I have always used SSA in my situation. Though I am not ‘out’ in any public way, when I am pushed to use a label, that is what I use.
Personally, I wish that the cat was put in the bag, before homosexuality became acceptable dinner conversation they used the term “Confirmed Bachelor” which was sufficiently vague to cover a multitude of possibilities. Now it seems people need to know what everyone feels and where they position themselves in the economy of lust.
The best strategy for the Church and the world is if they would just shut up about homosexuality and let it return to where it belongs, in the confessional and whispered here and there.
Once it was talked about, it became public, once public, it became a right, once a right it became a good.  And once a good, it can never be criticized, and thus begins the persecutions.
Lord, deliver us.

Thank you for your post. I am glad that this discussion is taking place within the Church. Reading this and a recnet addendum from Eve Tushnet on Dawn Eden’s new book (See: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/evetushnet/2012/06/dont-cover-my-face-with-your-heart-a-quick-addendum-on-my-peace-i-give-you.html) has me thinking that a lot of the disagreement centers around whether one believes experiences of SSA spring from some wound or privation or not. It seems the Church hasn’t definitively claimed to know the origin of SSA (please correct this if I’m in error) and I think this discussion is part of that human need to search for origins, to know where something comes from and why, what it is, and label it - decide if the phenomenon of SSA is good or bad, or a “mixed blessing.”

The Church is clear about the sinfulness of the homosexual act and willfulling entertaining fantasizing about such acts. She is clear that partnerships between people of the same sex are not marriages. The theology around love, gender, justice, the trinity, Christ and His Church, sin and grace, etc. offer wide ranging explanations and reasons for the Church’s moral teaching on sexuality. It supplies ample explanation about why such actions are sinful and hurtful to ourselves and others and God.

Yet, the Church is also clear that these attractions, insofar as they are involuntary recognitions of beauty and goodness, are not sinful and people who have such attractions are not bad. No person, a creation of God, is intrinsically bad or condemned.

But questions remain. Are all people with SSA attractions then intrinsically (or extrinsically) wounded - in a way distinct from the wound of concupiscence all people have? Is SSA a manifestation of some privation or evil allowed by God or received in some other way - is it evidence of some particular woundedness or not? Is being sexually sensitive to the beauty of one’s own sex a gift or a wound - something to be owned and acknowledged/accepted or mourned and healed - or, in some combination, both? I think these are the questions that anyone who accepts the reality of these attractions and wants to follow Christ and the Church is wrestling with today.

Clearly, as Ms. Tushnet says, not all people with SSA were sexually abused (or lacked father/mother, or positive same-gender peer relationships, or etc.) - not all who suffered these trauma have SSA. But some do discover a link. Some discover a wound that is related to their SSA. For some, tending to that wound affects their sexual attractions. But this is only for some - and so it is important, as she says, not to claim all SSA is a manifestation of one or a few kinds of wounds - nor, I would add, should it be claimed that attractions cannot or do not change for some.

However, the question remains, MUST there be, in each person’s case, SOME wound - perceptible or imperceptible, intrinsic or extrinsic - which is manifest through sexual attraction to the same sex? And if so, are there unique abilities or sensitivities or gifts that occur alongside this woundedness? For comparison, I immediately think of those people who are born without sight or hearing but may make greater use of their other senses. Or I think of those having Autism Spectrum Disorders who may be wounded in some area but have particular aptitudes in other areas.

Are these “gifts” a justifiable reason to refuse to be or give the appearance of being “healed” of a wound, because in repairing what is wounded there is a fear of “disowning” these aspects of the woundedness is actuality or appearance? Perhaps that is a reason a Catholic with SSA trying to live according to the Church’s teachings may both acknowledge they have SSA and continue to use the label gay, lesbian, or queer, even though that label has connotations the person doesn’t share. Perhaps this label better embraces those other non-attraction related aspects of being that the person doesn’t want to abandon - and which the term Same-Sex Attracted doesn’t seem to cover. Can that language be used without scandal or confusion - I don’t know.

