you believe the source of your sin is?

      I would say the same if you were trying to justify any other sin or aberration.

      What you think and believe is irrelevant.

      I am going to flag you as inappropriate but especially for the link. Ciao

      • Are you Catholic? I know you are not. If not what is your compulsion or point to publish inane self-rationalization for your personal sins and faults for people who really don’t care what you believe the source of your sin is?

        That is called “begging the question.” with a fair measure of argument ad hominem.

        What you think and believe is irrelevant.

        If you say so …

        • MarkRutledge

          First, you describe yourself as a “Jew with a big cigar.” No begging the question there.

          Second, you reject the author’s reasoning out-of-hand and recite propaganda, as if this issue were merely some sort of battle of wills. Count me as another that finds this irrelevant.

          • The real question is does he inflict himself on those Jews who hold to the traditional law, to the extent that they have websites?

        • RufusChoate

          There is no fallacy involved aside from your obdurate insistence that people who have a completely different ethical system and belief accept your corruption and sin as normative sexual expression that should be allowed to corrupt the entire society in a fashion similar to what it did to the Catholic Priesthood.

          You under no compulsion to hold the tenets or morality of the Catholic faith and you have no substance or power to dissuade rationale people from the sane and biologically coherent understanding that the alimentary canal is not actually a part of the reproductive tract.

      • Joan59

        You have no business flagging anybody, considering your recent actions to name an anonymous Disqus commenter.
        I have no doubt DavidHart is a far more authentic human being, and a much better Catholic than you, “Rufus.”

        • RufusChoate

          You’re not quite grasping the concept of anonymous. If you link through facebook you are not anonymous. Have a neighbor’s child explain it to you. Your profile is open and your name is a lame attempt to conceal your open profile. This is why you progressives always end up with death camps and madness. It is a willful denial of the duty of being an adult instead of merely a dolt.

    • Jw

      I believe his point is that he is a man created by God. His attractions do not define who he is.

      • My sexual orientation certainly doesn’t define me either. His point can be summarized as chaste does not equal celibate. Celibate means that he will never be attracted to a woman and marry. He leaves open the potential for this to occur.

        • Homosexuality is the only thing that you post on here. Most of us betray other interests, hobbies and attractions in our posts. Not you.If homosexuality doesn’t circumscribe your identity, it certainly call the shots.

        • Phil Steinacker

          No, you have that part wrong. Celibacy is the state of not being marriage, regardless of one’s goal or desire in that regard. Truly voluntary celibacy for the kingdom raises the reality to the level of vocation through the taking of a vow. And, as has been discussed, a person desiring marriage but never finds it with a suitable spouse may eventually surrender to the celibate state, either sealing it with a vow or remaining open to love until taken by death.

          Celibate men – non SSA priests and lay men – may indeed be attracted to a woman, and often more than one but decide not to act upon that attraction. Celibacy does not describe, involve, or require attraction. It is a state in life – not married.

          “Abstinent” or “continent” are adjectives describing those who refrain fro sexual activity, whether married or single.
          Chastity is a state of right, virtuous behavior. It often includes or can refer to modesty, purity, and even humility. In sexual matters, chastity precludes lust, and requires lustful thoughts and feelings be brought under control for the sake of the “other.” This applies to marriage as well, as there is a common fallacy even among Catholics that it is OK to lust after one’s spouse.
          This idea often arises from a misreading of St. Paul’s admonition that one should marry if unable to control powerful sexual desires. The take-away here too often is that St. Paul’s suggestion makes it OK to release those unbridled passions upon one’s spouse, but this cannot be so to the extent that it makes the beloved into an object, a tool for obtaining one’s pleasure, rather than making a gift of oneself.

          Chastity for the single man or woman requires abstinence as only part of what is necessary to not lust after the other. Chastity in marriage requires husband in wife to NEVER use one another to fulfill lustful sexual desires. Lust in marriage is always sinful.

          Sorry for that exercise, but I have witnessed way to much incorrect tossing around of these terms in this thread, and while some of the shadings have been interesting and possible correct, far too many more are simply in error.

          • No need to apologize. I want to be factually correct … and corrected. The dictionary definition does coincide with your post — abstaining from sex and marriage.

      • ForChristAlone

        David Hart doesn’t get it; unlikely he will

        • A reprobate mind is a real thing. But God can save anyone.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      You put forth the notion of “sexual continuum”, first without proper definition, then as if it is settled fact. That concept, in particular, as a pedigree and a history. One only needs reflect on the uses it has been put to.

      The term has no foundation in fact or Natural Law.

      The term “sexual continuum” – as you wish us to understand it – is more than just a summary statement of observation of sexual behaviors. As it is commonly used, it is a declaration of a norm; more precisely, a declaration of a dogma. In our culture – along with other sexual tags and notions – it has established itself as a creedal statement: something to be recited, not questioned. As a judicial benchmark, it is used to i9dentify and judge cultural and religious heretics.The first to be marked and staked, florists and bakers. Who would have guessed.

      • Excellent point. Just like there is a “pedophilia continuum”, a “domestic violence continuum”… “Sexual continuum” only serves to normalize the perversion of homosexuality (which includes bisexuality).

  • So people like Daniel Mattson object to the word “Gay” which they see as a cultural, political or even celebratory term.

    I don’t see it that way.

    You can say “homosexual” or “heterosexual” which sound like psychological diagnoses.

    You can say “same-sex attracted” or “opposite-sex attracted” which seem hopelessly unwieldy.

    I say Gay and Straight. It just seems so much easier. Everyone knows what it means. There are Gay and Straight people who are promiscuous. There are Gay and Straight people who prefer monogamy. There are Gay and Straight people who are married. And there are Gay and Straight people who are celibate, whether by choice or by personal circumstance.

    So much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the word Gay. The rest of the world moves on.

    • GG

      The word Gay is a political tool like pro choice or marriage equality. It is propaganda.

      • If you say so, GG. It’s been part of common parlance for more than half a century now. Sorry if it sticks in your craw.

        • GG

          So is “pro choice”. That it is common does not make it good or authentic.

          • And people who are against abortion prefer to call themselves “Pro-Life.” It sounds so much nicer, doesn’t it?

            • GG

              One is authentic and one is propagandist.

            • ForChristAlone

              But we don’t call ourselves “pro-life persons.”

              • Right. It is a dispositional choice, not an innate and immutable attribute of being.

                • Stop breaking the narrative!

                  • Wash, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat….

            • Anti-abortionist here. Anti-choice here. Deliriously happy to be so.

            • Scott W.

              I’ve been trying to encourage people to reject pro-life precisely because the mischief it creates encourages such as, “If you were REALLY pro-life, you would support a minimum-wage hike.” Abolitionists didn’t mess around with silly labels like “pro-freedom.” They were antislavery, and thankfully so. Just as abortionists don’t like any language that references the evil ACT involved, so homosexualists (which I use to encompass both sodomites and their ideologically-addled heterosexual enablers) try to obscure the evil and perverted act with “gay”.

        • ForChristAlone

          and we choose to ignore this “parlance” here

        • bonaventure

          Orwellian Newspeak, not common parlance.

          But then again, “Repeat a lie a thousand times, and they will believe it.” I believe the lackey (Goebbels) of a former homosexual prostitute (HitIer) once said that. So yeah, maybe it is “common parlance” today, but for how long? How long did they use “comrade” in common parlance in communist countries? There you are.

          Have a gay evening. <– That, btw, is the only meaning of the word gay. "Happy" and "merry"… something that most homosexuals who think of themselves as "gay" actually aren't.

    • ForChristAlone

      No such thing as a gay person. Does not exist; cannot exist.

    • St JD George

      Hey Chuck. I’m glad the rest of the world isn’t jumping off of a bridge because I’d hate to be in that crowd. But then again, maybe they are on their way and don’t yet realize. Not a good standard to measure by, what the rest of the world is doing, particularly if you accept being in this world and not of it, and accept Christ’s teaching and understand the tactics of the one who would divide man from his church. I know from your visits here that you are a reasonable person and I pray that you will come to know what the rest of us know some day.

    • So much hot air.

    • S_O_T_A

      The “rest of the world” would look at a blue sky and call it green. The “rest of the world” would call a circle a square. But as the saying goes, ‘during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act’. I don’t think the terms ‘gay’ and ‘straight are either meaningful, accurate or helpful.

    • accelerator

      “The rest of the world moves on.” Except the Catholic ministries trying to help people with SSA.

    • You say “gay” because of your ignorance in psychology and unethical sexuality ideology. And contra your inane comment, most Americans are just as ignorant about psychology and sociology and anthropology as you are – so actually very few people know what “homosexual” or “gay” really means. That is, they can’t explain why a person develops a homosexuality problem, just like they can’t explain the inner workings that produce a pedophilia, bestiality, or promiscuity problem – they can’t explain how the human mind gets sexually perverted and degenerate, nor how you can treat it. The word “gay” normalizes homosexuality and that’s why liberals have adopted it. It’s not different than calling sexual abuse of boys “man-boy love”.

  • John Albertson

    This is utterly splendid writing. The distinctions and definitions may be subtle, but they are logical to the core. This is in contrast to the confused and dismaying rationalizing used by Cardinal Dolan in allowing a “gay contingent” to advertise itself in the Saint Patrick’s parade. He said they are “not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as ‘gay people of Irish ancestry’.” Too sad for comment.

    • Joseph Lammers

      I was extremely disappointed in Cardinal Dolan’s handling of the whole affair and by his weak rationalization for allowing those openly advocating a homosexual agenda to participate. Too many of our prelates seem to be compromising their faith to get along with the world.

  • Tony

    “A Daniel, I say, a Daniel come to judgement!”

    Splendid and brave — thank you, Dan.

    We must take care with names, because they become for us self-fulfilling prophecies. If the name is not in accord with reality, they do us harm; they keep us from understanding ourselves even as they purport to be revealing some essential truth about ourselves. I am not my sins; I am not my propensities to sin; all of those things are sludge, or deformations of who I am. God is not the author of confusion.

  • St JD George

    Daniel, every time I read articles in the MSM (as was discussed here recently) I can’t help but see through the thin veneer of those who are really trying to push an agenda for gaining acceptance through just another front in the battle. Their pointing out Catholic teaching is refreshing but not insightful. What makes this one sin unique is of course that the group who are afflicted by it are really fighting for acceptance that this sin (acting on the desire) is not a sin and normal. It warrants unique discussion because this group is screaming the loudest, but the reality is that it is but one among many sins though a particularly grave mortal sin. Not much different in that regard than adultery or addiction to pornography, pedophilia, etc., except there isn’t as wide spread an effort to normalize those. Addictions can be very hard to overcome and our prayers should be for those who recognize them and are trying to break the bonds of Satan in moving towards a life with Christ, even when the stumble. In the end of times good will be called evil, and evil will be called good.

  • Raphael Walker

    There appears to be a substantial movement among the bien-pensant yet notionally orthodox Catholic writers and publishers in America to embrace some version of the ‘gifted qua gay’ and even ‘let us bless “chaste” gay marriagelike relationships in the Church’ memes that are drifting around like mad-cow prions, infecting orthodox Catholic brain after orthodox Catholic brain. The great temptation of 2015 is to embrace the Tushnet/Gonnerman we-are-very-very-gay-and-that’s-totally-Catholic! program as things heat up in Philadelphia and Rome later in the year. This must be resisted, and of course in our extra-fallen times facts and logic are sexist tools of oppression and sophistry, as they say, and as the subtext of much of the threadjacking and tendrilization here indicate. Therefore witness is paramount, and witness from those who have SSA is the most powerful and irrefragable witness available. Well done, sir, and kudos to Crisis for publishing this.

    • Eve Tushnet is so creepy – and she is given so much space to affirm her perverted mind in the religious media. Obviously it’s one way that quickly shows how much a site is lacking quality and stewardship, like First Things.

  • ForChristAlone

    Thank God – for once a healthy dose of common sense AND an adequate theological anthropology.

  • Johanna Rubin

    Thank you. God bless you for your faith, your courage and your love. You will remain in my prayers.

  • St JD George

    The reflection from Evangeli today didn’t address this topic directly, but I thought it touched on it pretty well indirectly and was worth sharing:

    While others might have retaliated in an angry outburst, or turned away from them and their contemptuous accusation, our Lord does not, for He knows that He must try to convince them of his divinity for the sake of their souls. As John Paul II has asserted, our Lord «is an insuperable testimony of patient loving and humble gentleness». His unlimited condescension brings Him to try to open their closed hearts by reasoning with them by parables, but to no avail. Finally, Jesus in the divine but stern authority of the Godhead warns them that their hard-heartedness is rebellion against the Holy Spirit, and that it will never be forgiven (cf. Mk 3:29). That rebellion remains unforgiven, not because God does not want to forgive, but because, to be forgiven, oWhile others might have retaliated in an angry outburst, or turned away from them and their contemptuous accusation, our Lord does not, for He knows that He must try to convince them of his divinity for the sake of their souls. As John Paul II has asserted, our Lord «is an insuperable testimony of patient loving and humble gentleness». His unlimited condescension brings Him to try to open their closed hearts by reasoning with them by parables, but to no avail. Finally, Jesus in the divine but stern authority of the Godhead warns them that their hard-heartedness is rebellion against the Holy Spirit, and that it will never be forgiven (cf. Mk 3:29). That rebellion remains unforgiven, not because God does not want to forgive, but because, to be forgiven, one must first recognize one’s sin, which the rebellious will not do.

    The Master knows that His followers also experience that same obstinacy, even when they are acting in good faith for the benefit of unbelievers. All of us will, at times, face the same kind of difficulties and rejection as Jesus did. When we do, let us remember Saint Terese of Jesus when she was leading her sisters closer to holiness.

    Let us not, therefore, be surprised if we find in our path these contradictions. They will just be the sign we are following the right way of life. Let us then pray for these people and ask our Lord to give us the necessary patience.
    The Master knows that His followers also experience that same obstinacy, even when they are acting in good faith for the benefit of unbelievers. All of us will, at times, face the same kind of difficulties and rejection as Jesus did. When we do, let us remember Saint Terese of Jesus when she was leading her sisters closer to holiness.
    Let us not, therefore, be surprised if we find in our path these contradictions. They will just be the sign we are following the right way of life. Let us then pray for these people and ask our Lord to give us the necessary patience.

  • Tim Wright

    Nailed it!

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    When our world is spawning identities from primordial swamps and soups, what a brave man you are. And thank you.

    Thank you, in your way, introducing Natural Law into the discussion. Sexual truth cannot be ladled up from the aforementioned stew: a bit of gay carrot, a chunky piece of celibate potato, delicately simmered in the juices arbitrary will. The obedience of Natural Law is what matters, for even the Law – to be true – obeys itself.

    To look upon a man one must see him lawfully, in truth. Anything less is not “gay”, it is sin.

    In fact, I’ll go out on a Platonic limb – securely tethered to Aristotle, though – when looking upon a man one must first see through him, past him, to the prototype which defines him. There lies identity. Any attempt at Foucaultean destruction & construction of “sexual identity” is a remaking of Adam in a false, made-up Eden.

  • Is the problem here confusion between chastity and celibacy, not on the author’s part, but those who formulate the idea of “gay celibacy”?

    • GG

      I think that is exactly the problem.

  • OBJ15

    A tremendous piece! Well done. Yes, abstaining from sodomitic activity does not equal celibacy.

  • It would be so nice if this could be discussed without the plagues of frogs and bears.

    • That put a real smile on my face.

      But, alas, it is not to be. One bit of consolation: I keep thinking if God can get through to a jackass like me, maybe he can use said jackass to reach others.

      If they like the punishment, I say bring them on!

  • tj.nelson

    Wow! This is magnificent. I have tears in my eyes. Beautiful work.

  • JT

    Amazing. God bless you.

  • Daniel P

    Reading through the comments (e.g. Aaron’s comment), I’m compelled to think that the important point is not so much that “people with SSA aren’t celibate people” but rather that “being celibate” involves a LOT more than simply realizing one is attracted to the same sex, and wanting to be chaste. When “gay celibacy” becomes a default vocation for everyone who has SSA, we misunderstand the meaning and purpose of celibacy. I certainly don’t think Dan said, above, that people with SSA can’t be celibate. Rather, he said that having SSA does not entail celibacy; that one could simply be chaste, open to marriage, but never marry.

