Im serious: Catholics

[omega2xx]

Okaaye.


No sarcasm.

Please don't tell me how to p;ost, and that was not sarcasm.

If you believe a homosexual is one when he commits homosexual behavior, by the logic a straight person can be homosexual when engages in the same behavior. Then they can be straight and back to gay again. Can a straight person turn gay? Can you turn gay?

If they engage in the same behavior, they are not straight. They might be bisexual, tut they ar not straight.

Do not be rude and no sarcasm.

I enjoy sarcasm and it is not rude. It makes a point stand out stronger.

You can define yourself by a dictionary all you want. In the dictionary it says marriage is between man and woman and man/man and woman/woman. Since that's in the dictionary, the bible doesn't mean anything. The Bible means nothing compared to the dictionary, if that be the case.

My dictionary does not define marriage that way. It is right, the Bile is rightg and your dictionary is wrong.

Spirituality is not in the dictionary. If you define your spiritual life by the dictionary, so be. A lot of us see our identity beyond that. It's a inner thang. Don't know if you understand that or not.

Spiritually is in my dictionary. I don't define my spiritual lie b y the dictionary. The dictionary defines my spiritual life.

That's an assumption and huge generation. You do not know me. We are just online.

I don't know you in detail, but I know something abut you you for our discussions

You may know better than me given there could be an age difference but morals can be at any age and can shape people's lives at almost any age. You don't have to be an "adult" to have good morals that aren't defined by your parents.

I had good morals before I knew about the spirits. Now I have a better understanding of morality because I see the diversity in people's truths, the care they give me as well as my family on earth, and how everything isn't black and white. They guide me and protect me. So, my morals become linked with family, community, and myself and how I see myself. Regardless if you believe me or not doesn't change that fact.

How do you and your support group determine what is moral and what is not?

However, unlike you, I am still growing in my morality and will do so until I pass away to spirit and help my family in spirit. It doesn't stop at a certain age. I know that as a fact.

How do you know I am not still growing>

Huh?



What's none of your business? Behavior or a person's identity?

I can careless about John's behavior as a straight person. However, if he told me he was straight and that was personal to him yes, as a friend, I wouldn't say it's none of my business. Depends on situation and how you define things.

Your moral conduct and you person are none of my business. I have not ask you about either one.

No it isn't. How can you love the sinner and hate the sin if you take out them being homosexual until they act in a homosexual manner? Then when they arent acting, are they still homosexual?

Homosexuality, to many LGBT community, is an identity not an action. If you don't respect and believe people who are LGBT for who they are, then that's not respect. It's better to say you don't respect the person because you define him by his behavior rather than who he is regardless if he does anything or not. It would make it easier to understand why you say what you do. You don't have to be nice about it, just be direct.​

Many African Americans do not coming together because of color of skin. That's a huge part of it. We come together because of shared history because of color of skin. That connection is our identity.

Likewise with LGBTQ community and other minorities.

As long as we have different opinions as to heat a homosexual is, this discussion is like the merry-go-round and it is time for me to get off.

Have a nice day.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course it does. One does not have sex just hanging out.

If you want to leave it out, be my guest.

Let me get how you see this in steps.

If you are with a woman hanging out, are you heterosexual? Why?

If you hang out with a guy the next day (your same sex rather), are you homosexual? Why?

In the dictionary, heterosexual And homosexual has nothing to do with sex.

If you went behind closed doors with the opposite gender, one day, does that make you straight? Why?

If you went behind closed doors with the same gender the next day, does that make you gay? Why?

What does it mean to be heterosexual where one can be heterosexual without having sex and homosexual only when having sex?

Please answer all questions.

Thanks

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Disagreeing doesnt mean we have to be rude, sarastic, and drop conversations. It means we learn from each other (I hope) and when we do we gain perspective of the others point of view. There are real people on RF and a lot of Us have real motives and want o understand others. Dropping conversations,s sacasm, and enjoying being rude defeats the point of being on RF.

Please don't tell me how to p;ost, and that was not sarcasm.

If you care for other peoples feelings, youd take what I and others say into consideration and maybe ask "how so?" or maybe "it doesnt seem that I did" or "I dont believe I did."

Please dont tell me how to post is a defensive statement. Whether you were insulted or not I dontk now, but I would appreciate some politeness in our conversations andhopefully with those you havve with other people.

If they engage in the same behavior, they are not straight. They might be bisexual, tut they ar not straight.

Okay. That isnt the dictionary's dictionary. What do you call people who identify as gay, lesbian, bi but are not homoosexual according to scripture only?

I enjoy sarcasm and it is not rude. It makes a point stand out stronger.

Saracsm is a form of being rude. Unless you know me and my sense of humor (and me in person which better tells one the context of the statement), it most times sounds rude. The content and context is rude. Sarcasm is one of many ways a person can be rude.

My dictionary does not define marriage that way. It is right, the Bile is rightg and your dictionary is wrong.

Maybe because the dictionary does not define who people are. If I went by the dictionary rather than the bible, id say christians only believe in christ

but most christians say they have a relation-ship with christ. That's not in the dictionary and I respect the Christians definition because he or she know himself more than a dictionary does. It means knowing who a person is by asking about that person rather than defining him by a book.