I understand the Church appreciating this very aspect of the SSA label - that it separates one’s sexual attraction from other aspects of their personality - their particular gifts/sensitivites etc. However, if there are a group of gifts/sensibilties that are more common to those with SSA (perhaps even tied to the same woundedness from which the SSA comes), then the other, more political terms, do offer a way to name that and designate those that share these non-attraction related characteristics. We are social animals and we tend to group ourselves, even while retaining unique identities. I can understand the desire to use the term out of a sense of wanting to acknowledge certain characteristics and that these are bound, in some way, to the SSA - even if one doesn’t share the same beliefs as others using that label/in that group.  The desire of some Catholics to want to live by the Church’s teaching and also use this label is, I think, some evidence that IF SSA does spring from woundedness, other important aspects of personality also originate in the woundedness.

On the other hand, all people experiencing SSA are may NOT be intrinsically or extrinsically wounded in some way. Personally, I find the origin of SSA much harder to understand if this is the case. However, I think the question is still an open question and I hope people, especially within the Church and with the mind of the Church, continue to work through it in a charitable and honest way.

MissK,

Nobody knows what the source of this wounds are exactly, but I can try a scientific explanation to show how we got to this stage.  Men and women are sexually different not just in appearances, but in sexual brain chemistry too.

Women experience a flood of oxytocin — the same hormone which they produce in labor and in nursing a baby. Oxytocin causes a woman to be forgetful, decreases her ability to think rationally — and causes an incredibly strong emotional attachment to form with the man she is with. Men also produce some oxytocin during sexual intercourse. But their bodies also produce a hormone called vasopressin. Vasopressin, called “the monogamy molecule,” kicks in after sexual activity, and its impact is to heighten a man’s sense of responsibility. It encourages that part of him which says, “My gosh, she may be carrying my child! I’d better get serious about life! I’ve got to get to work, to provide for this family!”

Sex speaks the language of permanence and family.

Marriage laws were created to affirm what already existed.

A lot of things have confused this language between men and women.  This confusion has become widespread severing marriage from sex, and sex from family.

Contraception is a major culprit here because it seeks to sabotage this sexual link to permanence and family.

NFP is not great in itself, because it can be used outside of marriage too.  it just helps read this language.

I welcome feedback on this issue.

Dr. Smith,

I have been reading some of those same articles and comments. One of my close friends authored a couple that cause a bit of a fervor, including one explaining why he uses the label gay. I don’t know if you had him in mind, but from what I gather I think you are quite missing a large point that at least some have been making. In my friend’s case, he is quite clear, he is not carrying a heavy cross, he is not burdened by living a chaste life. There are “straights” and “gays” who struggle with chastity, but there are those who do not struggle so much. It seems the presumption of seeing SSA in light of temptation and a cross shares a lot with a presumption against the reality of virtue, like that of chastity. After all virtue is a habit, and “gays” are just as capable.

When he defended the term gay as a label, he was not talking about capturing some special sort or variation of temptation. He wasn’t speaking of that sort of thing at all. It isn’t always a struggle. I think that can often be a frustration. on the part of those with SSA.

If I can give a “plug” I do recommend my friends article, as not being gay myself I can only relate hearsay as it were http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/05/why-i-call-myself-a-gay-christian

Janet, in case you’re not familiar with it, I recommend Steve Gershom’s blog: http://www.stevegershom.com/ (“Catholic, gay, and feeling fine, thanks”)

It seems to me that speaking of a ‘best’ way to describe oneself, as though there were a single answer to the question, does not do sufficient justice to the complexity of the question at hand. It inevitably ends up devolving into attempts to ‘legislate’ language. What is needed (as this article taps into) is room for people to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling.  Dr Smith rightly notes that this is an intensely personal question. As a result, linguistic regulation here results in telling people how to think and talk about themselves in ways that affect the depths of their personalities. This regulation goes both ways; gay folk tell SSA folk that they are really gay, and need to accept it, while proponents of SSA tell gay folk they are pigeonholing themselves. My approach is always to strive to let people tell their own stories, in he ways that seem to them most fitting. Some of my friends identify as same-sex attracted, and courtesy demands that I go to some lengths to avoid describing them in ways that they feel do not accurately describe them, and push back against people who say that they are “really gay.” I merely ask that the same courtesy be extended to me, and that people not try to regulate the way I speak about my own journey.

