Persons
choosing homosexual acts are not speaking the «language of the body,» in which the body itself is integral to their union as bodily beings.
Not exact matches
I think we are talking about the difference between
choosing «to be»
homosexual, and
choosing «to
act» upon the
homosexual desires.
There is a difference between
choosing to be
homosexual (or heterosexual) and
choosing to
act upon these sexual desires.
In the precise sense
homosexual acts comprise anal or oral intercourse
chosen by two males, with the intention that at least one of them achieve satisfaction by ejaculating within the other's body.
Choosing to engage in
homosexual acts thus damages or violates the «nuptial meaning of the body» and thereby the capacity of the person to give himself bodily to another in marriage.
Thus to
choose to engage in
homosexual acts is to
choose a specific kind of self - disintegrity.
The gay community has been so exercised to deny that
homosexual orientation is
chosen that it runs the danger of draining
homosexual behavior of its human dimension as a
chosen act or life.
The distinction between persons of a
homosexual orientation and people who
choose to engage in same - gender sexual
acts comes from the growing conviction that for a percentage of every population, homosexuality is a given, a life orientation that they did not
choose.
But this form of
homosexual behavior — an
act that is
chosen — is quite different from
homosexual Christians today who may not remember knowing themselves as other than
homosexual in orientation.
And the facile humor of Michael McKean's J. Edgar Hoover
choosing his words carefully about whether to exploit the arrest of Johnson's favorite aide - de-camp (a memorable Christopher Liam Moore) for indecent
homosexual acts is unhelpful.