    Celibacy as a vocation should not become a simple default, for people who aren’t inclined — for *whatever* reason — to marry. Celibacy ought to be discerned, and that discernment has nothing to do with one’s sexual desires. (Relating that discernment to sexual desires is sort of like deciding whether to be a priest on the basis of one’s taste in clothing).
    Could one be at the point of death, and suddenly say, as if in startlement, “By heaven, I’ve lived a celibate life!” Yes, I think that could happen. But that doesn’t mean that one was “picked out” for celibacy by having no desires for the opposite sex.

    • GG

      Yes, I think you said that well.

  • Phil

    Very well put. Thank you, and please, keep it up!

  • augurbuzzard

    Sorry I wasted time on this website and this article in particular. Both seem dedicated to confusion rather than enlightenment. Common sense and human nature (the image and likeness of God within us?) make it intuitively clear to us what perversion is; be it men who choose lustful and disordered sex with other men, boys, animals or dead people. And those who practice, glorify or obsess over perversion are called perverts. As evidenced in this article, radical perversionism, like radical feminism certainly has come a long way, baby – from writing obscene offers on the walls of public restrooms and trolling streets for victims, to making cleverly constructed irrational arguments (lies) on seemingly respectable websites. Time to delete Crisis Mag from my favorites list of reliably orthodox Catholic resources.

    • Daniel P

      Where do you think that the author denied that same-sex attraction is perverse?

      • Apparently reading is above his pay grade.

        “I’m taking my bat and ball and going home.”

      • I’m not sure he denies it, but in any case there is no mention that he is trying to treat it through clinical therapy. So there is absolute complacency with it, a problem that I discussed on my blog in a post called “The new Pope, the Catholic Church, and homosexuality: a fish rots from the head down”

    • GG

      Huh?

    • Phil Steinacker

      You speak pure nonsense.
      You haven’t said enough to warrant believing otherwise.

      Perhaps you are an agent provocateur, masquerading as an orthodox Catholic to create an extreme negative reaction on the part of others who are drawn to return to the Church but struggle with the truths they encounter in the process.

  • A Practical Catholic

    I agree with augurbuzzard: both the article and most of the comments are way too esoteric, complicated and inconsistent to be useful.
    However it is problematic that, in his concluding paragraph, the author states that sexual identities can’t be chosen – the same argument that gay activists like to use to make the point that they were born that way , even to the extreme of claiming it is in their genes. But they are also telling our impressionable “questioning” teenagers that they have a right to choose (because once they try it, it is hard to go back?).
    Read the research on hermaphroditism in humans – where sexual identity can be and is chosen. It may give you some insight in to why the gay activists have pursued the strategy of cultivating and promoting the homosexual identity choice among our young people.
    Beware of entrapment and beware of wolves in sheeps’ clothing.

    • Daniel P

      You’re seriously misreading the author. When Mr. Mattson says, “Sexual identities can’t be chosen”, he’s talking about the sexual identities “man” and “woman”.

      • A Practical Catholic

        In his second sentence, the author IDENTIFIES himself as “a man attracted to men”. And later on he comes right out and tells us that he finds “men sexually attractive”.What exactly does that mean if not a homosexual IDENTITY? Or, is he merely stating a sexual preference; a conscious choice that he can change? Is his sexual attraction, (his sexual identity) between his ears or his legs? Identities are changed all the time.

        A Houston,Texas ordinance allows you to use the public toilet of the sex with which you IDENTIFY. I was recently introduced to a 68 year old married man who is changing his wardrobe, appearance and taking estogen shots because he now IDENTIFIES with being female and has acquired a sexual attraction to (preference for) men. Oh the horror of his selfish change of sexual identity for his female Catholic wife; the horror!

        Who would have thought they would ever encounter so many apologists for perversion on what appears to be a reputable Catholic website? It now seems possible that one might soon see on this site a defense of the popular gay activist propoganda that Jesus was “attracted to men” and had a homosexual relationship with John “the apostle that he loved”.

        • Daniel P

          The phrase “a man attracted to men” is no more objectionable than the phrase “a man who is prone to wrath”.

          • Unless you’re thinking of “prone to wrath” as a man who is violent towards, then having a profoundly sexually perverted mind is much, much worse.

            • Daniel P

              Being “prone” to anything does not cause any actions. The person prone to wrath would experience temptation to (mentally or physically) harm people; the person prone to homosexuality would experience temptation to pursue sexual encounters with the same sex. If one does not act on these tendencies, they are unfortunate, but neither of them is sinful.

              • What nonsense – it’s exactly warped and evil thoughts and attitudes that make people do evil and harm in the world. If people with an evil mind never did any evil, we wouldn’t have any problems in the world. The first ingredient for an evil action is an evil thought (although there are other possibilities). And how disingenuous it is for you to claim that people with sexually perverted minds are able to refrain from acting out their millions of warped thoughts and feelings and attitudes. They often can’t and harm is done. No, the way to resolve a warped mind is to change it into something healthy – this is why it is so irresponsible that our culture/churches tell people they aren’t responsible for trying to treat their sexually deformed minds. They are and they should.

                • Daniel P

                  You’re equivocating on the word “thought”. If a “thought” is an inclination to do evil, then ALL humans have these; it is part of the human condition. By refusing to indulge our inclinations, we exert as much influence on our inclinations as we possibly can. This is called “avoiding the near occasion of sin”.

                  If a “thought” is an indulgence in sin — for instance, a gay man thinking about sex with men, or fixating on the beauty of another man — then of course, such thoughts should be consistently and insistently rejected. If one finds oneself incapable of rejecting them, then spiritual and/or psychological healing is needed.

                  • I think your concept is wrong because you don’t seem to realize that having a deformed psychology leads people to formulate evil, perverted, nasty thoughts, etc. We aren’t born that way. We don’t all think about sexually abusing children. This is why when a person is having such thoughts, it’s not just a mere question of rejecting the thought as you prescribe, this person is responsible for going to treat their psychological problem that’s causing the thoughts in the first place. Because deformed and warped psychologies, like physical illnesses, can be treated. As I said, having a sexually perverted mind is not an obligatory part of being human, it can be treated over time and with multiple resources, although it doesn’t mean that a proper result will happen any time anyone tries.

                    • Daniel P

                      Of course we aren’t born having perverse thoughts! And many people with same-sex attraction *don’t* commonly have perverse thoughts. They may see someone and want to look twice, because the person is attractive. But they don’t immediately, involuntarily imagine having sex with that person. Their attraction is at the level of temptation, not at the level of action.

                      Of course, we must cut things off at the root, we must reject these temptations. But I don’t think a person who shows themselves capable of consistently and firmly rejecting temptation needs psychological treatment for the mere presence of attractions to people of the same sex. Indeed, pretty much everyone who DOES these treatments (NARTH, etc.) considers the treatment successful if the person no longer finds themselves succumbing to temptation. Orientation change would be nice, but holiness is the goal.

                    • ” They may see someone and want to look twice, because the person is attractive – But they don’t immediately, involuntarily imagine having sex with that person. ”

                      Either way, it’s perverted. They’ve completely perverted people of the same sex in their minds. Otherwise, there’s no sexual attraction. Just like a pedophile may want to look twice at a child if that gives them some kind of perverted satisfaction. But that only happens if their mind is already going down its sexually perverted track.

                      As for the level of temptation, it’s clear that the majority of LGBTs can care less how much they bother other people with various kinds of perverted looks, sleazy looks, staring, touching, grabbing, groping, etc., since it’s happening with great frequency in society.

                      “And many people with same-sex attraction *don’t* commonly have perverse thoughts.”

                      How do you know what kinds of thoughts they are having? Have you been inside their minds 24/7? Psychologists who treat these people and who investigate their minds have found differently. Simply because they don’t announce to you every thought they have, doesn’t mean they aren’t having them.

                      “I don’t think a person who shows themselves capable of consistently and
                      firmly rejecting temptation needs psychological treatment for the mere
                      presence of attractions to people of the same sex.”

                      What is the point of going through life with a deformed and perverted mind? We certainly disagree about that.

                    • Daniel P

                      “How do you know what kinds of thoughts they are having? Have you been
                      inside their minds 24/7?”

                      Actually, yes. I myself experience same-sex attraction, and I assure you my mind is not perpetually in the gutter. I have had long periods where I have not indulged temptation in any way, and that has not made the temptations cease entirely. In this situation, I am not unlike many, many sinners, who do not suddenly cease to find sin appealing simply because they resist sin.

                      To be honest, if there were any viable treatments out there, and I saw people leaving those treatments saying they experienced no more SSA, I would look into treatment. But the treatments that are available either (a) show no success rate, or (b) do not aim at eliminating temptation, only eliminating action. If you have any practical suggestions for some successful treatment that has the aim you suggest, please let me know.

                    • My suggestion is that anyone experiencing such a problem needs to understand how their psychology is working, especially at an unconscious level. So I would recommend that you try to find a good clinical therapist – a minority of therapists are good, but they exist. Choose your therapist like you would choose someone for an important position in your company (they need to be competent, you need to feel you can trust them, they need to be insightful, intelligent, ethical, experienced). If you go talk to someone and don’t like them, don’t feel you can trust them, they seem stupid, etc, go find someone else. I suggest you start by investigating your mind, how your unconscious works in your interactions with people, and other relationship and emotional problems. If that goes well, then you can start focusing on trying to discover why your mind is producing such desires, what problems are generating these desires. Generally speaking, only then will you be at a point where you and your therapist can even try to work on the causes.
                      ================
                      Regarding your claim: “But the treatments that are available either (a) show no success rate,”

                      There are testimonies of people who contradict what you believe – yours is the line repeated by homosexual activists – nothing works, born this way, etc. No one knows what results have been obtained all over the world in therapy because the majority of therapy cases are not documented and are confidential.

  • 1984 is here
  • The_Monk

    Daniel Mattson – it is refreshing to read a mature viewpoint on the subject. Keep up the good work….

  • Liberty

    This makes so much sense. Very wise. God bless you.

  • Ron

    Logic is beautiful and kind, even if not always welcome. I welcome your insight and kindness Mr. Mattson.

  • James Wyss

    Wow. I had no idea where you were going with that, Mr. Author, and you took to it depths that are sadly all too lacking in pop theology. I am very impressed. Well done.

  • Phil LaDelphia

    This is crazy!! How will he know if he’s a twink or not??

  • tanyahe

    thank you.

  • marya

    Refreshing to see this in the midst of a culture of much muddled thinking. Why is it that today many think it inconceivable that someone, certainly a Christian, can thrive while living in the state of sexual continence? For thousands of years, there have been such. There are numberless, faithful Christians who find themselves unmarried due to divorce, widowhood, never-having-married, as well as SSA, whose lives are fruitful and grace-filled, despite the lack of a sexual partner. In surrender to divine providence, there are joys beyond imagining – in this life and beyond. I am encouraged by the witness of this author and the Courage movement. Don’t we all know from experience that God is with us in all circumstances, empowering us to prevail, even where some may think it impossible?

  • “Who am I to judge them if they’re seeking the Lord in good faith?” (Francis)

    “May his days [in office] be few; may another take his office.” (Ps 109:8)

    • “Seeking the Lord” is not a license not to treat deep psychological problems that produce homosexuality.

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        People with hateful, perverted attitudes to gays need to get appropriate treatment for the deep psychological wounds which produce anti-homosexual neurosis.

        • Oh my, it looks like you have a hateful, perverted attitude to anyone who doesn’t submit to your homosexuality agenda. People who are critical of homosexuality, porn, pedophilia, and promiscuity are quite psychologically healthy – it’s not surprising you hate them though.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “People who are critical of homosexuality, porn, pedophilia, and promiscuity…”

            I don’t know whether people who lump all those things together like that are psychologically healthy, but they are certainly very ignorant and illogical. You might just as well talk of “people who are critical of heterosexuality, porn, pedophilia, and promiscuity”. It wouldn’t be any less stupid. I don’t hate such people. I think that they need to be treated with kindly tolerance, but that their errors should be exposed. Young people, in particular, should be warned not to take their nonsense seriously.

            • Given that every person is born heterosexual because the human species is heterosexual, there is nothing wrong with heterosexuality per se, it’s what we are meant to be if our psychologies don’t deform and degenerate along the way. Homosexuality, on the other hand, like the sexualities expressed in porn, in pedophilia, promiscuity, and others, is perverted and dysfunctional. And on a minor note, these aren’t distinct categories…
              I’m all in favor for people who have a homosexual problem to treat it. And I’m also in favor of exposing their errors, especially the millions of acts of harm and violence they are responsible for in society. Being tolerant to harm only infuses it – an attitude liberals just love to have.

              • Guglielmo Marinaro

                We don’t know what it that causes most people to be heterosexual and a small minority to be homosexual. We just know that that is the way things are. Are people born with their sexual orientation in some way already programmed? I think it quite possible that they are, but that is only my guess; there is no proof of it, still less is there any proof of your dogmatic assertion that “EVERY person is born heterosexual”.

                No, there is nothing wrong with heterosexuality per se. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality per se either: it is neither perverted nor dysfunctional, and it therefore does not need to be “treated” any more than heterosexuality does. There are, of course, homosexual people who, often as the result of psychological, emotional or religious abuse, find it difficult to come to terms with their natural sexual orientation, and there are cranks and mountebanks ready to offer them “therapies” of various kinds aimed at changing it. These programs are both unnecessary and ineffective, and even when they do no further damage, the years and sometimes even decades of their lives which people are conned into wasting on them, and which they will never get back, are sufficient condemnation.

                • “We don’t know what it is that causes most people to be heterosexual and a
                  small minority to be homosexual. We just know that that is the way
                  things are. Are people born with their sexual orientation in some way
                  already programmed?”

                  Why do you say “we” when you are describing only your own ignorance of the matter? Just because you have no knowledge regarding sexuality doesn’t mean every one else is on your level of ignorance on the subject. People besides you do know that the human species is heterosexual. A minority of people are bisexual or homosexual only in violent and dysfunctional societies – there are plenty of human groups that have never had an LGBT person. Plenty of people change their deformed minds regarding homosexuality and people besides you know quite a bit about the deep psychological problems that produce a homosexual or bisexual psychology in a person’s mind.

                  I’m not in favor of quacks regarding any kind of therapy, but you simply have no knowledge of what good clinical therapy is or how it works.
                  And then, we have LGBTs perpetrate millions of acts of harm and violence in society due to thinking that homosexuality is normal and mostly with impunity. Preaching that homosexuality is normal is a true ideological cancer in society.

                  • Guglielmo Marinaro

                    It doesn’t sound, frankly, as though you have much knowledge regarding human sexuality, just a series of evidence-free beliefs and dogmas.

                    • You purposefully ignoring the evidence for my views is different than me not having evidence.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      I dispute that there is any credible evidence for your views. But no matter. I will continue to advise all gays to avoid those who seek to harm them – including those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided people who are oblivious to the harm that they’re doing – and above all not to be bamboozled by abusive nonsense like the “ex-gay” hoax.

                      “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” – BLAISE PASCAL

                    • .
                      Thanks, @guglielmomarinaro:disqus — the voice of reason and compassion.

                      Why do I love that quote so much! 😉
                      .

                    • .
                      @alessandrab:disqus wrote to @guglielmomarinaro:disqus “… You purposefully ignoring the evidence for my views is different than me not having evidence …”

                      Peter Blaise responds:

                      That would be true @Alessandra, if you had evidence, but you don’t.

                      No one has.

                      You do not have first-person testimony or independent, unbiased, objective, double blind evidence of anything you claim to know about gays.

                      You have only biased opinions, your and others, that are not based on facts.

                      That’s all you ever seem to look for: anything, no matter how fallacious and irrelevant and remote it is, to support your own personal, twisted, unreasonable busybody’s prejudiced invasion into other people’s lives.

                      And, more importantly, nothing you write about other people’s sex, sexuality, and sexual preference matters.

                      Why?

                      Because we’re all equal.

                      And endowed by our creators with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

                      With equal protection for all.

                      And, we don’t have collective punishment nor preventative denial of equal rights.

                      If we did, heterosexuals would be the first to be denied all their rights and put in jail forever, because no one is as destructive of anyone and anything in their path as heterosexuals.

                      So, bark about gays all you want to, @Allesandra, and all you’re doing is howling at the moon — and I’ve got two of them for you to bark at all day and all night.