As an aside, I will note that “same-sex attracted” is not really as devoid of baggage as Dr Smith claims. It constitutes a rejection of the default terminology in our culture. If someone tells me they struggle with SSA, I really know a good deal more about where they stand on questions of sexuality than if someone simply says they are gay.

Janet,

You write: “I wonder if it is wise for posters to be so transparent. Moreover, family and friends are reading very personal information; children may now or later be very uncomfortable about what their parents have shared. For my part, I think it is perfectly acceptable to post and to comment anonymously or under pseudonyms.”

You also write: “I believe the Church would rightly have difficulty employing those who identify as “chaste gays or queers” for positions such as directors of religious education, but may think it healthy for those committed to chastity to identify as having SSA and be comfortable with them in public positions of leadership.”

I believe these two comments touch on the heart of some of the issues here. Many heterosexuals are simply uncomfortable around gay people. It would be better if we were not so honest. It would be better if we would “soften” the blow by using “same-sex attraction” rather than “gay”. It would make others more comfortable because, after all, the whole thing is “icky” and “shameful.”

That perspective saddens me. Contrary to your advice, I applaud those celibate gay Christians who have had the incredible courage to be publicly open about their lives—to be a testimony to the Church at large of what God is doing in their lives—a testimony of steadfast faithfulness to Christ amid a culture that pressures them to live otherwise and a Church that is ashamed of them. Thank God for those who are open who can be a voice of hope and encouragement to the many who are suffering in silence. But shame on those Christian institutions that would retaliate against these Christians for their courage by denying them jobs.

On another note, this article really misses the boat on what “chaste gays” are trying to assert. You would need to have more familiarity with the whole ex-gay movement over the last 40 years to understand some of what is being said. You would need to have more familiarity with the scientific research on causation of sexuality and conversion rates.

As a celibate gay Christian, I have cycled through different ways of understanding myself over the past 20 years. At one point in my life, I would have resonated with what you are saying. But what many of us have come to realize is that homosexuality does not necessarily have a developmental causation—and even if it did, it does not make change possible. Even Christian psychologists with a conservative sexual ethic admit we do not know what causes same-sex attraction. Interestingly, many gay people show gender atypical features from the time they are very young. There are some indications of biological factors. This should not be surprising since our sexuality is part of our body like anything else and can be subject to disability or in-utero factors.

Mark Yarhouse, a Christian psychologist found that after 6 years of trying in an ex-gay support group, only 23% developed some heterosexual attraction (a “complicated heterosexuality”—that is, bisexuality). And even one of these so-called successes, recanted. The majority do not experience any change despite incredible efforts, prayers, and tears. Most leaders of ex-gay ministries acknowledge still being same-sex attracted even if they are married. And I know of leaders who have been married 20+ years and are really struggling in their mixed orientation marriage.

The Church needs to get over the myth that same-sex attraction can change for most people. You seem to acknowledge that in some respects, but you still use change as part of your argument.

The reason why I now use the adjective “gay” is because I and others after many years have come to realize that it is more honest. Within the ex-gay movement there has been much self-deception about the possibility of change. There has been false advertising that “change is possible” for anyone who wants it. The term “same-sex attracted” with its inference that its just a temptation like anything else that can be overcome helped to foster this deception. You have to realize there is a history of baggage around the term “same-sex attracted” and the way it has been used in the conversation over many years.

What the Church fails to realize is the incredible number of people who return to homosexuality when, in despair, they realize they are not going to experience change. It is, in fact, the honesty to name reality for what it is that keeps celibate, gay Christians like myself faithful.

To use the adjective “gay” is to be honest. That’s it.

I hope that the Church can get over its discomfort with this particular disability enough to stop their shaming attitude and help gay Christians to flourish as transparent, honest people living for Christ in the reality they find themselves.

