So Cynthia Nixon, an apostle of post-modern hedonism and sometime actress, decided to be a lesbian. Should be smooth sailing, right? As we know, there is no greater or more wonderful thing that homosexuality, according to our Manufacturers of Culture, so she should be receiving universal huzzahs.
Except there is a problem. You see, the standard language used to describe the process of declaring oneself to be a practicing homosexual is to “come out”. The narrative that lies behind that term is fraught with subtexts, among them the claim that homosexuality is a) inborn and genetic and a “gift” and otherwise fantastic and good and noble and b) that the only possible reason once could question that narrative is because one is repressed, hiding from one’s true identity and refusing to accept the gift of homosexuality that the goddess or the universe or whoever is in charge of dispensing sexual identities wants you to have. In other words, it is vital to protect the fiction that practicing homosexuals are courageously defying an oppressor and simply behaving as nature made them.
The trouble is, Nixon refuses to say that she was, in the immortal words of Lady Gaga, “born this way”. Instead, she says she chose to be a lesbian and rather late in life. This threatens the franchise. So the Gay Brownshirts are on the March again, protesting these incautious words.
From a Catholic perspective, the issue is always (with homo- and heterosexuals) not in the hand God dealt you, but in what you do with it. One may well be, for all I know, genuinely attracted to the same sex–and one can take that cross and offer it to God and become a saint. Another can have the ordinary complement of heterosexual impulses and be an utter cad who selfishly uses people. It is our choices, not our natural makeup that determines who we are. Which means, by the way, that the deliberate choice to ditch your husband and kids and take up with somebody of the same sex is very gravely evil, but not for the reasons outraged gay think it is, but because you are adding deliberate perversion to your betrayal of your family. God help her.
…I think she has changed her story now…
From an article 3 days later:
After some gay rights activists complained that Nixon’s remarks could be used to deny a biological basis for homosexuality, the actress on Monday released a statement to The Advocate magazine explaining she is technically bisexual, and not by choice.
This is supposed to be a clarification?
Exactly Noah D, the pretzel logic gets even pretzely-er. She did not choose to be bisexual, she was born that way. So she was born with sexual attraction to both genders and she chooses to act on one attraction or the other. But by choosing one she, by definition, has to deny the other. But that’s okay, baby, she was born this way. However if you have only one attraction and you choose to deny that attraction then you are bad because repressing your attraction is wrong. Or at least that is what the narrative seems to be. So apparently you should be acting on all your impulses. Which means Nixon is wrong for having relationships with only one person at a time. But wait, she didn’t choose her ability to choose? I have to stop because I am getting dizzy.
She might want to experiment with a Great Dane, just to make sure she wasn’t also born with a sexual attraction to animals. I would if I were her because once the thought of being born bisexual comes to mind, I’d be concerned over what other various creatures or household items I may have been born to have sex with.
Exactly.. so by their logic, being born with an attraction to kids is wrong because…?
I maybe shouldn’t say this, but bisexual doesn’t mean you desire to have sex/romance with both genders simultaneously. It just means you have both attractions. (As I do too, but I try for chastity in both) A bisexual could honestly say they are “openly attracted to both” without requiring them to always be in threesomes. Possibly she’s just saying next time she could end up with a man. Or that she veers back-and-forth.
Dogs? Kids? Really? What is it about the phrase “consenting adults” that you don’t understand?
Look, believe what you will about the immorality of homosexual acts, but stick to the topic at hand–why must you drag bestiality and child abuse into it? Whatever wrongs she may have committed, do you really think that Ms. Nixon is a danger to your pet or your child? You could magically eliminate all gays and lesbians from the face of the earth, and you’d still have animal abuse and child abuse, along with rape, war, murder, and oppression of the poor.
What’s so magical about the phrase “consenting adults” that makes it such a perfect way to determine if an act is right or wrong? How about this. Suppose I told you that consent *doesn’t* matter. Prove to me that it is. Use logic. We’re waiting.
Good try, but almost every statement you made contains an apriori assumption. Just for a few examples:
“Every person owns his or her own body.” A bald assumption shared by most, but still, no more than a presumption formed by years of Christian and secular-Christian values.
“Animals can’t consent” If animals can’t consent, then are all acts of animal mating and sexual activity rape? If not, then why is it wrong to make use of their orifices?
“Since they aren’t fully mature” Maturity isn’t dependent on just age, is it?
I don’t think it makes it right or wrong, but I do think a lack of consent does add additional wrongs to the matter.
I accept the Church’s teachings that such attractions, even in me, are a disorder. However I don’t think Church teaching says that every disorder to sin is identical to every other or what have you. If a person wants to repent and be chaste I think telling them their past made them equivalent to a pedophile or bestiality person might scare them off. I know for me it might say, granted in my case I’ve remained celibate for all my life, “I think you are not just disordered and sinful, but truly evil and criminal.”
Tom, Thank you for your honesty and courageous walk with God.
True, but equality is not the same as equivalence.
Brian- you’ve been hoisted by your own logical petard.
“What’s so magical about the phrase “consenting adults” that makes it such a perfect way to determine if an act is right or wrong?”
Gary, I wasn’t saying that adult consent was the perfect way to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act. I was saying that it is a clearly distinguishes homosexual acts from sex with animals and abuse of children, which two previous posters had mentioned. I was really asking for people to stick to the issue at hand and not wander off topic.
Clearly adults, acting alone or together, can be wrong and can do wrong. Still, if their action does not directly impinge upon others, I feel it’s best to leave the decision and the results of that action to those directly involved.
So: if a bisexual is “born this way,” when can we expect, in the name of LGBT rights, the push for the legalization of bi marriage (i.e. to a man and a woman simultaneously)?
That’s not what being bisexual means. It doesn’t mean you love or desire two people simultaneously.
Still bisexuality is part of why I became more against same-sex marriage. Because really it means that SSM says men and women are completely interchangeable in marriage. A bisexual can fall in love with a man, marry, divorce, and then marry a woman. This isn’t just hypothetical, it’s happened. And on the TV series “Grey’s Anatomy” they showed an example of it. The character called “Callie” was in love with “George” and they had a quickie Vegas wedding. They indicated that was “a mistake” but not that her love was a lie or obfuscation. Now she is “married” to a woman named Arizona. So it indicates gender is fungible for marriage.
I don’t think anyone was discussing homosex, except Brian. We were discussing inborn proclivities.
Hrty http://www.google.com//search?tbm=nws&hl=en&source=mog&hl=en&gl=us&client=ms-android-metropcs m -us&q So why are your proclivities ok and a pedo or a bestial’s aren’t?
I’m not one who thinks it’s okay, but pedo and bestial are worse because they are additionally abusive. They aren’t “just” lacking in complementarity, fertility, and using organs in ways not designed for them.
From what I recall in the Catholic Encyclopedia strong “evil” involves harm and keeping things from thriving. Homosex keeps one from reaching your true potential and falls short, but the harm of pedo or bestial is truly worse. The selfishness is also greater.