                      ==========

                      Gang, I feel it is appropriate to separate the person of @Allesandra from the ersatz philosophies of @Allesandra.

                      To wit, the Statue of Liberty avatar correlates not to gays, but to @Allesandra‘s strong belief and support for immigrants.

                      I am grateful for that, and salute that.

                      I just wish that @Allesandra offered equivalent welcoming and magnanimity for gays.

                      But we’re half way there.

                      @Allesandra, if you could just think of gays as immigrants from another place than you’ve ever been, could you then see your way to be welcoming, curious, and protective of them as fully equal?.

                  • .
                    @alessandrab:disqus wrote:

                    “… people are bisexual or homosexual only in violent and dysfunctional societies …”

                    So THAT’S why ISIS gives flaming good head!!!

                    =8^o

                    __________

                    “… there are plenty of human groups that have never had an LGBT person …”

                    You mean … cannibals, like, in “had” for dinner?!?

                    Are you sure?

                    I hear they taste like chicken.

                    =8^o

                    __________

                    @Alessandra, you are just pulling things out of your åšš.

                    And just how did all that €rap get up there in the first place … or second place … or third place?
                    .

              • .
                Ooops, now “liberals” are lumped in.

                Hate much, @alessandrab:disqus?
                .

        • David Meyer

          And your hateful, perverted attitude toward normal sexuality means the same thing… see how that works? Nothing is accomplished by ad hominem. Why not reason with that mind God gave you instead of ironic ad hominems?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Only one problem with that: I haven’t got a hateful, perverted attitude towards “normal sexuality”, if by that you mean heterosexuality. It would never occur to me to adopt such an attitude. However, given that there are disturbed heterosexuals who have a vile attitude to homosexuals – although their number is rapidly diminishing, thank God – there must exist equally disturbed homosexuals with a similar attitude to heterosexuals, although I am sure that they are a very rare breed: I have never yet met even one of them.

            The term “ad hominem” has been thrown around a lot recently. I respectfully suggest that you refrain from using it again until you are quite certain of its correct meaning.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            David Meyer:

            Having read many of Guglielmo’s posts over the last few weeks, he comes across to me as a well-balanced, well-educated, well-read and thoughtful young man.

            Your answer to him does not make sense. He was not making an ad hominem attack of Alessandra but simply turning the argument around.

            Having had a look at some of Alessandra’s posts, I think:

            01. Alessandra has no understanding of science and makes some pretty baseless claims based on ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

            02. Alessandra is deeply, virulently, stridently, aggressively and implacably homophobic. Don’t take my word for it but click on the link to Alessandra’s profile and then follow the link to her (?) blog. This is someone with quite a nasty agenda. The blof can be found at https://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com if you don’t want to trace the steps I have just outlined.

            03. Alessandra is narrow-minded. Everything to do with homosexuality is apparently inspired by Marxism. Well, no: it has to do with the human condition and the fact that we are not all born the same, whatever she may wish.

            So the ad hominem attack was actually made by Alessandra on Guglielmo and not the other way around.

            Funny how you seem unable to see that although you were very quick to make the accusation the other way about.

            Why is that?

  • Billy Bagbom

    Thank you, Dan. You are a theologian in the original and best sense of the word. Your insights come from your personal encounter with God in Christ. You are helping people!

  • Aldo Elmnight

    If a man suffering from same sex attraction never marries a woman he will always be celibate. What single “gay” men should strive to be is continent.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Thank you for your correct use of the terms being thrown around here.

  • David

    Great article. The idea of Gay celibacy is so outrageous. I guess I am porn celibate then? And murder celibate? Or would it be murder pacifist? A dry alcoholic? a non-practicing adulterer? The hilarity has almost no limit. What identity should I choose today! so many choices!

    • What is worse is that these people (who call themselves gay celibates) – like Eve Tushnet btw – will never take the initiative to go treat their sexually perverted minds. They erroneously believe that abstaining from sex, while continuing to have a perverted mind, is somehow enough.

    • Kevin McGrath

      There are plenty of people who would describe themselves a “dry alcoholics”, which is by no means a nonsensical term.

      • David

        Oh, i’m sure there are… people do love labels. And having a problem with alcohol is not nonsensical, but serious. But the out of context labeling is. (thinking about the saint Patty’s Day parade having “gay Irish people”… huh? Why is that their chosen identity) And in the context of my statement what do you think I meant? Let me change “dry alcoholics” to “dry drunkards” then, because of course, in the context of what I wrote, it was obvious that was what I meant. The irony of your response here is not lost on me by the way, because even dry alcoholic is a nonsensical term inasmuch as it is strange to identify with a sin you do not commit. Ill say it again… it is very strange to self identify yourself using a term that simply describes a sin you don’t do or that you struggle with, or used to struggle with. If it becomes absurd in other cases, such as “non-practicing” adulterer”, then why is in not absurd in the case you mention, or the on in question in the article?
        My theory is that people just want to feel special and to feel some partial absolution, and give themselves a sin-specific label that sort of shouts “here’s my cross This is who I am”.

        • Daniel P

          If calling oneself a “dry alcoholic” helps one refrain from alcoholism, would this make you soften your position?

          • David

            I did clarify my point by saying “dry drunkard” instead. That makes my point better. Because the person IS NOT a drunkard, yet is calling themselves one. This is akin to celibate homosexual or non-violent wife beater, or non-practicing adulterer…

            • Daniel P

              OK, then. If calling oneself a “dry drunkard” helps one refrain from drink, would this make you change your position?

            • Guglielmo Marinaro

              “This is akin to celibate homosexual or non-violent wife beater, or non-practicing adulterer…”

              …or to celibate heterosexual.

        • Kevin McGrath

          “You can have a drink, and no harm done. But if I have one drink I can’t stop, it takes over. I’m an alcoholic, though I haven’t had a drink in years”. That’s a dry alcoholic.

  • NDaniels

    Daniel, May God Bless you as you continue to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are grounded in authentic Love. You will be in my Prayers.

  • Mara319

    Thank you for this article. God bless you abundantly!

  • beyond partisan

    Bravo!

  • Pixlecolour

    Too dishonest to be gay ?.

    I’ve been celibate twenty five years now. Not for fear of the RCC, what it teaches or Christianity in general.

    I was taught, brainwashed by the Christianity of the RCC with concepts such as “intrinsically evil”, ‘abomination’ and the like. Then one day I went to the Scriptures the Jesus I had known as a child once told me would be opened to me like green pastures.

    There were three little words, “LOVE your neighbor as YOUR SELF”.

    Jesus commanding the love of self. Something the Church contradicted – leaving me devoid of any sense of self worth, value – anything giving an indication, let alone belief that I’d also been made in the image of God.

    How had I missed this. Self respect, respect for the other – God honoured in and through such respectful loving. Wow.

    I am happy today being celibate because I learned like many others in life that the human heart must fulfill the other great commandment – rest in God. God at the core of everything in life.

    No fear, shame, guilt or having to ‘carry a cross’.

    It’s liberation. Loving in its own way, its own reward – loving to seek with all I am a “Beauty so ancient and so New”.

    Still – very much so I am gay – gay man called and seeking to follow the way of Jesus – through and through and through and through gay- and delighted to be so – giving Glory to our Great and Good God as is His pleasure –

    not yours. 🙂

    Mater Dei

    Ora pro nobis.

  • suthulapee kolipee

    yes i am man created as god willed it to be, yes i am called to live a chaste life in marriage with a women,but chastity is a struggle always and albeit so painful at times, ( for me anyway ), its a cross that i am nailed to, and i am tempted to come down from the cross, ( as jesus was tempted ), but if i stay on the cross than the crown of the righteous awaits me at the end of my earthly life

  • Tom Harris

    Not sure I get the author’s logic. If he would prefer gay men (who do not have sex for the sake of the kingdom), say they are living a life of Abstinence (no sex) would this make him fell happier (the author, that is?) Unfortunately, gay guys and gay women DO NOT choose to be either, believe that fact or not. Therefore, if he or she embraces all teachings of the Church and like a straight guy practices abstinence, goodness, what in the eyes of God is wrong with that? Call it celibacy or abstinence, I think the author should understand what is referred to is NO SEX! Besides, one can take a vow to God. What prevents that? Religious do that after all. A gay man can’t pretend to be attracted to a woman when he is not, that would be to embrace a lie. I certainly hope the author can accept this and understand it. That I believe is how God would understand it. Even St. Paul said it is best to be celibate, in Holy Scripture, than to be married.

    • I think today there are many people who largely choose homosexuality (which can either result in strict homosexuality or bisexuality) or at least they choose not to investigate or treat their psychological problems about sexuality. There are plenty of young women who choose to have homosexual relationships in high school/college and then decide to find a man later. There are women who experience violence from men, then they turn to women for relationships. There are people who like to engage in homosexual behavior that is harassful or sadistic, for the perverted satisfaction. What is unfortunate is that we live in a culture that no longers encourages people to go investigate and treat any kind of sexual perversity, exactly because there may be a component of it that is not chosen. Secondly, you can’t really have human sexuality without thoughts, and homosexuals continuously choose to have homosexual thoughts about others.

  • James Scott

    You say you are ” As a man attracted to men” but you also say you are not gay?
    Well it’s your choice as too how you wish to label yourself but dude most people define “gay” as someone who is attracted sexually to persons of their own gender and not the opposite gender. It’s no different then some orthodox believing Catholics who are “gay/attracted to their own sex” using the acronym SSA(Same Sex Attracted). So I really don’t see what is wrong with someone with those tendencies identifying themselves as ‘gay”? What is important is that they accept the Church’s teaching and strive to live lives in accordance with the Divine, Moral and Natural Law relying on Divine Grace. What is important is they accept the teaching of the Church. The opposite to living an active homosexual lifestyle is not living a heterosexual one but a Holy One. As long as you don’t judge other orthodox Catholics who choose to use this label I have no beef with you.

    OTOH People often equivocate in use of terms. Such as with the terms “Celibate” vs “Chaste”. Chastity means acting out sexually in a correct manner according to your station in life. Which means single people should not have sex and married ones only with their lawful spouses.

    Celibacy means you go the extra mile and give up lawful avenues by which you may morally have sex & by a Sacred Oath to God refrain from it.

    Gays Catholics who accept the Church teaching have no lawful outlet to act out their sexual orientation but their struggle against it gives them merit. A Celibate person is giving up something they might lawfully have which is sex within a valid Christian marriage.

    I sympathize with the need to restore proper terms.

    OTOH I wouldn’t harsh too much on people who make the equivocation. All that matters is they are trying to live the Gospel.

    • Daniel P

      Marriage is not a “lawful outlet to act out [one’s] sexual orientation”. It is an institution open to people of all “sexual orientations”, and institution that involves love between a man and a woman. It may not always be wise for a person attracted to the same sex to get married, but it is always possible. Ergo, “gay and Catholic” does not equal “celibate”.

      • James Scott

        >Marriage is not a “lawful outlet to act out [one’s] sexual orientation”.

        Obviously, I never said it was. I said “Gays Catholics who accept the Church teaching have no lawful outlet to act out their sexual orientation.”

        Which clearly means there is no lawful condition by which persons of same sex attraction might lawfully engage in homo-erotic sex acts. I never mentioned marriage except as the only outlet & legitimate lawful condition for sex which obviously favors heterosexuals(and functionally bisexuals) since marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

        Please re-read what I wrote.

        Peace.

        • Daniel P

          James,

          I agree with a good number of things you’ve written various places in this combox. However, I don’t agree with phrases like “marriage obviously favors heterosexuals”, which sounds, to me, like saying “food favors non-anorexics”. Marriage is a good for any human being, not just some. It’s not always possible or advisable, but it’s always good. (Some people, medically, need to eat only liquids for various periods of time, but that doesn’t make food “not for them”).

          When you talk about “lawful outlets for sexual orientation”, you talk as if sexual orientation was something that needed to be EXPRESSED. What is the theological basis, however, for the view that either (a) there are sexual orientations, or (b) they need to be expressed?

          Whether or not you realize it, the logical conclusion of this way of talking/thinking is that the Catholic doctrine against homosexual activity is false. Why? Because IF people have innate orientations, God gave them these, and IF they need to be expressed, God would then need to allow gay people to express them.

          • James Scott

            >I agree with a good number of things you’ve written various places in this combox.

            Hopefully we can come to some accord.

            >However, I don’t agree with phrases like “marriage obviously favors heterosexuals”, which sounds, to me, like saying “food favors non-anorexics”. Marriage is a good for any human being, not just some. It’s not always possible or advisable, but it’s always good. (Some people, medically, need to eat only liquids for various periods of time, but that doesn’t make food “not for them”).

            Well food is essential for life. Sex and marriage are not. I don’t at all deny marriage is ontologically good in itself & in it’s essence. But it is safe to say competitive running favors those with healthy legs and those without could run but it won’t be a pleasant experience or as you say advisable. But is it not necessary to ever have sex. You can fast from food but eventually you must eat otherwise you are engaging in a form of self-mutilation via self starvation which is morally wrong. Well you can fast from sex regardless of what butters your bread indefinitely if your state in life permits it.

            >When you talk about “lawful outlets for sexual orientation”, you talk as if sexual orientation was something that needed to be EXPRESSED.

            But Passions are needs even disordered ones. But they are not essential needs in the absolute sense(like food or air). It is simply a brute fact it is easier to have a sexual orientation ordered to nature rather then one that is inverted and therefore objectively disordered moving one toward behavior that contravenes the Divine, Moral and Natural Law.

            Nothing more. Having a need or desire doesn’t mean it must be fulfilled.

            >What is the theological basis, however, for the view that either (a) there are sexual orientations, or (b) they need to be expressed?

            Your question is based on a category mistake. The existence of a sexual orientation is a scientific and psychological construct not a theological one. It’s like saying “the second law of Thermal Dynamics contradicts evolution” or “Newton disproves Aquinas first way”. The former makes the mistake of taking a law of physics and treats it like a metaphysical principle. The later takes a metaphysical description (i.e. Aquinas argument from motion/change) and treats it like an argument from physics. If a sexual orientation exists it is clearly objectively disordered. Like a person with a neurological condition that might make them more prone to aggression & having a weaker self control. That might medicate their culpability in failing to follow the moral law but it doesn’t give them license.

            Theology merely tells us certain things are wrong by divine revelation and the rest can be filled in by natural philosophy.

            Theology can’t speak to the existence or non existence of a psychological & biological disposition in humans to prefer one sex over the other & or the nature of such a predisposition that is inverted. Other than to conclude what the CCC says which is a gay sexual orientation is objectively disordered.

            >Whether or not you realize it, the logical conclusion of this way of talking/thinking is that the Catholic doctrine against homosexual activity is false. Why? Because IF people have innate orientations, God gave them these, and IF they need to be expressed, God would then need to allow gay people to express them.

            I can’t express to you in words my brother my deep hatred for the philosophy of Hume and how in modern times is bad philosophy still confuses people. My Spider/Thomist senses detect it here. The problem with this approach is well to cite a personal example. My children have autism. By your thinking here didn’t God make them this way therefore any inappropriate acts of self stimulation they might do (biting themselves, having no sense of danger etc) are innate and God could then need to allow my kids to express them? No, God might be the Formal Cause of evil in that he creates moral beings with free will who choose evil or he creates a material universe where things increate their own perfections at the expense of other things. Thus some of his creatures might acquire an inverted disposition that moves them to something disordered. God may allow a person to be born with a brain defect that makes them violent but does that mean God wants them as such to be violent? Or does he merely permit evil so as to bring good out of it?

            The objective existence of an inverted sexual orientation does not equal God condoning gay sex nor is he obligated to satisfy needs which arise from a defect.

            • Daniel P

              ‘”Well food is essential for life. Sex and marriage are not… I don’t at all deny marriage is ontologically good in itself & in it’s essence. But it is safe to say competitive running favors those with healthy legs and those without could run but it won’t be a pleasant experience or as you say advisable. But is it not necessary to ever have sex.”

              I see two disagreements here, though: (1) Genesis never said, “It is not good for man to not run”. The plan of marriage is obviously a much bigger thing than running. Not everyone needs to marry, but men and women were made for marriage — all men and women. (2) Here, and several times in your comments, you seem to talk as if the fundamental good of marriage is sex. I’m sure you don’t believe that, though. One can have an awesome marriage while “feeling out” the sex part of the marriage, to a degree. So, for instance, if premature ejaculation isn’t a reason not to marry, I’m not sure why same-sex attraction would be a reason not to marry. (Although there must be LOVE and HONESTY there, before marriage could possibly be appropriate to a relationship.)