And I hope, Janet, that you will try to hear our voices, to listen to our experiences to understand where we are coming from. Because you do not understand where we are coming from. You still have not grasped why we are using the term and why we find it so incredibly important.

From the outset, it’s easy to tell where you stand the fact that you used the phrase “with SSA”, perhaps as if to say “with the flu” or “with alcoholism”. I’d also like to snowball off of a comment that Joshua Gonnerman made about the term “SSA”: that you ascribe political undertones to “gay” and “queer” but none whatsoever to “SSA”, which is very telling as well.

With all due respect, Dr., you completely fail to acknowledge that the entire discussion is a political one and that “SSA” is just as political a term within the Church as “gay” or “queer” are without or within.

You even allude to it in your professed double standard on individuals being given positions to teach and catechize. It has nothing to do with the level of chastity that the individual actually experiences, but with how he/she presents him/herself concerning a label. How can someone pigeonhole him/herself by using “gay” or “queer” but NOT by using the term “SSA”, which isn’t even a standard colloquial term? Talk about obfuscating reality with terminology.

Also, Karen, ^_^b

the current sexual ID accomodations are
GBLTQ (Q stands for ‘Questioning’ I was told)
Public schools in CA are now mandated by law to teach this gender confusion.
So, if the GBLT isn’t enough confusion to destoy hte innocence of 98% of school children, how about Q (those who are deemed as questioning their gender ID)?
In the name of social experimentation in pupil schools
Are you Quesitoning today? Can I help you with your question?

I just read this article over at First Things: “Why I Don’t Call Myself A Gay Christian”
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/07/why-i-donrsquot-call-myself-a-gay-christian-1

I believe the author makes good points regarding this topic and many of the comments are well articulated and helpful for this discussion.

I think Dr. Smith’s comment questioning the posting of intimate details of one’s inner life is an insightful one. It has become acceptable to reveal the most personal details about oneself online in the name of being “open” and “honest.” But what I’ve experienced (as a former blogger about myself) is that these attempts at openness and honesty can result in even greater sadness and confusion, especially when one’s revelations are misunderstood or ignored. What I discovered is that even though I felt compelled to bare it all and in the process was able to sort through my thoughts, in the end, my self-revelations lacked a certain self-respect—a respect for the inner sanctum of my soul. This led to what I least needed, which was more self-loathing. Perhaps it’s simply that Dr. Smith and I grew up in the days when self-revelation was done in the privacy of one’s intimate relationships, or the confessional, or the therapist’s office. The digital age has transformed what used to be private into public domain, and it’s not all good. We should remember the words of St. John Henry Newman: “Secretum meum mihi”—“My secret is my own.” I’m not advocating a lack of openness or stifling anything, but rather, opening towards the right audience: more openness to God in prayer and to the actual people God has put in our lives, and less openness to online strangers who ultimately can’t know us or love us for who we truly are.

Catholiclove—I am sorry to hear that blogging left you feeling misunderstood and even to some self-loathing. Having been a public person on this issue I have also had to deal with the hardship of being misunderstood. I think perhaps a difference between you and I and some of the other public people I am thinking of is that I did not share my life publicly (including on a blog) solely for self-reflection. Rather, my primary goal was ministry. I chose to be public when it would have been easier to be silence because I wanted to help others who were feeling isolated and without support—not only those with SSA, but also friends and loved ones who are often filled with grief when discovering someone they know is gay. Additionally, the topic of homosexuality is a major issue that the Church is wrestling with today—particularly Protestant denominations that are being torn apart over it. I think I have something important to offer that conversation as many Christians wrestle with how to respond or what side of the fence to come down on.
So I guess for me—my motive for being public was not to try to get strangers to love me or care about me. It was to speak to much bigger issues outside myself. And I know that is the case for other friends of mine who are public. In any case, I have had a wonderful time connecting with other leaders on this issue because of an online presence. Good connections and networking are possible through internet.

I identify as a “former gay” or “former lesbian”.  I have a very different perspective than many of the voices in that I was an out and proud, sexually active lesbian for more than 20 years, from age 18 to my late 30’s/early 40’s.  Until I finally returned to God in 2010 and converted to Catholicism in 2011. 