Spiritually is in my dictionary. I don't define my spiritual lie b y the dictionary. The dictionary defines my spiritual life.

I dont define myself by the dictionary and how I see my self and relationship with my art, others, and ancestors define how I see life and myself.

So we agree just we have different ways we define our spiritual lives. Nothing wrong with that if one isnt rude and sarcasstic about it.

I don't know you in detail, but I know something abut you you for our discussions

If you knew me by my discussions, youd see Im not being rude nor sarcastic. Im just addressing your points and asking you questions. Whether you want to make it personal is up to you.

I just wanted to know how and why you see homosexuality as an action. Or maybe LGBT maybe a better word as an action. Nothing complicated and nothing to be defensive about.

As long as we have different opinions as to heat a homosexual is, this discussion is like the merry-go-round and it is time for me to get off.

Finally. Okay. Maybe you dont want to understand why we disagree, but I do. I dont want to change you. Scripture says its an action. I do not understand that as a homoosexual person nor is it in the dictionary,.

So given you know scripture and I have read it, how can a person be homosexual when he has same sex acts when he is only attraccted to people of the opposite gender?

Does it matter who the person is atraccted to to call them hetero or homosexual?

 

[omega2xx]

Let me get how you see this in steps.

If you are with a woman hanging out, are you heterosexual? Why?

If you hang out with a guy the next day (your same sex rather), are you homosexual? Why?

In the dictionary, heterosexual And homosexual has nothing to do with sex.

If you went behind closed doors with the opposite gender, one day, does that make you straight? Why?

If you went behind closed doors with the same gender the next day, does that make you gay? Why?

What does it mean to be heterosexual where one can be heterosexual without having sex and homosexual only when having sex?

Please answer all questions.

Thanks

Your premise is wrong.

Hanging out does not include sex----sex with the same sex person makes one a homosexual.

This is my last post unless you get a better premise.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your premise is wrong.

Hanging out does not include sex----sex with the same sex person makes one a homosexual.

This is my last post unless you get a better premise.

Yes, I know. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation just as hetero. Sexual orientations arent black and white any more than skin colors.

A homosexual is just as much homosexual when he is hanging out with his guy friends watching football with beers to a woman helping her friend get dollied up for her friends wedding.

Yall use "homosexual behavior" as if its a slang from the English dictionary. The appropriate term would most likely and politely be Same-sex behavior or something similar. This means that heterosexual can have same sex sex just as homoexuals and asexuals.

Youre cutting the bias and discrimination to focus on actions. When you go to a US court of law, they trial you for your actions (say sexual absuse) not your sexual orientation while you commit the crime. Thats silly.

 

[pearl]

If a priest has a sexual orientation (spiritual/mental/physical attraction) to those of his own gender, has never had any relations with male and female his whole life, remain celibate, but identifies as homosexual can he do that as a priest?

whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

 

[Unveiled Artist]

whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

What's a deep seeded homosexual tendency?

I was homosexual before I had any "tendencies" nor lustful attraction as defined by the Catholic doctrine and scripture.

I have read this (and have a copy of the Catechism and read it full) given this had involved my place in the Church, my identify as a person not an act and not a tendency, and how the Church saw me in relation to how it defined me rather than how I felt at the time god defined me:

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial.​

This is one of the most horrible things I've ever read in Church doctrine.

Using me as just as example, homosexual priests do not have "tendencies" nor are they defined as homosexuals because of their actions. In my dioceses, they do a "background check" (seriously) and talk with different people you are affiliated with, family, friends, etc to see if you led a homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It is a complete misuderstanding and bias of who homosexuals are, their role in the Church, and how they are potrayed.

So my question is, can a homosexual priest (a person who has the sexual/spiritual/mental and so forth-just like a straight person-orientation) say he is homosexual without being put down or defined by actions and tendencies he does not have because he devoted himself to god and his devotion to the Church?

Can he say he is gay even though he doesn't live, act, feel, and etc that he is because of his devotion to Christ and the Church?

 

[pearl]

What's a deep seeded homosexual tendency?

Our sexuality is the core of our being. The Church has made no claim that homosexuality is by choice, it leaves that question to science.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial.
This is one of the most horrible things I've ever read in Church doctrine.

I agree the language used here, objectively disordered, was ill chosen. The mindset was much the same as much of the secular
population at the time, most especially due to sexual abuse, and
the inability or refusal to differentiate between homosexuality and
pedophilia.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle

But how one lives out their sexuality in their relationships is, no matter what the station in life is, one can choose fidelity or
promiscuity.

So my question is, can a homosexual priest (a person who has the sexual/spiritual/mental and so forth-just like a straight person-orientation) say he is homosexual without being put down or defined by actions and tendencies he does not have because he devoted himself to god and his devotion to the Church?
Can he say he is gay even though he doesn't live, act, feel, and etc that he is because of his devotion to Christ and the Church?