              I speak, by the way, as a man with same sex attraction who is married to a (very lovely and wonderful) woman.

              “But Passions are needs even disordered ones. But they are not essential needs in the absolute sense(like food or air).”

              No, passions are not needs; passions are parasitic on needs. So for instance, pica (the desire to eat non-food) does not indicate a need, but it is a distortion of a genuine need for food. Same with homosexual attraction.

              “It is simply a brute fact it is easier to have a sexual orientation ordered to nature rather then one that is inverted and therefore objectively disordered moving one toward behavior that contravenes the Divine, Moral and Natural Law.”

              I’m the last person who would deny that! Any perversion/disability of any sort makes life harder.

              “Theology merely tells us certain things are wrong by divine revelation and the rest can be filled in by natural philosophy.”

              But surely we know the wrongness of homosexual acts by reason, not merely by divine revelation? (I imagine you agree, because you’ve called yourself a Thomist).

              “I can’t express to you in words my brother my deep hatred for the philosophy of Hume and how in modern times is bad philosophy still confuses people. My Spider/Thomist senses detect it here. The problem with this approach is well to cite a personal example. My children have autism. By your thinking here didn’t God make them this way therefore any inappropriate acts of self stimulation they might do (biting themselves, having no sense of danger etc) are innate and God could then need to allow my kids to express them?”

              Hume? Nah. Try Aristotle.

              You misunderstood my sentence about “innate dispositions”. I should have written “innate, God-given dispositions”. Autism and homosexuality may be innate, but they are not God-given. But the argument I put forward doesn’t apply to your thinking anyway. You see, I thought you were saying that desires had to be somehow expressed, and apparently you weren’t saying that. Good on ya.

              • James Scott

                >You misunderstood my sentence about “innate dispositions”. I should have written “innate, God-given dispositions”.

                As Aquinas once said from small mistakes come big ones.
                This clears everything up.

                > You see, I thought you were saying that desires had to be somehow expressed, and apparently you weren’t saying that. Good on ya.

                Thank you. The rest we will leave.

                God bless brother to you and your wife.

  • Brine

    Know how I know you’re gay?

  • Vijay

    Finally something that totally makes sense and brings us back to the basics- the beauty of creation and the originality of mankind. At first when I started reading this article, I was skeptical and thought the author was being simplistic, but as I read I realized And recalled how brainwashed we have become as a society to think of other humans as gay or straight. In reality, we are all the same- endowed with Gods nature and created in His image. Absolutely beautiful. What satan tries to do is distort the image of God.

  • What the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations need to go back to realizing is that having a perverted mind is a sin.

    While an individual cannot be blamed if their mind produces a desire they can’t control, and especially a perverted or perverse desire, they are responsible for what they do about it and how much they feed their perverse desires, thoughts, fantasies, etc. Not investigating the
    underlying problems that are contributing to the generation of that desire is neglectful and irresponsible, and only contributes to maintaining the psychological/social/ideological problems that generate the perverted desire in the first place.

    People with a homosexuality problem need to investigate the etiology of their problem and resolve it. Clinical therapy is basically the way to do it. The Church, which cannot provide therapy, is mostly ineffectual in this respect and thus largely incapable to help deal with many root issues.

    • James Scott

      I find your position a bit unclear since it equivocates too much between having a homosexual disposition vs having a “perverted mind”. Thought I note you are clearly attempting to make a distinction.

      >they are responsible for what they do about it and how much they feed their perverse desires, thoughts, fantasies,

      Certainly they should avoid near occasions of sin & willfully indulging in such thing mentally.

      >People with a homosexuality problem need to investigate the etiology of their problem and resolve it. Clinical therapy is basically the way to do it.

      Here is the problem with that. The opposite of active homosexuality is not heterosexuality but holiness. The goal is holiness not trying to turn straight.
      Scientifically some people it seems do respond to reorientation therapy and change. Others at best learn to be functionally bisexual but never completely eliminate same sex attractions. Some no matter how hard they try can’t it seems “pray the gay away” & develop any heterosexual attractions and affections. It goes without saying the divine, moral and natural law always applies without exception to all three of these types.

      If you make “conversion” the goal & not holiness you can damage the later two types. Since there is the danger of equating acceptance before God & spiritual growth with progress toward changing one’s sexual orientation. There is a reason some “ex-gays” commit suicide.

      This is the problem with the whole Protestant dominated “ex-gay” movement.

      With need to take a Catholic approach(not that I am accusing you of not advocating on. I am just clarifying).

      Cheers.

      • I can’t respond to this: “I find your position a bit unclear since it equivocates too much between having a homosexual disposition vs having a “perverted mind” – since this sentence makes no sense to me.

        “The goal is holiness not trying to turn straight.”

        I disagree. You can’t be holy with a sexually perverted mind, and the only way people can be holy is by functioning in a healthy heterosexual way. So, resolving a person’s homosexual problem is a part of becoming holy for those who have the problem.

        I also think we can’t stress enough that doing clinical therapy has nothing to do with prayer or any praying activity. It is a pity that people talk about these two things as if there were similar or the same, or that praying could replace therapy!

        “There is a reason some “ex-gays” commit suicide.”

        Yes, the fact that they don’t get the appropriate treatment/support system. It’s the same reason as for other people who commit suicide (with the exception of terminally ill people).

        “With need to take a Catholic approach” – as I said, it seems the Church is not well informed about therapy, and worse, that it is so corrupted by a gay mafia that no effort will be made to indicate to people that they should try to treat their homosexuality problem.

        • James Scott

          >I can’t respond to this: “I find your position a bit unclear since it equivocates too much between having a homosexual disposition vs having a “perverted mind” – since this sentence makes no sense to me.

          A perverted mind is the result of sinful choices. It is a product of moral failure. A sexual orientation is a mysterious inverted disposition that can lead to moral failure but having it isn’t a moral failure in itself or the product of such per say.

          >>”The goal is holiness not trying to turn straight.”

          >I disagree. You can’t be holy with a sexually perverted mind, and the only way people can be holy is by functioning in a healthy heterosexual way. So, resolving a person’s homosexual problem is a part of becoming holy for those who have the problem.

          With all due respect you are either very wrong or you misunderstand me. The goal of the Christian life is holiness. When you are holy it doesn’t matter what your predilections are you will be moved by Grace to adhere to God’s will. That is all that matters anything beyond that is “piling heavy burdens on others backs” I don’t have to cure my objective disorders as a mandated pre-condition to Grace and holiness. By Grace I must cure my moral failures. Granted it is easier to avoid sins of un-natural sex if you manage to be re-oriented from gay to straight but it will not immune you from sexual sin & moral failure in that area. Also some straight people threw pornography and immoral experimentation might teach themselves to be functionally bisexual. They still only want to form romantic relationships & find life mates from members of the opposite sex. Their orientation is straight. But they by this sinful experimentation in perverse novelty learn to enjoy un-natural homo erotic sex acts. Acts which are intrinsically disordered and evil. Prisoners & or so called ‘adult film actors” often fall into the later category. Being straight doesn’t really protect them.

          >I also think we can’t stress enough that doing clinical therapy has nothing to do with prayer or any praying activity. It is a pity that people talk about these two things as if there were similar or the same, or that praying could replace therapy!

          As far as you are applying the science of psychology to re-condition someone that may be true but that will not cure the moral problem which can only be cured by Grace and is the sole goal of the Christian life. The other things are mere means not ends in themselves. The possibility of re-orienting yourself from gay to straight is merely a means not an end. Some people may not be able to follow those means & they might not be successful. But the end of holiness is absolute.

          >Yes, the fact that they don’t get the appropriate treatment/support system. It’s the same reason as for other people who commit suicide (with the exception of terminally ill people).

          Some cancer patents don’t respond to Chemo. Analogously some gay people don’t respond to re-orientation therapy. That is simply a scientific fact. They kill themselves because somebody told them their being loved and accepted by God depends on them changing their orientation. Those who cannot are prone to despair because they equate change with acceptance by God. When some of them don’t change they often conclude God has abandoned them and they end it. Even the Exodus International people realized this and changed their approach to a more acceptable view of making holiness the end vs changing sexual orientation.

          >”With need to take a Catholic approach” – as I said, it seems the Church is not well informed about therapy, and worse, that it is so corrupted by a gay mafia that no effort will be made to indicate to people that they should try to treat their homosexuality problem.

          The Church’s view is 2,000 years and has stood the test of time. It is beyond question. This betrays the Protestant either/or mentality. You can try to change via some re-orientation. There is nothing wrong with making the attempt. You might be successful but that is not the end goal. You must be prepared if you turn out to be one of those who can’t change. The Spiritual Friendship people are a means for gay Christians to follow holiness rather then obsess or agonize over homosexual attractions they might have that they can’ t make go away. Remember the Council of Trent infallibly teaches temptation isn’t itself a sin at the first stage.

          • beyond partisan

            Very well said. Protestants who use very loaded terms like “perversion” simply turn people off and give credence to the label “homophobia.” It may be that some people respond better to therapy because their SSA is due to a deep psychological issue or childhood abuse, however, perhaps for others SSA may have a biological component. We may never know because no-one is allowed to look at this objectively for fear of being labeled an anti-gay “bigot.”

            • James Scott

              Yes that is the rub. You have extremists on the one side who freak out at any suggestion someone can, might or has changed their sexual orientation. Tthey try to “outlaw” therapy in that instance. Which is none of their bee’s wax.

              On the other side is those who refuse to acknowledge it is homosexual sex acts that offend God not the orientation which is a mere objective disorder or a disordered passion not an intrinsic disorder.

              Cheers.

          • “A perverted mind is the result of sinful choices.”

            We definitely disagree. You cannot exclusively sexualize people of the same sex and be averse to people of the opposite sex without having a profoundly deformed psychology. Because at the basis of this sexualizing process lie more primal interactions with a person’s ego, trauma, past experience, yearnings for power dynamics, self-esteem, etc. The more deformed the more basic functionings of a person’s psychology, the more they are going to produce deformed and perverted desires, for example, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, scat, S&M, sexual harassment, etc. As I said, a person is responsible for trying to treat their psychologically deformed minds, if they can have access to treatment. And I think therapy is the way for some issues. And if they can have access to therapy, and they make the choice to remain with a perverted mind, that is a definitely a moral choice.

            As for your examples of warped heterosexuals, it appears you didn’t notice I wrote “healthy” before “heterosexual”. I certainly agree that having a perverted heterosexual psychology is no holiness. But a homosexual psychology is always perverted and it’s not holy.

            ” They kill themselves because somebody told them their being loved and accepted by God depends on them changing their orientation.”

            This has nothing to do with proper clinical therapy. Therapy if done properly wouldn’t cause a person to kill themselves. It might not prevent a suicidal person to commit the act, because not everything can be done or prevented always by therapy, but this would mean that the person had prior profound problems that led them to want to commit suicide, which the therapy, if done properly, didn’t cause.

            Exodus International, as far as I know, did not have clinical therapists and it did not provide any therapy. It seems to me that most people are completely ignorant of what clinical therapy is, especially therapy that is of good quality.

            “The Church’s view is 2,000 years and has stood the test of time.”

            Well you might want to read about the grotesque sexual abuse scandal that engulfed the Church, including the fact that the majority of cases consisted in homosexual abuse of male adolescents (not young children) covered up by a corrupt institution before you mention “standing the test of time”.

            “You can try to change via some re-orientation”

            I think your concept of “re-orientation” is wrong. You don’t re-orient people, you resolve the causes of their perverted sexualization. You don’t seem to realize that a person who has sexually perverted the same sex has much more profound psychological and ideological problems. Just like people into S&M, their minds are warped in some profound ways. And unless you start working with these more profound dynamics and layers, you aren’t going to change their perverted desires. If some of them should try therapy and the therapy doesn’t work, it doesn’t mean therapy should be abolished. What is worse is that we live in a culture that is telling people they are not responsible for treating their sexually perverted minds, thus this profound and widespread normalization of every kind of sexual perversion, which is even making inroads with pedophilia. And millions of LGBTs are certainly doing every kind of harm and violence in society, mostly with impunity, because they have been told they are normal.

            “Some cancer patents don’t respond to Chemo.”

            So should we abolish all medical treatments and declare medicine itself to be bad then? I am against any kind of therapy that contains a harmful result for the person. But I don’t see how a responsible therapy could do this even if it not capable to treat a homosexual problem.

            ” a means for gay Christians to follow holiness rather then obsess or agonize over homosexual attractions they might have that they can’ t make go away.”

            What this is creating is a lot of people who think that they are not responsible for treating their sexually perverted minds. And there is a real problem of homosexuals and bisexuals in churches and in society sexually harassing, acting out, and doing harm to others, and corrupting the church from within because of power dynamics of anyone who stands in their way. This is going on because such people think there is really nothing wrong with them and they have bought into the liberal ideology that states that homosexuality and basically anything that gives someone pleasure, no matter if that pleasure is perverted, warped, sleazy, or not, is just fine.

            “Remember the Council of Trent infallibly teaches temptation isn’t itself a sin at the first stage.”

            This apparently goes back to a basic point of disagreement. I believe everyone is responsible for treating their sexually perverted minds, if they have minimal resources – otherwise it is sinful not to.

            • James Scott

              >We definitely disagree. You cannot exclusively sexualize people of the same sex and be averse to people of the opposite sex without having a profoundly deformed psychology.

              Yes we disagree, your view IMHO seems to be a naive belief in the omnipotent power of secular therapy mixed with an unhealthy dose of Semi-Plageianism. That is not a scientific conclusion nor is it a view sanctioned by the Church. It is very questionable.

              >As I said, a person is responsible for trying to treat their psychologically deformed minds, if they can have access to treatment.

              Except we don’t know why people are gay? We don’t even know if all expressions of homosexual behavior are psychologically the same.

              The Church doesn’t require you to “change” your orientation but to live holy. You can pursue some form of therapy if you think it will work t and that it will make it easier for you to deal. But this is not required by the teaching of the church therefore one is not under any moral obligation to try to change their sexual orientation. They are obligated by Grace to follow the divine, moral and natural law. They are objectively obligated to follow the Gospel. Nothing more.

              >And I think therapy is the way for some issues. And if they can have access to therapy, and they make the choice to remain with a perverted mind, that is a definitely a moral choice.

              They need to make the choice to follow Christ, his teachings and his Church. They need conversion to the Word Incarnate.

              Wither or not they think some type of therapy will be helpful in changing their orientation is up to their prudent judgement.

              I remember years ago one talking to the Priest who founded Courage on behalf of another person. He told me they didn’t require changing their orientation. But they where free to pursue it. He said mainly the younger ones did that.

              >As for your examples of warped heterosexuals, it appears you didn’t notice I wrote “healthy” before “heterosexual”. I certainly agree that having a perverted heterosexual psychology is no holiness. But a homosexual psychology is always perverted and it’s not holy.

              I reply: No a homosexual disposition is neither holy nor unholy. It is defined by the Church as an objective disorder not an intrinsic one (which would make it unholy).

              >This has nothing to do with proper clinical therapy. Therapy if done properly wouldn’t cause a person to kill themselves. It might not prevent a suicidal person to commit the act, because not everything can be done or prevented always by therapy, but this would mean that the person had prior profound problems that led them to want to commit suicide, which the therapy, if done properly, didn’t cause.

              I reply: You are contradicting yourself here. Proper therapy will cure them of their homosexuality but might not prevent their suicide because therapy doesn’t cure everything? Forgive me but this reads like Dr. Groucho saying “The patent is dead but at least I cured his cold”.

              >Exodus International, as far as I know, did not have clinical therapists and it did not provide any therapy. It seems to me that most people are completely ignorant of what clinical therapy is, especially therapy that is of good quality.

              Where is this elusive “good quality” therapy? What are it’s scientific credentials? Where are the peer review studies to back them up?

              >Well you might want to read about the grotesque sexual abuse scandal that engulfed the Church, including the fact that the majority of cases consisted in homosexual abuse of male adolescents (not young children) covered up by a corrupt institution before you mention “standing the test of time”.