I’ve debated these word choices ad nauseum in the Catholic Answers Forums and finally gave up.  Personally, I adamantly refuse to invite people to think of me as a Catholic who is anything less than fully and completely faithful to the Church and her teachings. 

If I had once committed adultery, still felt attracted to people I wasn’t married to, I wouldn’t go around telling people that I’m an adulterer.

I have the deepest respect for homosexuals who remain chaste because they are carrying a difficult cross so well. . .God bless them.

For information of how to live a happy, joy-filled, chaste / pure life as an SSA person, go to the websites of Courage and EnCourage.

Recently I came across information on these excellent websites. There also, I found an powerful testimony of an SSA man who struggled with his sexuality which caused him severe trauma in his life. Today through living a chaste and pure life in keeping with the Love of God - His 10 Comandments, this man leads a very happy life free from the bondage he formerly experienced. This grace is available to all SSE men and women.

May the infinite Love of Our Father in Heaven guide ALL His children to His Peace in this and all the difficulties in their lives by the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ Our Saviour, through the intercession of Our Heavenly Mother Mary, the Queen of Peace. Amen.

What about all those who struggle with other issues of impurity, like recovering porn addicts, or sex addicts, or repentant adulterers? Some of these people can struggle just as much with heterosexual impurity which they are trying to overcome—including fornication, lust (very prevalent in this culture of immodesty) and masturbation or the now very acceptable perversion of oral sex. Why does anyone have to wear their sins on their sleeves and have to “explain” anything? Isn’t this between them and their confessors? I can understand a homosexual who is chaste wanting to be a witness to the power of God and His Grace in overcoming sexual sin. Those people will show others how to live chastely in spite of temptation, just as all of us do, not by what they say, but how they live their lives. Sexual sin outside of marriage is a sin. All strongholds of sin are very difficult to overcome, and of course, we cannot be free of strongholds without God’s help and the power of the Holy Spirit. He cleanses us and purifies us, sometimes through suffering, to deliver us and free us from bondage. All of us struggle with issues of serious sin, some more than others. But without God there is no deliverance, no freedom, no rest, no purity (either of heart or body). I do not “advertise” the sin of pride, which for me for many years was stronger than any sexual sin, but occasionally I refer to it in the context of what the Lord has done to deliver me from such bondage. I think those who struggle with homosexual sin can put their sin in context as well when necessary and not magnify it to become a dark cloud that follows them and identifies them like a scarlet letter. Constantly speaking about sin as a powerful force in our lives becomes just that. The devil loves to hear people constantly proclaim and profess their sins as if they are badges of honor. Whatever we continuously speak becomes who or what we are. We are better off proclaiming and confessing the power of God in delivering us from any sin that we want to reject. We pray for all those suffering from any and all sexual sin and temptation, for Mother Mary told the children at Fatima that many people were in hell because of sexual impurity. All sexual impurity is very damaging to the soul and highly offensive to God. Mary, help of Christians, pray for us, especially for those who are in sexual sin, particularly those who are in danger of losing their immortal souls. Lord, have mercy on us! Jesus, we trust in Thee!

In the previous post re: Sexual sin outside of marriage is a sin.—I meant to say that all sex outside of marriage is a sin. (And sometimes can even be a sin within a marriage relationship.)

What some of you people need to realise is that the capacity for being loved, and to love, is not a ‘cross to bear’ or some unjust ‘suffering’ - unless we allow people like you, love less souls that you seem to be, to make it so.

You can keep your ‘theories’ and ‘theology’ and leave me alone to get on with the life I am created to live. I afford you the same courtesy - charity.

Teaching any soul to self loathe, to hate the self which Christ COMMANDS she/he love, is the true ‘disorder’ - evil, and you will answer for your crime and beg forgiveness for it one day.

Does it ever occur to you that your ‘beliefs’ drive innocent young souls to untimely death. 

Spiritual abuse - soul murder. But then that’s nothing new to the hypocrites in the RCC.