My one answer is of course he ought to be able to. There have been homosexual priests for centuries. Celibacy is no more of a trial for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals. The present Pope has stated,
"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

 

[pearl]

If they engage in the same behavior, they are not straight. They might be bisexual, tut they ar not straight.

They are straight, they are heterosexual perverts. The prisons are full of them. They do no represent true homosexuality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Our sexuality is the core of our being. The Church has made no claim that homosexuality is by choice, it leaves that question to science.

It says it's an action. We choose our actions. It leaves (finally) the study of sexual orientation to science but, like my other posts, it still connects homosexual tendencies to homosexuals rather than sexual promiscuity regardless of who the person is with and their sexual orientation. (Aka. It's not that it's wrong. I disagree with it. However, the way it's presented by the Church, it is discriminating and discriminating language. Even scripture doesn't put it that way.)

I agree the language used here, objectively disordered, was ill chosen. The mindset was much the same as much of the secular
population at the time, most especially due to sexual abuse, and
the inability or refusal to differentiate between homosexuality and
pedophilia.

That would mean Pope John Paul II was influenced by the language of his time considering homosexuality disordered when scripture backs up his statement of this "disordered" by saying we are based on the actions we commit not the people that we are?

Scripture says: Homosexuality is a sin/action/transgression

Science says: Homosexuality is a sexual orientation (which is not an action)

When John Paul said "homosexuality is disordered" he was referring to the orientation that gives us the tendency to or influence us to commit homosexual acts. It causes temptations (that's the word I'm looking for). Disordered is a poor word but the context is the same.

Going by the context, it is horrible to label homosexuals by our actions. So, I wondered if a homosexual priest is celibate and has never had any sexual relations with anyone nor has a tendency to lust (instead of natural attraction according to science), can he say he is homosexual without the Church putting a stigma on his "not yet committed" behavior?

But how one lives out their sexuality in their relationships is, no matter what the station in life is, one can choose fidelity or
promiscuity.

Many homosexual relationships are not promiscuity. That's what Christianity is missing. We get the "can't lust, that's a sin" what we don't get is, when we don't lust it is still a sin. That, I can't figure out. Especially when it's only based on biological organs.

My one answer is of course he ought to be able to. There have been homosexual priests for centuries. Celibacy is no more of a trial for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals. The present Pope has stated,
"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

I would hope so. Here is an example:

Requirements for priesthood (I think this answers my original question unless it's based on dioceses)

• Be between the ages of 17-55. (Rare exceptions are considered on a case by case basis)
• Does not have personal financial liability, i.e. car or personal loans, credit card(s), etc. versus personal assets that exceeds $3,000; nor have total outstanding college student loan debt that exceeds $60,000.
• Have a connection and familiarity with the Diocese of -- and the people with whom the candidate feels called to serve here as a future priest, i.e. by living (past or present), working or studying within the diocese. (in circumstances of military families exception can be made.)
• Not suffer from a disordered sexual orientation, i.e. not consider oneself to be homosexual.
• If the candidate has previously been dismissed from another priestly formation program or from an institute of consecrated life or society of apostolic life, he must wait at least two years prior to being considered for the priestly formation program in the Diocese of -- .
• If the candidate is a recent convert to the faith or has recently returned to the regular practice of the faith, he must wait at least two years prior to acceptance into the priestly formation program in the Diocese of -- .

 

[omega2xx]

They are straight, they are heterosexual perverts. The prisons are full of them. They do no represent true homosexuality.

Do you have a source?

 

[omega2xx]

Do you have a source?

 

[pearl]

When John Paul said "homosexuality is disordered" he was referring to the orientation that gives us the tendency to or influence us to commit homosexual acts. It causes temptations (that's the word I'm looking for). Disordered is a poor word but the context is the same.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI represented a determination to change the course of Vatican II. These quoted excerpts form 'Morality and Its Beyond' may exemplify my point;
"Having eliminated "abomination" and "perversion" from the discussion, perhaps we can address the problem of true homosexuality in a truly pastoral way. When we do, we find not unexpectedly that the norms for judging homosexual relationships are the very ones used in a discussion of the heterosexual. Once we accept the premise that sex and procreation were mistakenly taken to be inseparable for Platonic and Stoic reasons, and that the meaning of human sexuality is really relational and not biological, then homosexual activity, like heterosexual behavior, must be judged by the quality of the relationship. It will be immoral if it inflict unjustified ontic evil; it will be sinful for the believers if it contradicts Kingdom-Ideals. Unions between committed homosexual unions which also might well be classified as 1)marriages, 2) marriages in the Lord, and 3) sacramental marriages. It is imperative for the church to get out of the "marriage tribunal business' and become more fully the church of Christ."

Published in 1984 the book reflects the forward thinking gaining acceptance.

 

[pearl]

Do you have a source?
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/situational-homosexuality-0

refers to situational homosexualtiy



The myth of the "homosexual predator" is groundless. Perpetrators of rape typically view themselves as heterosexual and, outside of the prison environment, prefer to engage in heterosexual activity. Although gay inmates are much more likely than other inmates to be victimized in prison, they are not likely to be perpetrators of sexual abuse.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html

 

[Adamski]

Currently the United States bishops say absolutely not