              I reply: That has it backwards as I recall the abusive priests where shipped off to receive “clinical therapy” & their therapists pronounced them “cured” and said they could return to ministry. Didn’t work out that way now did it?

              >I think your concept of “re-orientation” is wrong. You don’t re-orient people, you resolve the causes of their perverted sexualization. You don’t seem to realize that a person who has sexually perverted the same sex has much more profound psychological and ideological problems.

              This is weird? What do ideology and psychology have to do with one another? With all due respect this sounds like gibberish.

              >And millions of LGBTs are certainly doing every kind of harm and violence in society, mostly with impunity, because they have been told they are normal.

              Actually it’s moral progressives most of whom I’d say are straight.

              >So should we abolish all medical treatments and declare medicine itself to be bad then? I am against any kind of therapy that contains a harmful result for the person. But I don’t see how a responsible therapy could do this even if it not capable to treat a homosexual problem.

              I reply: I never advocated abolishing anything. I merely pointed out the truth that holiness is the final goal of a SSA Catholic not changing from gay to straight. As they say in Courage. The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality but holiness.

              >What this is creating is a lot of people who think that they are not responsible for treating their sexually perverted minds. And there is a real problem of homosexuals and bisexuals in churches and in society sexually harassing, acting out, and doing harm to others, and corrupting the church from within because of power dynamics of anyone who stands in their way.

              It’s called sin & having a fallen nature. The only solution to it is Grace and the Gospel.

              >This is going on because such people think there is really nothing wrong with them and they have bought into the liberal ideology that states that homosexuality and basically anything that gives someone pleasure, no matter if that pleasure is perverted, warped, sleazy, or not, is just fine.

              I reply: You are preaching to the choir here my dear.

              >This apparently goes back to a basic point of disagreement. I believe everyone is responsible for treating their sexually perverted minds, if they have minimal resources – otherwise it is sinful not to.

              I forgot to ask are you Catholic? Because if so you can’t go against the council of Trent.

              • I reply: You are contradicting yourself here. Proper therapy will cure them of their homosexuality but might not prevent their suicide because therapy doesn’t cure everything? Forgive me but this reads like Dr. Groucho saying “The patent is dead but at least I cured his cold”.

                ============

                No, there is no contradiction, you didn’t understand my point given that you have no idea what therapy is or how it works. Therapy isn’t a pill, it’s not a screw, people aren’t machines. The right therapy can and has been successful in treating a wide range of mental illnesses, psychological disturbances, emotional problems, etc. and has also prevented suicide. However, since each individual is different, each has a different life experience, each lives in a unique environment, and the same goes for each therapist, and for each therapy experience, there is no guarantee that any time anyone does any therapy that there will be any result. Anything can happen, from good to bad. Most good therapists would likely not cause bad results, but even that is possible. So proper treatment can cure many problems, but it’s not guaranteed that every thing will always work out right. Mocking what I am saying because you’re so ignorant on the subject is not really proper Catholic behavior. But I suppose you can do no better. If all you do is read the Bible, one thing is guaranteed: you can only be completely ignorant on all kinds of hard and soft sciences, including psychology and therapy.

                You were alleging that therapy (obviously meaning any and all kinds, every single therapist) causes suicide – a very ignorant claim. Therapy done irresponsibly could lead to suicide for a person who is profoundly troubled; or if the therapist makes mistakes, they could fail to prevent suicide. Because this can happen in some situations, it doesn’t mean that therapy causes suicide in every situation or in every situation where there is a client with a homosexual problem – the majority of people who do therapy are never driven to suicide, thus your claim is just hogwash. There are therapists who’ve had hundreds of clients and not one became suicidal. If homosexuals should become suicidal it’s exactly because of untreated emotional and social problems.

                You are advocating for people not to treat their sexually perverted minds -this is really irresponsible and unethical. It’s exactly because of lack of treatment and proper socialization that such people often act out every kind of perverted desire, sexually harass, corrupt churches, abuse teens and adults, etc., mostly with impunity – and that’s the harm that you are contributing to. Furthermore, it’s exactly when people don’t treat profound psychological problems that they are more prone to commit suicide.

                ===================

                you said: “Except we don’t know why people are gay?”

                Wrong choice of pronoun – *You* don’t know why people develop a homosexuality problem – other people certainly do know quite a bit.

                “We don’t even know if all expressions of homosexual behavior are psychologically the same.”

                They aren’t all the same. You might want to drop the “we” in your sentences, and just stick to stating the things you don’t know, but that other people do. Do you work for GLAAD, btw? You sound just like them.

                =================

                >And millions of LGBTs are certainly doing every kind of harm and
                violence in society, mostly with impunity, because they have been told they are normal.

                you said: Actually it’s moral progressives most of whom I’d say are straight.

                I don’t know why you want to lie about the millions of acts of harm and violence committed by LGBTs in society, but in the end it’s the same as the CC when they tried to cover up by every means possible the thousands of sexual abuse cases committed by their homosexual priests. The gravest kind of sin – the cover up of harm and violence in society. It’s not very Catholic, that is, for people who think of Catholicism in an ethical way, so you might want to drop it.

                • James Scott

                  >No, there is no contradiction, you didn’t understand my point given that you have no idea what therapy is or how it works.

                  A contradiction is claiming A and Not A at the same time & in the same relationship. Logic 101 my dear.

                  Use that basic Aristotelian category and apply it too your sentence and make your own judgements.

                  >Therapy isn’t a pill, it’s not a screw, people aren’t machines. The right therapy can and has been successful in treating a wide range of mental illnesses, psychological disturbances, emotional problems, etc. and has also prevented suicide. However, since each individual is different, each has a different life experience, each lives in a unique environment, and the same goes for each therapist, and for each therapy experience, there is no guarantee that any time anyone does any therapy that there will be any result.

                  In which case Ethically it is up to the individual to make the prudent judgement (unless they are mentally incompetent and insane) wither or not such therapy is for them or useful. Some gay Christians don’t find it effective never the less the Gospel mandates they live chaste lives and not commit homo erotic sex acts. There is no doctrinal compulsion from the Church that they must seek this therapy. That is optional. Holiness is not.

                  >Mocking what I am saying because you’re so ignorant on the subject is not really proper Catholic behavior.

                  My dear I do have a BA in psychology so I do know something. I also know something about dogmatic theology and the brute fact remains the Church does not compile any type of re-orientation therapy (the mechanics of the therapy are irrelevant to the moral & doctrinal issues here).

                  > But I suppose you can do no better. If all you do is read the Bible, one thing is guaranteed: you can only be completely ignorant on all kinds of hard and soft sciences, including psychology and therapy.

                  So what is your expertise? Do enlighten us?

                  >You were alleging that therapy (obviously meaning any and all kinds, every single therapist) causes suicide – a very ignorant claim.

                  Do not bare false witness I said no such thing.

                  >You are advocating for people not to treat their sexually perverted minds -this is really irresponsible and unethical.

                  I made no such claims I in fact I said the opposite. If you can’t read plain English then I can’t help you my dear.

                  >Wrong choice of pronoun – *You* don’t know why people develop a homosexuality problem – other people certainly do know quite a bit.

                  There are theories and I suspect homosexuality is multi-causal and there are different types. Like in Pedophilia you have regressed offenders, fixated offenders, and other sub variations. But since you are such an expert I am sure you can expound as to the different models of homosexual behavior.

                  >They aren’t all the same. You might want to drop the “we” in your sentences, and just stick to stating the things you don’t know, but that other people do. Do you work for GLAAD, btw? You sound just like them.

                  I see now an intelligent discussion with you is pointless. Thank you for your time.

                  >I don’t know why you want to lie about the millions of acts of harm and violence committed by LGBTs in society,

                  They are less than 2% of the population. That seems a stretch.

                  • “Some gay Christians don’t find it effective never the less the
                    Gospel mandates they live chaste lives and not commit homo erotic sex acts. ”

                    Like the ones who can’t differentiate between a prayer group and clinical therapy? While each individual is free to choose, that doesn’t absolve them from their responsibility in treating their perverted minds, no matter what perversion they have going.

                    “There is no doctrinal compulsion from the Church that they must seek this therapy. That is optional. Holiness is not.”

                    Thus the problem. If Catholics were capable of being “holy”, we wouldn’t have a profoundly warped Church with countless, pedophiles, sexual harassers, and perverts of all kinds. Not treating sexual perversion is ensuring that people with a deformed mind, which usually translates into a range of deformed actions along the way, will be intent on then lying about their actions for impunity’s sake, to avoid being held accountable, avoid being embarrassed, the usual. That’s why yours and the CC’s stance is a recipe for harm and violence. But it’s the only thing an institution that is ignorant on treating sexual perversity can say to pretend that it has a solution. Otherwise they’d have to admit how incompetent and clueless they are on the subject and bringing about real solutions.

                    >Mocking what I am saying because you’re so ignorant on the subject is not really proper Catholic behavior.

                    You said: “My dear I do have a BA in psychology so I do know something.”

                    A BA in psychology and you don’t even know that Courage isn’t clinical therapy? BA in your dreams perhaps…

                    >I don’t know why you want to lie about the millions of acts of harm and violence committed by LGBTs in society,

                    You said: They are less than 2% of the population. That seems a stretch.

                    They aren’t less than 2% and it’s not a stretch at all. This is a subject I often discuss on my blog because your response (denial, trivialization, downright resistance in facing harm and violence perpetrated by LGBTs) is such a dominant attitude in society today: https://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/violence-against-lgbt-individuals/

                    Needless to say trivializing or minimizing harm and violence is a terrible sin because it foments these things indirectly.

                    • James Scott

                      What can I say to this incoherent rambling response other than I think you need help?

                  • .
                    Wow, second time I side with @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus!

                    Ahh, but I see it is against the perennially virulent homophobe @alessandrab:disqus.

                    That explains it.
                    __________

                    However, kudos to you, @Alessandra regarding your open immigration philosophy — there’s hope!

                    (I couldn’t compliment you on your own anti-banning web blog … because you banned me, doh!)
                    .

                    • James Scott

                      Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

                      I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

                      So this has to stop for your sake.

                      You need to stop now.

                      definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

                    • Given that the only thing that comes out of your mouth is repeating “Alessandra is a virulent homophobe”, you don’t contribute in any way to the understanding of homosexuality, its etiology, or the harm and violence that LGBTs do in society.

    • Patrick

      Don’t even bother engaging with Alessandra. I tried to reason with her a few years ago and we reached an impasse when she insisted the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in the wrong.

      • For people who aren’t satisfied with your kind of misguided views, a new article just came out that underscores some key points related to the discussion of the etiology of homosexual problems.

        The Girl in the Tuxedo: Two Variations on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by Jean Lloyd – over at Public Discourse

  • papagan

    “Like Christ, a man who truly knows who he is will naturally lead a life of chastity.” (Emphasis added.)

    This is simply a friendly clarification. Pace Socrates, among human persons with a human nature wounded by original sin, knowing what is truly good does not necessarily or always entail willing and doing what is truly good. According to the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II, the virtue of chastity or sexual rectitude in its “essence … consists in quickness to affirm the value of the [whole human] person [body and spiritual soul] in every situation, and in raising to the personal level all reactions to the value of ‘the body and sex.’” “Chastity can only be thought of in association with the virtue of love. Its function is to free love from the utilitarian attitude.” The utilitarian attitude emphasizes the body (carnal) over the human person (incarnate spirit), subordinates the personal (whole) to the sexual (part).

  • SnowCherryBlossoms

    This is one of the best articles I have read. It is so clear, so real, so true and finding this was an answer to my prayer. Thank you for this.

  • John Albertson

    The Pope has just committed another one of his ill-measured faux pas in embracing a “transgendered couple” from Spain and letting these mutants be referred to as “fiancées.” Of all his unfortunate acts, this has to be the worst so far. What next?

    • “May his days [in office] be few; may another take his office.” (Ps 109:8)

    • Him agreeing to marry that father and daughter from NY who have publicly announced their incest? I mean, seriously… Did the conclave of cardinals know he was like this or is this coming as a surprise to most or some?

      • Daniel P

        Please cite your source. This is calumny.

        • No calumny at all – read again…

          • .
            Okay.

            Read.

            Calumny.

            Read again.

            Calumny again.

            Now what?

            ==========

            cal·um·nynoun: calumny; plural noun: calumniesthe making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone’s reputation; slander

            calumny (n.) “False & malicious misrepresentation of the
            words or actions of others, calculated to injure their reputation”
            [Fowler], mid-15c., from Middle French calomnie (15c.), from Latin calumnia “trickery, subterfuge, misrepresentation, malicious charge,” from calvi “to trick, deceive,” from PIE root *kel- (6) “to deceive, confuse” (cognates: Greek kelein “to bewitch, seduce, beguile,” Gothic holon “to deceive,” Old Norse hol “praise, flattery,” Old English hol “slander,” holian “to slander”).
            Synonyms: slander, defamation (of character), character assassination, libel; vilification, traducement, obloquy, verbal abuse;
            informalmudslinging, trash-talk;
            rarecontumely,
            Alessandra

            !!
            .

      • papagan

        “Him agreeing to marry that father and daughter from NY who have publicly announced their incest? I mean, seriously… Did the conclave of cardinals know he was like this or is this coming as a surprise to most or some?”

        Do you understand the moral gravity of slander?

        • I didn’t slander anyone…

          • papagan

            Most would agree that the character of anyone who participates in or supports the public recognition and acceptance of an incestuous sexual relationship is highly questionable. Moreover, the statement you made public in this forum is false. Your false statement seems injurious to the reputation of Pope Francis. Before sharing with others such a controversial statement about Pope Francis, you should have attempted to verify whether the statement was accurate, but you failed to do so. That is reprehensible. Shame on you.

            • I didn’t make any false statements – you didn’t understand it at all.

              • papagan

                “I didn’t make any false statements – you didn’t understand it at all.”

                Really? Your statement about Pope Francis is there for everyone to see, and it is slanderous. Slander is gravely evil.

                • What was slanderous about what I wrote? Obviously some people here have trouble with basic English.

                  • papagan

                    Here’s what I wrote several days ago in response:

                    Most would agree that the character of anyone who participates in or supports the public recognition and acceptance of an incestuous sexual relationship is highly questionable. Moreover, the statement you made public in this forum is false. Your false statement seems injurious to the reputation of Pope Francis. Before sharing with others such a controversial statement about Pope Francis, you should have attempted to verify whether the statement was accurate, but you failed to do so.

                    Perhaps I should have expressed an implicit proposition, namely, your reprehensible statement about Pope Francis is false.

                    • It’s not false, because it’s not falsifiable, since it was a follow-up question to what we could see next from Pope Francis (a reply to “what next?” ).

                      Lastly, IMO, nothing I could say could ever damage more his reputation than the things he has been saying himself.

                    • papagan

                      First, that wasn’t clear. The comment misled more than one person. You really need to express your thoughts more clearly. Second, you could have supplied the clarification much earlier. Third, you should edit the original confusing comment. Fourth, the comment was inappropriate. Fifth, as far as I know, he hasn’t made any statement that would compromise his good reputation.

                  • .
                    … mirror, mirror, on the wall, who has trouble with basic English most of all?
                    .

              • James Scott

                The Pope married a Father and Daughter?

                Either you are being sarcastic or I don’t know that statement is weird.

          • .
            … nope, just everyone.
            .

      • papagan

        «Pope Repeats that Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ is “Anthropological Regression”» http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-repeats-that-same-sex-marriage-is-anthropological-regression. That contradicts your extremely controversial statement.

      • James Scott

        A better link.

        Pope Repeats that Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ is “Anthropological Regression

        http://www.virtueonline.org/pope-repeats-same-sex-marriage-anthropological-regression

      • SnowCherryBlossoms

        This is a flat out lie. Slander is a deadly sin with many stinging tentacles. Every person reading your comment and believing it, you will answer for.

    • James Scott

      The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.-Matt 11:19

      • .
        This is not right again — how can I up-vote folks I usually argue with?
        .

        • James Scott

          Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

          I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

          So this has to stop for your sake.

          You need to stop now.

          definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result…

    • SnowCherryBlossoms

      You were not in the room and you did not hear what he said to them in private. You are judging him on appearances alone. Jesus also spoke privately and publicly to sinners.

      • .
        This is not right — how can I up-vote folks I usually argue with?
        .

    • .
      Hate much, @disqus_NucZ4xU8ZQ:disqus?

      WWJD?
      .