May God forgive you for you surely need it.

That stone waiting tying to someone might just have your name on it.

i have a male friend who is chaste and has same sex attractions . because he has lived as god has asked and does nothing to suggest that he is -ssa- other than not date a women with romance in mind - i think he should be , as i have called him , from day one - a real man - who puts god befor self serving actions .

Every man and woman is a marriage of their father’s dna and their mothers dna.

So often marriage get confused with sex and relationships which it is not.

A valid marriage is one that produces a marriage of two people bring about a child and that is what sex was intended for

If you are tempted to apply one of the above labels to yourself, it may help to consider how you would feel if someone else labeled himself a “psychic”. I imagine you would want to tell him that he is mistaken, since there is no such thing.

In general in modern society there is so much pornography that male appetites can get horribly distorted. For example, men are constantly presented with mere images of women, or with femmes fatales delivering implausible scripted dialogue. In Pavlovian terms, some men are being trained to salivate at the sound of the dinner bell, when what they really need is something substantial. They think, however, that these appetites, because they are so strong, represent their true desires and must be good. (They would probably also tell me to get lost.)

The Church’s traditional teaching gives us a clear reference point to check when we are being manipulated. However it may happen, coming to believe that one is “homosexual” is an example of just such a moment.

Martin writes:“Does it ever occur to you that your ‘beliefs’ drive innocent young souls to untimely death.”
No, Martin, it is the devil that drives innocent young souls to untimely death. 1 Peter 5:8 states, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour.”

The only true marriage is one between a man and a woman, no matter how many gays want to say they are “married.” They are not.

Why can’t they just call themselves sinners like everyone else. I’m not SSA but I am attracted by other sins. I have to reject acting on sin too. Best to keep it in the confessional. The people who want to talk about personal weakness are the AA’s, but alcoholism is a DISEASE.Homosexual acts are a sin, just like stealing, killing etc.

This is a great feed. Thank you Michelle. I have been wondering how to identify.  Well put. I’m a Devout Catholic living a chaste lif who once sinned in the area of sex outside marriage as a gay man. I work in a Catholic school and hope I am a role model for chastity despite the nasty ugly gossip about me by faculty and staff and parents and students. I am a single devout man living an honorable life faithful to all Church teachings. Happily so. I wish it could stop there.

After reading some of these posts, it occurs to me that most of the homosexual group sense deep down that there is something not only unique in their sexual desires/wants but also a sense of something being out of sync.  Although they desire to be with those of the same sex, they can’t totally commit to just one person, as though they continue to search for that completeness they so need and yet cannot find, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual.  Obviously, heterosexuals may find this same problem and become what in either case is considered “promiscuous”  The problems with promiscuity are easy to see and yet we can’t seem to use this behaviour as a way of determining if the sexual behaviour is good or bad.  Why not?  Could it be possible that these same people will not find this completeness until they find a relationship with Jesus Christ? Additionally, the suicidal tendencies more prominent in the gay or SSA lifestyle make me consider people of this persuasion to be in dangerous territory.  Is this part of the allure, to do something so shocking and dangerous whether other people know about their behaviour or not?

Marty I am concerned about the misconceptions you have of gay people. You refer to gay people as those who are unable to commit to one person—that they are naturally promiscuous because they are trying to find completion. This is utterly false. I have never been promiscuous and many of those I know have not been so. Gay sexuality is just like heterosexuality. We encounter the same needs, desires, and ability to commit.

Also its important to note the difference between men and women. Most of the time people talk about homosexuality and promiscuity they use the the male population, and not the female population. There are significant differences simply because men and women are different. If some segments of the gay male population seem promiscuous it is not because they are gay, but because they are men. That is, men naturally find it enticing to have sex with different people and would probably do so more often if their women did not hold that in check. Gay men are simply willing to allow their partners to do what women would not—even though heterosexual men would like to have sex with more women if they could. Women on the other hand are generally more bent toward monogamy.