  • Florentius

    Beautifully said. If read without prejudice, a clear and articulate testimony like this could change thousands or even millions of hearts and minds.

  • John A. C. Kelley

    To be frank and honest, there is no logical reason to assume that man was created exclusively for woman or vice versa. The only way that you can make such an argument is if you assume that our sole purpose as God’s children is to procreate.

    • GG

      What? That is some absurd logic.

      • John A. C. Kelley

        You may believe so, but I doubt you’ve studied logic. Please, explain where my reasoning went awry.

        • GG

          This from a poster who states there is no logical reason to assume man was created exclusively for woman.

          To begin start with right reason, biology, and I will mention the obvious that it is self evident to any uncorrupted person.

          • John A. C. Kelley

            So procreation is the only thing that matters in a relationship and if you can’t procreate biologically, then you are in a sinful relationship?

    • beyond partisan

      Forget God – look at evolution then. The purpose of sex in evolution is entirely to procreate and create new offspring. And if you try to make the spiritual argument that humans should enjoy sex for pleasure alone, there is no spiritual argument there at all. Every single major religion in the world sees sex-for-pleasure as distracting from God, not leading one to God.

      • John A. C. Kelley

        Sex has multiple purposes. I doubt you have studied any of them. Science and religion have both told us that sex is for pleasure and procreation in the human species. Humans are one of the only living things that can and do have sex for pleasure according to science.

        If you believe that sex is not for pleasure according to the Bible, then you clearly have never read Song of Solomon, which makes blatant references to sexual acts solely for pleasure (such as oral), nor have you read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, which pretty extensively suggests that sex is for the pleasure of each individual’s spouse.

        To further this idea, if sex for pleasure and not procreation is wrong, then it is wrong for anyone who is infertile to have sex, whether it be due to trauma, genetics, or age.

        Your views are extremely inconsistent.

        • beyond partisan

          Re: Song of Solomon’s supposed “blatant” references to sexual acts? If you think talking about eating “honey” in a poem is automatically about oral sex you may have listened to too many Led Zeppelin songs in your youth.

          • John A. C. Kelley

            No, that isn’t even close. I’m pretty sure that telling a woman that her thighs shelter a paradise of rare spices does though. How do you know what spices are down there unless you are A) smelling it for some reason or B) doing something else and either way your face is down there. I’d love to hear you explain it away; you can’t, but I’m sure you’ll try. You should study poetic imagery if you truly believe that this is anything other than a reference to oral sex.

            • .
              I put an “adult filter” on my computer so I no longer can read anything from the bible.

              😉

              Yes, many people project their own shame even into the past to rewrite history, or mythology in this case..
              .

            • beyond partisan

              Either way it is not a promotion of homosexuality but heterosexuality.

              • John A. C. Kelley

                I did not claim that it was promoting anything other than sex for pleasure, which you contested and now have conceded. My point stands that sex is for more than just procreation and therefore, there is no reason to claim that sex is solely for man/woman partnerships.

          • .
            I never thought of it as a “lead zeppelin”!!!

            😉

            I gotta go back and check out some lyrics now — thanks!
            .

      • .
        No, the purpose of sex is fun.

        You don’t understand evolution, @beyondpartisan:disqus.

        Having sex to have offspring is intellectualizing it.

        Over intellectualizing it.

        Not something our ancestors did as they were evolving — sexing it up — over a few million years.
        .

        • beyond partisan

          “Having sex to have offspring is intellectualizing it.” Wow. You really have trouble with reality, don’t you? Having a baby is now “intellectualizing” sex? Crazy. Just crazy.

        • “No, the purpose of sex is fun.”
          On your world view, purpose is a contrived thing. Can we *really* know what sex is for by studying nature? Or are we merely projecting? Did nature tell you what it’s for? Seems like you’re positing so much in our ability to discern and declare dogmatically what things are supposed to do. Funny, you sound downright fundamentalist.

    • SnowCherryBlossoms

      Or you could just compare body parts between a man and a woman and see how they are made for each other…

      • John A. C. Kelley

        They are made for reproduction, but even the animals who cannot sin as they do not have free will commit acts of homosexuality. You are claiming that because a penis fits into a vagina and has a chance of creating a child, that it must mean that a penis and vagina were made exclusively for each other. I would like to know how procreation makes such things exclusive.

        • SnowCherryBlossoms

          Even animals “commit” acts of homosexuality? By saying this YOU have just lowered yourself to the level of an animal.
          No, animals do not “commit” any acts in that sense as they do not possess freewill or reason and are not able to sin.

          • John A. C. Kelley

            I have lowered myself to the level of an animal? No, that is not how any remotely logical progression works. Unless you would also like to assert that when Jesus said God even takes care of the birds in Matthew 6:26 that Jesus was lowering us to the level of animals.

            Commit does not imply freewill, but animals cannot do wrong because they can only do what God programmed to do; therefore if they commit acts of homosexuality, then God programmed them to do so.

          • .
            “… Raise …”, @SnowCherryBlossoms:disqus.

            Raise yourself to the level of an animal.

            Animals are way above us.

            No animal has done such evil as men do.

            Especially to animals.

            .

            • Again, the relativist yammering on about evil and good. Such useless categories when your universe centers around your appetites.

        • beyond partisan

          “that it must mean that a penis and vagina were made exclusively for each other.” Of course they were. That is obvious. You’re just trying to talk semantics here and confuse the issue, but you know as much as everyone else does what the sex organs were made for (whether by God and/or evolution). I just wish I’d see some honesty from your side in the comments here – I’d have a lot more respect for you if you just said plainly:

          “I know that biologically we are made to be heterosexual, but that doesn’t matter to me. I also don’t care about Christian morality. I don’t believe in God/Hell/spirituality and therefore what I do with my private parts is my choice and my business.”

          • John A. C. Kelley

            No, they aren’t. Our sexual organs are made for much more than just reproduction as I have proven in my other post. They are also made for pleasure. Reproduction is just one purpose. It is no different than having a fax/phone/copier/printer, they don’t all have to be used each time the machine is used. If the penis and vagina were solely made for each other due to reproduction, then they would not be used for pleasure or urinating.

            I am honest and I’m glad that you have finally shown your true colors. You don’t believe that anyone can be honest and moral if they don’t agree with you. Just because I view things differently than you, you assume that I am immoral and don’t care about anything but my opinion.

            The funny thing is that so far in our debate, you have been consistently refuted and I have not.

            You spout off things about “biologically made to be heterosexual”, but where is your proof? That we can have children? I could argue by the same logic that we are made to be asexual and only use our penises and vaginas to urinate because that is the only biological purpose for said organs that is absolutely needed to survive. I could further my argument by using Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 7 that we should not get married and remain celibate if possible.

            Christian morality? Where does Christianity state that homosexuality is wrong? Leviticus? It also says eating bacon and shellfish are wrong as well as wearing clothes of mixed fabric and yet you do all of those things. Romans? Nope, homosexuality is found in nature and is therefore, natural by definition. 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? Not at all. They both use the same word that is used less than 100 times in any writings of that time and in nearly every writing it is translated as male-on-male pedophilia, or male-on-male prostituting; not a single writing has arsenokoites translated as just homosexuality. Nowhere does any scripture condemn the simple act of homosexuality.

      • .
        You said a mouthful there, @SnowCherryBlossoms:disqus.
        .

  • MaryofSharon

    For those who question the value of persons who experiencing same-sex attraction refraining from identifying themselves as “gay” or “celibate”, a providentially timed testimony just came out at Jason Evert’s Chastity Project, “Hope at the End of The Rainbow”. See http://chastityproject.com/2015/01/hope-rainbow/

    The author writes of a recent very positive relationship with a woman which has given him new hope that he may one day be called to the vocation of husband and father. He refuses to put himself in the “gay” box, and, although he doesn’t say it, he doesn’t put himself in the “celibate” box yet either, for he does not want to put any limits on what God may have in store for him.

    On his own blog, “Pursuit of Truth Ministries”, Andrew uses a great analogy about the risks of putting oneself in boxes “As we begin to embrace those types of labels, we begin to grow into what we think they mean…we begin to grow into the labels that are imposed onto us – often times without us even realizing it. It reminds me of those square watermelons they grow in Japan….Really, they are just watermelons that have grown into the parameters that have been placed around them….They grow, but in an inhibited way; within the parameters that the box they have been put into….. Likewise, we grow into the parameters we place onto ourselves every time we wholeheartedly embrace any type of identity as our own.”

  • Chris Ricketts

    Thank you so much for writing this. Every now and then someone comes along and explains something about sexuality, chastity, etc, in such a way that it makes perfect sense. That resonated deeply with me as a married man who has struggled much with addiction to pornography for over 20 years and a flawed view of human sexuality and relationships. Again I thank you for your honesty and clear vision.

    • SnowCherryBlossoms

      That was honest and very courageous of you to say this, I wish more people could be like this because you just never know who will be helped by comments this honest. God bless you.

    • Naomi Ricketts

      As Chris’s wife, I can attest that this post has had a profound impact on him. For most of last year, Chris would on a more or less weekly basis, visit a large number of golden shower and soiled panties websites. Since he read this essay, he strictly limits himself to golden showers. Thank you for helping him take small steps.

      • .
        Thanks, I had no idea such sites existed, I’ll compensate for his absence.
        .

  • Jdonnell

    “Celibate” is appropriate in connection with the priesthood, where it should apply to all, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

  • Lila

    Please, whatever you do, do NOT marry a woman! The lives of too many women and their children have been ruined–destroyed–because men with same-sex sexual attraction decided to marry women. It is not fair and it is not right. No amount of intellectual or moral reasoning will make it a valid marriage.

  • Password9

    Excellent in clarifying definitions and making distinctions in an age bend on blurring them. Paragraph numbers for the citations from the Catechism could be useful.

  • Tim English

    I would say Refer to CCC 2357-2359 CCC 2358 says “The number of men and women who have deep seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most them, it is a trial. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. Those persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their daily lives and, if they are to be Christians to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they face they may encounter from their condition.” ” Homosexual persons are called to chastity( not celibacy) By the virtues of self mastery that teaches them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
    Also pay attention to CCC 1935 ” The equality of of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it” ‘Every form of cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color,social conditions, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.’

    • .

      Thanks, @Tim English,

      Technically, historically, celibacy means unmarried, that is, no potential heirs will have an inheritance claim on a father’s property ownership.

      That’s all marriage was for — to separate legitimate or “chosen” heirs from illegitimate non-heirs.

      Men were gonna do what men were gonna screw anyway — marriage never limited the screwing, only the inheriting.

      Whereas chaste sort of unambiguously means without mixing, that is, no sexual intercourse.

      So of course the church wanted priests to be celibate — so no “legitimate” offspring could inherit or sue to reclaim church property.

      But they didn’t care if priests were chaste — where do you think alter boys come from, doh?!?

      Physicality on the earthen plane is a property issue, not a moral one.

      Your soul belongs to God.

      Your property belongs to the church, eventually.

      And your bastard son-of-a-priest won’t be able to inherit or sue to get your property back.

      And if you put up a fight, you’ll be declared a witch or a heretic.

      Then they can burn you out of your house and home, scare the rest of the village into submission, and confiscate more and more property.

      On point, “fags” means sticks * — homosexuals were piled up alive like a bundle of sticks to start the fire where women and heretics were to be burned alive at the stake.

      This is “the church”, after all.

      ISIS has nothing on Catholicism.

      ==========

      * [ fagot ] from Old French fagot “bundle of sticks” (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from Italian faggotto “bundle of sticks,” diminutive of Vulgar Latin *facus, from Latin fascis “bundle of wood”.
      .

  • millers3888

    If it makes you sleep better at night Dan, more power to ya! I’ll snuggle with my boyfriend for the both of us.

  • Brian

    As a pediatrician I have had to deal with children with “ambiguous genitalia” while the child had what appeared to be a vagina she/he was found to be genetically XY, I am curious how you would address this, as this genetic male was raised as a female, and had some real emotional issues as she/he reached puberty

  • Paddy S

    God bless you Daniel.

  • David

    True, there is no gay celibacy, since the harboring of illicit or unclean feelings of effeminacy is highly unchaste—criminal. As they say, “It’s the thought that counts.” Chastity is a state of mind, so that if a person merely engages in impure thoughts, gay or hetero, he is not chaste, but unchaste. But if a person is raped against his or her will, but doesn’t nourish the episode in his heart, he or she is still a virgin in God’s eyes.

    Concerning obedience, I would say however that if a person will only obey when he perceives it to be the right and normal thing to do, it is not true obedience. Obedience is about the fear of God and the loving consent to do things without necessarily knowing why it is good, for the simple reason that it was commanded by God, though not forced of course. We’re always left to our free will. If Abraham had obeyed only because he understood God’s design, it would have had no merit. He understood, falsely, that God wanted him to kill Issac, but because God commanded it he consented with all his heart to kill Issac, something that is innately understood in any just man to be immoral. This is what gave his obedience all the merit. He proceeded to sacrifice Issac simply because God commanded it, and for no other reason. As Abraham understood it, the only thing that made it right is because God told him to do it, not because he understood his design to test him. He knew that afterward, but it was not for him to know beforehand.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      You know, even when I was a kid I used to wonder how exactly God was supposed to have issued this command to Abraham. Did Abraham hear a disembodied voice telling him to do it? And if so, how did he verify that it was the voice of God? The very fact that it was telling him to do something so absolutely and manifestly wicked would have been more than ample proof to the contrary.

      If today a man were found on a mountain who had tied up his son and placed him on an improvised altar, and was about to knife him to death, he would be promptly arrested for attempted murder. If he pleaded that God had told him to do it, he would be remanded for a psychiatric report.

      That said, I do like your argument about blind obedience making things right. I can envisage a child abuser employing it with success.

    • .
      @David wrote

      “… harboring of illicit or unclean feelings of effeminacy is highly unchaste—criminal …”

      Wow — insult half the world’s population, calling women illicit and unclean, unchaste and criminal.

      We’re really got a problem here.
      .

      • beyond partisan

        David did not insult women by saying that – but YOU insulted women above by reducing femininity down to clothes, make-up and handbags – all shallow, external things that have nothing to do with being a WOMAN.

      • Again, the relativist having problems with other people making judgments. Classic cognitive dissonance.

        • .
          Ooops, do we now have two votes that women are illicit, unclean, unchaste and criminal, @anglicanae:disqus?

          Yeah, tell me I’m judgemental.

          You point that finger at me, ignoring the three aimed right back at ya.
          .

          • I can’t understand why you’d be indignant at such a position. If morals are merely human constructs, you cannot seriously afflict others with your particular brand of morality as if it carries godlike weight.

            Now if you believed morals are grounded in transcendence, then we can have a real conversation. As it stands you’re just telling everyone you don’t like certain things. Okay, and? Nobody says a relativist has to like something; but don’t be a relativist and expect to act the part of a fundamentalist without people noticing the contradiction.

            By the way, I’ll play fair with men of good will and desire to discuss real issues with intellectual honesty. I see you’ve been busy answering lots of posts here. Maybe I can absorb some of your questions… unless you just need to air your frustrations.

            • .
              To reiterate, @anglicanae:disqus,

              I care to live in a society based on equivalent consideration.

              Folks here who consider women to be inherently illicit, unclean, unchaste, and criminal, are a danger to us all.

              Why fight me when you could address them instead?

              Unless you are them.
              ____________

              I have no idea what you mean by the word ‘relativist’.

              Is that a Rush Limbaugh catch phrase, like ‘feminazi’, meaningless but for it’s offensiveness, considering the source?
              .

              • “I care to live in a society based on equivalent consideration.”

                But why? To make you more comfortable? I reject injustice, but I can tell you why and on what principle. I’m trying to figure out why you’re so bothered by injustice.

                A moral relativist is one who believes good and evil are merely human constructs in order to serve a particular social vision. There is no transcendent grounding for good and evil.

                • .
                  @anglicanae:disqus,

                  Write what you will, and I do see that you have definite beliefs, whatever they are, but I find nothing responsive, nothing tethering, nothing to go on in your posts.

                  Sorry, but you’re a bit abstruse for me, and I can’t draw connections from my offering to your offering to my offering to your offering.

                  Help?

                  Simplify?

                  Redirect?

                  I have no idea.
                  .

                  • Well, see if this helps —

                    I get to what you are objecting, I comprehend the things (as you present them here) which are at stake for you. My convictions may or may not be rational. More importantly, they may not correspond to reality.

                    My line of question for you is an earnest inquiry, regardless of my beliefs about the world, into the reasons behind your reasons. You see, like yourself, I happen to adopt axiomatically that ideas have consequences. Your distaste for anti-homosexual beliefs or behaviors seems to need justification beyond your discomfort, since one’s comforts are completely transitory in the 7 decades you have in this world (which is a general fact). I can sympathize with anyone of any stripe seeking creaturely comforts and a pain-free existence. But again, if God is not, then what or who has the inherent authority to say, “Stop, you ought not think or do that.”

                    If your only appeal is Golden Rule living because, after all, people should be compassionate, it is philosophically relevant to inquire why compassion is objectively better than indifference or (to use that favorite pop culture word) hate.

                    It seems you posit this commonly observed value: it is better to exist than not. I share this value. I can tell you why on my philosophy why it is, but my mere belief in that does not mean a misanthrope has no earnest reasons for the opposite claim (indeed, some people believe humanity is a plague to the earth).

                    It seems before I can sign up for your cause we need to tap into the Ultimate Issue at stake. Being thinking animals mean we have the capacity to reflect. Whether your concerns merit my attention has to do with whether you are willing to reflectnon these matters consistently. Because reason is the only thing I can see we have to build bridges, I need you to help us get out of the realm of subjectivity. As you well know, the (purported) subjectivism of others is the cause of your struggle. But it may also be true you are making so much out of your own subjectivity to the discomfort of others.

                    Now if you insist no conversation can or should be had on this level of First Things, then an ideological impasse will result, and the ranting is just ranting with no rational justification. You’d be just another voice whose sound agitates the molecules of a presumably deaf and uncaring cosmos. It would seem you want men to be as gods, to act more than the matter they are. Your existential cry, warped as it might be, seems to want there to be a transcendent ear that can compassionately hear the concerns surrounding your short, vapor like existence.

                    But if there is no God, why should men act better than brute beasts? If there is a God, then we have a different discussion on the horizon. I am trying to figure out what kind of conversation this is.

              • Catch phrase? As in, meant to catch your attention? It’s a real philosophical term with real world implications. If it grabs your notice, all the better. If you ignore it, then authentic communication is has broken down.

  • Jacqueleen

    What a bunch of nonsense! The use of both words, celibate and chaste would be correct and the use of “Gay” is correct. I am not supporting the fact that Gay men and women should go around proclaiming their sexual preferences but rather be meek and humble of heart like Jesus and practicing celibacy with the much needed help of the Grace of God to overcome temptation as the Lord did when He wandered through the desert for 40 days fasting and praying. Relative to the Temple of the Holy Spirit….you need to know that God is evicted when sin enters in…The Holy Spirit does not reside together with evil. It is either or….So, gays may be the Temple of Satan if actively living out their sexual preference. ALL SINGLES WILL COMMIT FORNICATION, A GRAVE SIN IF ENGAGING IN SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Gay lifestyle is still a DISORDER. That has not changed.
    This is a horrible article…Satan’s deception to deceive the reader…..

    • .
      Actually, Satan is in your keyboard, making it yell.
      .

  • Joe

    It
    seems to me the reason the author disagrees is because he is
    fundamentally using a different definition of “gay” than
    those who support identifying
    by
    the term.

    We
    can certainly debate the merits of one definition or another, but
    just because you feel one definition has greater merit than another
    does not mean others are using your definition.

    Those who do
    use the term “gay celibate” or equivalent, are using a definition
    of gay which only refers to the existence of the disordered
    condition. And again, even if you don’t think that is a particularly
    valuable definition of the word, it is still the definition they are
    using.

    They identify as gay Catholics the same way I identify
    as a Catholic with dysthymia.
    Yes, it is a disorder, and yes, of
    course, I do everything I can to prevent it from leading me into
    sloth or the like.
    But it is important for me to identify as such
    to remind myself that it is just a condition to be dealt with like
    any other disorder and not a personality flaw or moral failing. It is
    also important so that others around me understand my struggles and
    how managing the disorder sometimes precludes things they would
    expect of a person without that particular disorder.
    I imagine
    that is how it works with gay Catholics and things like social events
    that encourage dating and courtship.

    Saying I am a person with
    dysthymia in no way means I am “harboring,” “supporting,”
    “fostering,” or otherwise supporting the symptoms of the
    disorder. You can’t deal with a problem you don’t acknowledge you
    have. Accepting the disorder is necessary for effective treatment,
    and I mean treatment, because there is no cure. Short of a miracle on
    the scale of the blind seeing, it is something I simply have to deal
    with, and sometimes that means I have to avoid certain situations
    which will cause problematic interactions with the disorder.
    I
    imagine that is how gay Catholics treat any situation they perceive
    as an occasion to sin.

    This
    Alessandra person might not agree, but it is patently apparent that
    the disorder I inherited (well over half of my extended family has
    some anxiety or mood disorder) is not a sin, even if it would
    potentially lead to sin if I indulged it. It is a disease, and an
    incurable one, so the best that can be done is to minimize its
    impact.

    • James Scott

      Alessandra appears to suffer from what we call a “Just World Fallacy”. That is if something bad happens it must be someone’s fault. Thus if you have a homosexual disposition it must be something you have done or failed to do that makes you that way.

      What is important and what is mandated by the Church is holiness. if you can do some type of therapy that either changes your sexual orientation from gay to straight or makes you functionally bisexual and thus enables you to form some attachments or relationships with the opposite sex(which still via the moral law may only be done in marriage) then i say lovely. If not then try by Grace to live in a chaste manner. But don’t measure how much God loves you by the rule of how “straight” you feel and “less gay”.

      That way leads to madness.

      Cheers.

      • .
        Suffer she does.
        .

        • James Scott

          Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

          I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

          So this has to stop for your sake.

          You need to stop now.

          definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..

          • .
            A leash has two ends, you know — @Metanoia123:disqus ain’t around.

            You can actually loosen your choker and speak like a person, not bark like a dog, @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus.
            .

            • James Scott

              Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

              I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

              So this has to stop for your sake.

              You need to stop now.

              definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..

              • .
                @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus — you’re proving that you are not actually informed about anything.

                Repeat:

                • James Scott

                  Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

                  I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

                  So this has to stop for your sake.

                  You need to stop now.

                  definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result…

    • .
      @Joe,

      You’re a dysthymiasexual?!?

      Well then, I think we should disenfranchise you from your equal civil rights, deny you housing, employment, marriage, adoption capabilities — that’s what we do to homosexuals.

      Oh, your analogy snaps, eh?

      Nice start, though — compassion is a rare thing … on this thread.

      (Stop agreeing with me and liking what I like, @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus!)
      .

      • beyond partisan

        How dare you speak of compassion when you slander a mother who is grieving the loss of her SON. Yes, SON. Hypocrite.

        • .
          Aww, @beyondpartisan:disqus,

          You probably know that slander is saying something false about someone, something that is damaging to their reputation.

          You can’t quote me as doing that!

          You didn’t actually quote me as saying anything.

          You pass summary judgement, so I have no idea what went into your thinking, if anything.

          Maybe you’re just expressing a mindless, thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction.

          I can’t read your mind.

          Can you?

          If so, then get specific, tell me, and then we can dialog.
          .

          • beyond partisan

            Whatever. What I get from you is that you hate (biological) women, Christians and anyone who doesn’t agree with your radical viewpoint. Keep it up – your posts just make the average person more against your agenda.

        • .
          @beyondpartisan:disqus,

          You also appear to know a lot about the practice of claiming
          to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not
          conform; pretense; hypocrisy.

          Or maybe you’re NOT here to represent the love of Jesus made flesh in you.

          You decide.
          .

          • beyond partisan

            I’m saying “Get thee behind me, Satan.”

            • James Scott

              I’ve debated this jerk peterblaise months ago.

              Don’t bother he is certifiable.

              He tried to claim in one thread that Christian bakers not baking wedding cakes for same sex wedding leads to murder of gays(like Harvey Milk).

              So I flipped it on him & brought up the case of a gay man who raped and murdered a Catholic Mother who was Evangelizing him(is this not then caused because gays are violating the rights of Christian business people).

              He actually defended the rapist and blamed his victim. I mean WOW!!!!!!!

              He lies, he contradicts himself, he says crap and then conveniently forgets i & as one other poster pointed he is quite narcissistic.

              Don’t waste your time my dear.

              Peace be with you.

        • .
          @beyondpartisan:disqus,

          Leelah Alcorn died just before 2:30 a.m. Sunday morning, December 28, 2014, giving in to the ceaseless annihilation she experienced from her mother, Carla Alcorn.

          13 years earlier is when Carla, Leelah’s mother, discovered that she had lost her son — that is when Leelah told her mother that she was a girl, not a boy.

          But in that discovery of loosing her son, mother Carla was presented with a precious gift from daughter Leelah’s God — Carla had a blessed daughter to cherish and nurture in Leelah.

          But, Carla dismissed, abused, and annihilated her daughter Leelah over the next 13 years.

          Carla inflicted hell on Leelah based on Carla’s own personal fears, ignorance, and irresponsibility.

          Carla ignored Leelah’s basic human needs for unconditional love, acceptance, nurturing, support, pride, connection, inclusion, joy, compassion, companionship, championship.

          Long suffering in excruciating pain at her mother Carla’s behavior, Leelah finally agreed with her mother that she, Leelah, was not even worthy to exist.

          And so, Leelah walked in front of a truck that was motoring down the highway, and stopped everyone’s pain in the only way she could think of.

          I hope the driver is emotionality okay.

          Leelah had thought about it for the longest time, all day, every day, suffering under the painful infliction of her mother Carla’s negligence.

          So, @beyond partisan, when you write about compassion, a mother mourning the loss of their “SON Yes SON”, and hypocrisy, all of that is in the story.

          Just not where you think it is.

          It’s as if the proverbial gun got loaded when Leelah was 4 years old and her mother Carla revealed her fear, impatience, incompetence, and danger.

          But Daniel Mattson appears to be forging the gun and bullets by extolling the supposed virtues of the shame universe he sequesters himself within, begging more people like Carla to inflict such inhuman isolation on their children like Leelah.

          Bang.
          .

          • beyond partisan

            Wow. You’re just being psychotic now. So much hatred from you towards a woman you’ve never met. I’ve noticed before in online comments that a lot of transgender activists actually have a latent misogyny going on. You’re now expressing it in spades. Where’s the criticism of the father? It seems you hate women.

  • .
    “… I find men sexually attractive … in opposition to the way God made me and the nature he gave me …”

    Hubris?

    Wildåšš speculation in an attempt to avoid induced guilt and shame?

    @Daniel Mattson, I hope you’re comfortable with the path you’re on.

    But to me, it makes no sense to wonder outside one’s self.

    And I worry about the influence you’ll have on the kids.

    #LeelahAlcorn

    .

    • beyond partisan

      “#LeelahAlcorn” – who you so callously reduce to a hashtag as a political insult – is dead because the extreme LGBT movement wants to deny biology and teach kids to reject their own bodies. That child is dead because he thought if he didn’t get his hormones in time, he’d be an ugly woman as an adult. He had replaced God with vanity. Now show me where your message is one of spirit instead of appeasing gross desires.

      • .
        Not much about you in your post, @beyondpartisan:disqus, nothing positive anyway.

        And not much respect for Leela Alcorn‘s own words, her own testimony.

        You do share a mouthful of spit and hate and conclusory assessment and judgement, with a collectivist’s irresponsible blame for anyone and anything outside of one’s self for one’s onerous behavior.

        For 10 years, Leela suffered under her dreadful mother’s shaming, not knowing there were others like Leela, others who found release from suffering, and more, found love, self love, and acceptance.

        For 2 years, Leela found life in those you erroneously claim killed her, but direct and witness testimony shows that her mother got worse, more strident during the most recent 2 years, annihilating her daughter, Leela.

        Leela’s mother murdered her, long and slowly, painfully, until Leela, worn down, agreed, and walked in front of a truck on the highway — her mother had finally won.

        In blaming others who are like Leela, others who just want to have the same sense of self, the same sense of comfort and belonging in their own bodies, much like you or I probably have, you are pulling things out of thin air, you’re inventing, you’re pulling stuff out of your ass.

        There is no trans person who feels suicidal when they finally connect with another trans person for the first time.

        In fact, as Leela testifies, the opposite happens — they are overcome with weeping for joy, knowing that they aren’t berserker, as Leela’s mother had tried to convince her all along.
        __________

        You call them the “extreme LGBT movement”.

        I suppose in this world, it is extreme to behave loving rather than shaming, to treat all with equivalent consideration, including one’s self.

        It’s been a while since we’ve had shining examples of that.

        Try it sometime.

        You’ll like it.

        Then the challenge will be for you not to punish yourself for doing something so wonderful for everyone, especially for yourself.

        With Susan B Anthony as your avatar, I’d think you’d understand the difference between suffrage and suffering.
        .

        • beyond partisan

          I’m spewing hate? You are the one here claiming that “Leelah’s” mother murdered him, even though you don’t know the family whatsoever. What you just wrote is vile and unsubstantiated. Stop pretending you are about tolerance – you are not.

          • .

            Oh puleeze quote me on ANYTHING you think you are accusing me of, @beyondpartisan:disqus.

            Hate — fear, actually — with a courteous smile is still hate nonetheless.

            Leelah Alcorn felt that sorely in the heart from her mother.

            Some fundamentalist religionist conservatives here may speak “politely”.

            But their content is dismissive of others.

            And that’s what drove Leelah to feel worthless, to let go, and to accept death as preferable to the lack of acceptance from her own mother.

            That people respond to that with anger makes perfect sense.

            That you see the anger as the problem, not the reaction to the problem, is frustrating.

            However, we’re just trying to get your attention and let yo know that you are killing us with your fears all dressed up polite.

            So, Betty, you tell us:

            What will it take to get your attention and get you to enter into free and open dialog?

            We’re all ears.
            __________

            And when you refer to Leelah as “she” and “her”, with the simple, no-cost respect she asked for, then we can get started.
            .

            • beyond partisan

              You wrote: “Hate — fear, actually — with a courteous smile is still hate nonetheless.”

              You’re the one filled with hate. That you called “Leelah’s” mom a murderer is total hate. You’re projecting here.

              “And that’s what drove Leelah to feel worthless, to let go, and to accept death as preferable to the lack of acceptance from her own mother.”

              Wrong. “Leelah” wrote in his own suicide note that if he lived, he expected that he would be an ugly woman because he didn’t get his hormone treatments NOW. THAT was not the fault of his mother (who clearly loved him) – THAT was the fault of a culture that puts physical beauty above the spirit, and the trans community is extremely guilty in this regard because it focuses a lot on appearance and what’s on the outside.

              “What will it take to get your attention and get you to enter into free and open dialog?”

              This *is* a dialog. When are you going to figure out that some of us are NEVER going to agree with you, EVER. You can try to pass laws, try to shame people, try to use Nazi-like tactics to force your beliefs on everyone, but we will NOT comply.

              I do not now nor will I ever believe that a male who thinks he is a female in his head is actually a female. Not now. Not ever. NOTHING you can say or do will EVER change my opinion on that. I have biology behind me. You have specious political correctness and pseudo-biology. You say “but gender is in the brain.” I say this is a load of BS given what we know about neuroplasticity.

              And years from now, after every transgender who has had a sex change has died, and all that is left of them is their bones, they will be identified by their birth gender, because IT IS IN YOUR VERY BONES.

              “And when you refer to Leelah as “she” and “her”, with the simple, no-extra-cost respect she asked for, then we can get started.”

              It is not “respectful” to encourage a child or anyone else in a delusion. Nor is it far or right to the ideals of free speech and a free society to try to force everyone to use certain words that go against basic biology in the name of politics.

              So keep on doing what you are doing. The end result is that people like me, who are otherwise tolerant and prefer to “live and let live,” will fight against your Brave New World agenda to rewrite basic biology using false language identifiers in the name of so-called “tolerance.”

              BTW, quit thumbing your own posts up. The rest of us can see that you’ve done it.

              • .
                Another notch for idiots like you, @beyondpartisan:disqus, who think self-upvotes are worth commenting on.

                Disqus does not count them.

                I use them as place markers on how far I have read through a thread so I can pick up where I left off on my next visit.