like fasting, a chaste life is not about giving something up. In fact you recieve graces beyond you greatest expectations as God the Father has all Power and no one in the world or parishioners can demean your right to be there go to the Mass and pray the rosary pray for brothers and sisters who are oppressed by some parishioners throughout the world.Approx 90 countries still persecute ‘gay’ people and 3 countries still execute them
which would be seen by a great number of the body of Christ as what they deserve for not adhering to Gods natural Law

I truly believe that SSA people are suffering from deep spiritual wounds and only Christ can heal them; more than ever, they should cling to the Lord.  Just like the woman who for many years was suffering from hemorrhage and got healed by just touching the Lord’s cloak, perhaps SSA sufferers should spend more time with Jesus - say in the adoration chapel?

Napiliko—I want to kindly encourage you to really get to know more Christian gay people on a personal, deep friendship level. You suggest that those who are gay have deep spiritual wounds and that those who are gay “should spend more time with Jesus.” I know you don’t realize it, but that is one of the most offensive things to say to a chaste gay Christian. If there is anyone who spends “more time with Jesus” it is those Christians who have same-sex attraction.

I cannot tell you the many testimonies I have heard of young men and women who hit puberty and are suddenly struck with these inexplicable feelings that are terrifying. Most people are unaware that there are 13 year olds sitting in the pew crying out to God day and night, afraid they are going to go hell for having these feelings that they did not choose and can’t get rid of. Most people are unaware that these young kids grow into adulthood spending years and years and years at the feet of Jesus seeking healing and seeking to live an obedient life. No one spends more time with Jesus than those who are struggling with issues of faith and sexuality. In fact, the Church, including you, could learn a lot about what it means to be devoted to Christ by spending more time with Christians who happen to be chaste and gay.

Having same-sex attraction is not a “spiritual wound” for many (though some may have spiritual wounds just like heterosexuals). There is a reason why these feelings often kick in at puberty inexplicably and that gay people are often gender atypical in a way noticeable even as toddlers or five year olds. Is it really that difficult for people to believe that our sexuality can be physiologically based just like anything else? People used to be superstitious about mental illness too until we discovered that much of it was a chemical imbalance that can be treated with medication. Not everything is a “demon”.

Having to deal with same-sex attractions is the hardest thing I have had to deal with, but also the best. It has made me a real Christian. It forced me out of my superficial “Sunday School” Christianity to ask hard questions about God. Most people go to church because its habit and culturally based. But it is coming face to face with the inexplicable things of life and with deep pain and challenges that makes one’s faith deeper than it ever could be. No one knows how to trust God better than those who have been forced to do so in significant ways.

Also, I want to encourage people to not settle for all the media stereotypes about gay people that conservative Christian propaganda has produced for culture war purposes. I can see many of the comments here are rife with stereotypes. No, I have not been promiscuous. No, I have never used drugs. No, I am not mentally unstable. No, I am not slacking off in my relationship with God (to the contrary!). No, I do not spend all my time lusting after women. No, I have never struggled with pornography or sexual addiction. But, yes, I do desire to grow old with someone. Yes, I do fall in love from time to time. Yes, I do wish I could have a family. Yes, I do wonder who will take care of me when I am old. Yes, I do wish I could come home to someone who asks me about my day and shares the daily financial and emotional burdens of life. That is what my sexuality is all about—not ravenous sexual appetites, just emotional and physical companionship like anyone else.

There are valid points on both sides of the argument. What I don’t think is entirely valid is the argument itself. Why should it matter to us what label our brothers and sisters in Christ who are actively struggling with their temptations to sin (rather than willfully giving in to them, as the world and the culture urge them to do) choose to affix to themselves?

You’ve some real insight into the issues you write about. Do you still feel this way?
toms http://louisvuittonoutlets1.webs.com/apps/blog/show/19700482-and

Thank you that is extremely valuable for me, as a new website has been inundated with comments that appear OK at initial glance but then get repeated with a slight change of wording. I have something concrete to go on now and will delete quite a great deal of them.
louis vutiton http://buytomsshoes.livejournal.com/596.html

I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. Jones sabo person acquired dismiss which http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/weekend-video-funnies-1039.php#comments