                It is an interesting test and indicator of how nitpicky some butinsky gotta-judge-and-tell-everybody-what-to-do types like you are.

                In the same vein, you feel so offended by #LeelahAlcorn, that you gotta take a vituperative position against a dead child.

                Wow.

                Over-sensitive to your own imaginary non-existent suffering much?

                Yet totally insensitive to the suffering of others.

                Typical of self-righteous fundie-thumpers.
                .

                • “Typical of self-righteous fundie-thumpers.”

                  On your world view, I can’t imagine by what standard self-righteousness should be condemned. What’s the problem with that given you’re a relativist anyway? Who said self-righteousness ought to be avoided, and why do you accord that person(s) such authority? Do you just bloviate your judgmental non-sense because it’s therapeutic for you? Or is your muddleheaded mission rooted in something transcendent?

                  If this is the best your entirely tiresome schtick has for us, I can only assume it’s rooted in some sort of desperate need for affirmation and attention. Do you need a hug?

                  • .
                    Good morning, @anglicanae:disqus,

                    The kind of hugs @beyondpartisan:disqus offers are smothering, suffocating.

                    We all need other people to stop behaving as if their own beliefs for themselves must have damning power over others.

                    If @beyond partisan feels unchallenged in their gender self-awareness, or lack of self awareness, that’s @beyond partisan‘s concern only.

                    And has nothing to do with the genuine nature of #LeelahAlcorn‘s suffering at the effectively malicious killing-hand of her mother, a person motivated by fear of fundie-thumping.
                    __________

                    Thanks for the side trip into your speculations about my motivations.

                    Stated many times in my Discus history and elsewhere on the web .f.o.r.e.v.e.r.:

                    I am trying to encourage equivalent consideration for all.

                    No more second class citizens, ever, please.
                    .

                    • But as a relativist it seems your desire to shove equality down the throat of other people is contrary to your fundamentalist view of things. I’m not trying to simply be funny, it’s an observation.

                      Show me how I’m wrong. Are you a moral relativist? If not, then on what authority outside yourself do you assert your view of the world? If so, then why are you so bothered about what other people believe? A good relativist would just accept different strokes for different folks.

                    • .
                      Reading, researching, knowing one’s song well before one starts singing, is so hard.

                      Nobody spends much time learning nowadays, do they?
                      __________

                      @anglicanae:disqus,

                      I don’t care what anyone believes.

                      I only care how they behave.

                      When folks kill their children, and then other folks cheer them on, that’s behavior I’m addressing right here and now.

                      It scares me in a “you’re next” kind of way.

                      And it denies me the thrill and satisfaction of getting to know folks like #LeelahAlcorn as they grow and expand my social universe with their generous creativity, something that took incredible efforts of her mother to quash, who unrelenting did quash her child to death.

                      Where does that behavior come from, behavior that is so risky to me, and what can I do to actively take responsibility for diminishing it in my world, what steps can I take to foster a safer life experience for myself in this world?

                      In these threads, I go to the source.

                      When people base their behavior on their emotions, and base their emotions on their thoughts, whether aware or not, whether actively responsible or not — usually not — that is something I address with dialog in these threads.

                      I learn, and I hope I encourage others to bring their energies up to speed and align their beliefs and behaviors with more and more awareness.

                      I’m hoping that inaccuracies and misalignment will make themselves more clearly known, and that good people will take steps to remedy it.

                      That I feel safest when I experience others practicing equivalent consideration is purely selfish on my part.

                      I do not want to suffer at the hands of inconsiderate, self-serving hypocrites.
                      __________

                      I have no idea what you mean by “relativist”, nor why your think “equality” is apparently a bad thing.
                      .

                    • So you don’t want to suffer, but clearly nature doesn’t care one whit about your suffering, right? If there is no God, why even get worked up over it?

                      I’m not invalidating your emotions, I’m asking whether your emotions are logical given your view of the world.

                      Your indignation has to be rooted in more than fear that you’ll be “next”. If you had infallible knowledge that your life-style and preferences would never be get *you* molested, taunted, or harmed in any way — would you still fight for the others? If yes, why? On what *grounds*?

                      Trying to understand the world view of someone who does not profess an objective, divine standard of morality.

                    • .
                      At some point of practice, @anglicanae:disqus, I have found that:

                      Selfishness and selflessness are miscible, intertwined, and indistinguishable from each other.

                      Either rationalization works for me.
                      __________

                      Why would you think it logical(?) for anyone’s emotions to be tethered outside their body — do you have any experience or evidence that your emotions follow anything but your thoughts or your inborn, acquired, or chosen reflexive instincts?

                      Why would you think there is any objective anything, given that we-the-people are all we’ve got to go on … and we are right there inside ourselves?
                      __________

                      I have no idea what your first paragraph means.

                      I reject your third paragraph because I experience your phrase “… has to be …” as invalidating my experience of empathy and healing connection.
                      .

                    • Reject as you might, I’ve not heard a rationale for why your healing is particularly more valuable than somebody’s lack of concern for it. Looking for the grounding, friend. That’s what I’m after here.

                    • .
                      My “healing” … and your … “grounding” …?!?

                      Ooookaaaaayyy . . .

                      Is there more about that for you, @anglicanae:disqus?
                      __________

                      Does it involve tea leaves?

                      Don’t get me wrong — I like tea.
                      .

                    • Just trying to understand your philosophy.

            • beyond partisan

              As for this: “However, we’re just trying to get your attention and let yo know that you are killing us with your fears all dressed up polite.” Grow up. Stop expecting approval from everyone around you. I don’t expect everyone to approve of me nor do I kill myself over it. Anyone who does has deeper psychological issues and it is NOT the fault of the people who disagree with their viewpoint, chosen identity, or lifestyle.

              • .
                Do you fear for your equal access to education, a career, housing, even the freedom to walk on public without being assaulted and battered, @beyondpartisan:disqus?

                Do you even know the murder rate against transgender people?
                .

      • .
        @beyondpartisan:disqus,

        The political presence of the civil rights movement behind LGBTQAS+ should have a penetrating influence on pre-schoolers, and especially on their annihilating parents.

        But, no, as a frustrated 4-year-old child, Leelah knew nothing of the “extreme LGBT movement”, as you call the civil rights fight for equality.

        FYI, the #LeelahAlcorn hashtag allows cross platform communications.

        It is not my invention, but my salute to others’ requests.

        It’s a way of uniting those of us concerned that we live up to Leelah Alcorn’s death wish, also using:

        #FixSociety

        ~70,000 count via Google a moment ago.
        __________

        For excellent example, through the tag, I just found this relevant self-testimony:

        “… hanna honey

        Shared publicly – Feb 6, 2015

        Today I got rid of all male clothing, took it all to the recycle.

        Took the window blinds down in the flat and put them in the communal bin.

        Now this is how my life should be.

        Being the way I feel, the way my soul is and has always been from birth, a female.

        And not to hide away continuously, but live my life in full view for who ever looks in at me and they are, for the whole world to see.

        It feels so good, letting everyone see and know that I’m a woman.

        There is a lot of negative shock out there, and the neighbours are extremely agitated, and horrified and openly annoyed.

        Up to the age of 3 years old, I naturally was a girl, until my mother screamed and shouted abuse at me, saying that I was a boy not a girl.

        You try screaming at any 3 year old girl that’s she’s a boy.

        I was the same [ as #LeelahAlcorn ].

        I just could not understand why my mum was shouting and shaking me so hysterically, telling such big lies about me not being a girl.

        Then in fury and rage she grabbed, squeezed, pulled and tugged at what she called my ding-a-ling, and told me repeatedly they only boys have these.

        I told her that it wasn’t mine.

        Well for about the next four years every type of knife or cutting tool was locked away because I tried everything that I could to cut it off.

        At every opportunity I would dress as how I should be dressed as a girl, played with handbags, purses, makeup and such like.

        I always adored and passionately loved pretty girls wearing pretty dresses.

        Before I could wink, they would be my girlfriend and I would be wearing their clothes.

        Now I desperately need encouragement, and support because the population of this country is so anti transgender.

        I don’t need people to turn their help and backs away from me because I’m a lemon or a mindless goose.

        I’m not a negative person.

        I’m just a helpless goose at times …”
        __________

        Aware of a difference, a mismatch between her self and her body since before 3 years old.

        That’s why I’m trying to redirect Daniel Mattson‘s message in his blog piece above to not stand unchallenged.

        Human beings who are different from their parents need more than a shaming, “suck it up” annihilating dismissal.

        They need the same love and support and belief and encouragement as everyone else.

        Equal.
        .

        • beyond partisan

          Funny. You inadvertently reinforced what I just said about “Leelah” replacing God with vanity. The story you share is all about how being “female” is supposedly about pretty clothes and make-up. IT IS NOT. I am a woman and I and other biological women I know are truly offended that males who think they are women reduce females to the worst stereotypes. Pretty clothes has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

          • .
            Ouch, @beyondpartisan:disqus,

            You’re still talking about, judging, and condemning a 4 year old child.

            … a 4 year old child who was quashed by fearful, dysfunctional, skill-less parents.

            13 years later, that child was still a minor.

            Yet you insist on denigrating Leelah Alcorn, accusing her of your own vanity, unable to see her own genuine suffering, the suffering of a lost, unloved, unseen, abandoned child.

            Patience.

            With enough patience, you may get your childhood back.

            It’s too late for Leelah.
            .

            • beyond partisan

              “Yet you insist on denigrating Leelah Alcorn, accusing her of your own vanity,” Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I am charging the transgender movement with teaching vanity to our children. One of the pictures posted of “Leelah” was a selfie he took of himself in a dress and make-up. Please explain to me how that was not vanity on his part. Does this deny his pain? No.

              But the transgender movement ENCOURAGED this with its focus on fixing the body instead of the mind/soul, with its promotion of transgender models, with the large number of men who get sex changes posting bikini shots of themselves and otherwise making being female all about how you look. You are being intellectually dishonest and refuse to admit for one second that there’s a huge problem with “lookism” in the transgender community. Shame on you.

              • .
                Self image, self awareness, self definition are not dysfunctional, nor are they sins, even according to Jesus, @beyondpartisan:disqus.

                That you assign “vanity” to someone taking a picture of themselves, when their own parents refuse to see them, is sick and sad regarding you.

                There are many 12-step and other programs to help children recover from destructive parents, addicted parents (addicted to the Bible), narcissistic parents, negligent and invasive parents.

                All explore what it takes to for the child to raise their own self-awareness in the absence of accurate and appropriate mirroring from their sick, destructive care-takers.

                #LeelahAlcorn was obviously floundering without support from her parents.
                __________

                You keep harping about a “transgender movement” as if it exists as an outside thing separate from individual transgender people, as if it influenced and twisted or hurt #LeelahAlcorn.

                You are being willfully absurd, @beyond partisan.

                Transgender people know they are transgender when they are 3 or 4 years old, long before they have any awareness of others, of any “movements” in society.

                #LeelahAlcorn testified that the discovery of other transgender people when she was in her teens — after 10 years of crushing mistreatment from her mother — SAVED her sanity, but, sadly, only for a little while.

                At some point, all alone, she couldn’t take the abuse from her mother, and the abandonment from society.

                And, resourceless and without connection, she could not imagine inventing a life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness all on her own.

                So she killed herself to end her suffering.

                A dozen years after her mother killed her.

                Her mother is a murderer.

                The Evangelical movement is a murderer.

                __________

                If you have a problem with self image, @beyond partisan, it makes sense that you would project your discomfort onto others.

                It does not stick.

                Your own choice of iconoclastic feminist Susan B Anthony as an avatar should inspire you to allow, foster, and support other’s self image to be of their own choosing and control, and otherwise, none of your business.

                Just as you probably don’t want anyone to butinsky into your own self-image.

                That’s what they cal it a SELF-image — it has nothing to do with others.

                That you cannot understand why people share ‘selfies’ does not surprise me.

                That you make judgements about others at all, let alone based on things you think justify making judgements, does not surprise me, wither.

                Pull some Jesus and Constitution out of your heart and spread it around — your pain ain’t doing it for nobody, especially you.
                .

  • James Scott

    This looks like a partial response from the Spiritual Friendship crowd.

    http://spiritualfriendship.org/2015/01/27/and-again-more-thoughts-on-lgbt-terminology/

    One thing we must remember is this is a discussion & or argument between orthodox Catholics. This is not some dispute between the heretics over at Dignity or the followers of John Boswell and his weird claims that the ancient Church celebrated same sex marriages.

    There should be dialog between these two groups & mutual fraternal correction in charity.

    What I don’t want to see is the nonsense I read in Austin Ruse’s article and his insulting term “New Homophiles”.

    If I see that nonsense I’m going to pull out a swear word others have tried to bury.

    I’m gonna start calling people “RadTrads”.

    • .
      RadTrad:

      In the Catholic faith, a derogatory word for “radical traditionalist.” This generally involves:

      1) Rejection of Vatican II

      2) Rejection of the non-Latin mass

      3) Rejection of the authority of the current bishops and pope
      __________

      There’s an equally opinionated philosophical exploration by Father Dwight Longenecker at

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/must-we-call-them-rad-trads
      __________

      I understand where you’re coming from with your Catholic navel gazing, @MarcAlcan:disqus.

      But I’m more concerned with the perpetuation of @LeelahAlcorn conditions where real live people are denigrated and shamed to death just for being born and genuine unto themselves like you and me.
      .

      • James Scott

        Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

        I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

        So this has to stop for your sake.

        You need to stop now.

        definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result…

        • .
          Let’s have a duet, @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus .

          I say #LeelahAlcorn.

          And you say:

          • James Scott

            Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

            I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

            So this has to stop for your sake.

            You need to stop now.

            definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..

            • .
              One more time, @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus?

              #LeelahAlcorn.

              • James Scott

                Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

                I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

                So this has to stop for your sake.

                You need to stop now.

                definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..

                • .
                  Four times the charm, @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus?

                  #LeelahAlcorn.

                  And you say:

                  • James Scott

                    Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

                    I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

                    So this has to stop for your sake.

                    You need to stop now.

                    definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..

                    • .
                      What?

                      I have mental health issues that prevent discussion on the web (as if!)?

                      That’s quite a diagnosis!

                      And from someone who doesn’t even know me, nor is a qualified doctor of any sort! … ( @Metanoia123:disqus )

                      So, then, @disqus_LBEPHLjfKl:disqus, what’s your diagnosis for yourself, what’s your condition, what’s your mental health issue?

                      Everybody’s got one, like a pet, like a quirky personality, like a dimple, like a twitch, like a favorite song, like a nervous habit.

                      Aw, heck, I don’t care — everybody’s just who they are.

                      It makes life interesting.

                      Let the personality pendulum swing.

                      Back to the discussion.

                      Have you anything enlightening to say on topic?

                    • James Scott

                      Having been informed of your mental health issues we need too terminate this discussion.

                      I am sorry. If I had know about your mental state I would have never picked a fight with you.

                      So this has to stop for your sake.

                      You need to stop now.

                      definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result..

  • Jacqueleen

    @ Peterblaise
    The truth will set you free!

    • .
      @Jacqueleen:disqus,

      … but first it will piss you off.
      __________

      Apropos of anything in particular, @Jacqueleen?
      .

  • Cecilia

    What a sad little man. I’ll pray for him.

  • somebigguy

    Thanks, Daniel!

    Despite my unequivocal acceptance of Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality, I don’t think I’ve ever really thought about it quite the way you put it: that homosexuality is a construct, that no one is homosexual by nature. Such is the power of language– including the appallingly revised meaning of the word “gay”– that many of us have lost sight of a simple, self-evident fact that nature first made obvious hundreds of millions of years ago.

    • .
      So, @somebigguy:disqus,

      Is that what’s true for you, that you are overwhelming attracted to same sex partners but refrain solely because of Church teaching?

      Is that your personal experience?

      Thanks in advance for your thoughtful and personal testimony.
      .

      • somebigguy

        Uh, no. I have absolutely no attraction to men whatsoever. I do like women, though; really, REALLY like ’em!

        • ,
          Thanks for your first-person testimony, @somebigguy:disqus,

          So for you, your sexuality and sexual attraction is neither subject to outside influence nor a choice among equal options.

          I wonder if it’s like that for others.
          .

  • Rich Coleman

    Where do hermaphrodites fit in?

MENU