P
pathia
Guest
I see nothing about celibate homosexuals in any of your posts that I could find.
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
They may or may not be in this thread. (I thought they were; I could be wrong.) Somebody asked about celibate gay couples; I replied. There have been more than one thread about this topic, so it could have been elsewhere.
P
pathia
Guest
I can’t find a post where you typed ‘celibate’ except these recent ones. Did it happen in a thread that got deleted?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
pathia, it’s late so I’m going to bed.
I believe a poster talked about his “chaste” (not “celibate”) lifestyle, but he meant it synonymously. He asked me why he couldn’t be living chastely with his gay partner & adopting.
Btw, in addition to my response to him, it’s a little weird for those who are in fact sexually attracted to each other, to be living with each other if they have no intent to “consummate” their relationship. The same applies to heterosexuals. If nothing else, it’s frustrating & I would think a near occasion of sin. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves for an extended period of time?
Good night for now. Back to this later for me-- maybe tomorrow evening.
I believe a poster talked about his “chaste” (not “celibate”) lifestyle, but he meant it synonymously. He asked me why he couldn’t be living chastely with his gay partner & adopting.
Btw, in addition to my response to him, it’s a little weird for those who are in fact sexually attracted to each other, to be living with each other if they have no intent to “consummate” their relationship. The same applies to heterosexuals. If nothing else, it’s frustrating & I would think a near occasion of sin. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves for an extended period of time?
Good night for now. Back to this later for me-- maybe tomorrow evening.
P
pathia
Guest
There is such a thing as love you know, I don’t have a sex drive, I’m physically incapable of having sex. My partner and I have a relationship based on love, caring and companionship. Neither of us care for sex and simply do not have a drive worth worrying about. This makes the cross of celibacy easier, as there is little to no temptation.pathia, it’s late so I’m going to bed.
I believe a poster talked about his “chaste” (not “celibate”) lifestyle, but he meant it synonymously. He asked me why he couldn’t be living chastely with his gay partner & adopting.
Btw, in addition to my response to him, it’s a little weird for those who are in fact sexually attracted to each other, to be living with each other if they have no intent to “consummate” their relationship. The same applies to heterosexuals. If nothing else, it’s frustrating & I would think a near occasion of sin. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves for an extended period of time?
Good night for now. Back to this later for me-- maybe tomorrow evening.
R
RyanML
Guest
Well said! People, too often, think of homosexual relationships in terms of sex, but for many of us, they go so much deeper. I love my partner and have no problem with the idea of never having sex. As you said pathia, relationships are based on love, caring, and companionship. I find with focusing more on the interior life and a life of prayer and service, it becomes less of a cross and more of a source of joy and peace. God bless!
A
AndyF
Guest
Yet… they obtain no, and I mean absolutely no credit from God for the good that they do.
Good works are God’s. If He won’t recognize it, isn’t that
telling us something.?
AndyF
M
Methodi
Guest
Gay people have a heck of a cross to bear, I am gay also & It was never easy . I still insist though that God made us for a reason, there are too many of us & it is no accident that we are here & we are not all monsters or perverts as we are portrayed
A
Annn
Guest
Elizabeth, your ideas about the importance of gender in raising children is interesting but, as far as I have read in the case of gay couples, not a factor. Several meta-analytical studies have shown that, when all the evidence is pooled together, children raised by gay couples may have slight variations (for example, kids raised in gay homes have been shown to engage in more “gender-neutral” or “other-gendered” play [like girls playing with dumptrucks]) but that in the end this has no bearing on their ultimate gender/sexual identity. Gendered play doesn’t really have an effect on how a kid is later on in life, anyway; plenty of “tomboys” I know turned out straight, and some girly girls turned out queer. Children raised in same-sex households have been shown to suffer no emotional harm as a result of their upbringing. The most recent meta study I’ve read was authored in 2005 by Dr. Ellen Perrin at Tufts.
Perrin’s study, however, does only study children raised by lesbians, probably because there are just more of them. I am interested to see emerging research about the effects of 2 men raising children.
Perrin’s study, however, does only study children raised by lesbians, probably because there are just more of them. I am interested to see emerging research about the effects of 2 men raising children.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Annn,
Like many others, you completely misunderstand the point. I am not talking about orientation of the children which “result” from same-sex coupling, or are raised by them. I am talking about the full gender-complete experience of being raised in a biologically complementary household, an experience which we have an obligation to provide for our children if at all possible. The deliberate choice to exclude the other gender as a primary parent is selfish & irresponsible when other options exist
The fact remains, for example (as I said earlier), that children without the opposing gender in the household have fewer guideposts for identity & a much longer learning curve for establishing heterosexual romantic relationships. Some never become assured in that department at all – forever questioning what is & is not healthy & normative in heterosexual relationships, as they have zero immediate models for that. To counteract that, a gay couple would have to spend enormous amounts of time cultivating the continual presence of heterosexual couples for the child/children in question, which in all the case histories I’m acquainted with, has never occurred & is counter-intuitive.
Our psyches develop most fully & most naturally when we have both male & female relationships in regular juxtaposition with each other.
I’m getting pretty annoyed with the attempt to twist reality & manipulate reality, & the language, to suit one’s desires. It’s a form of rationalization, i.m.o. There are a lot of things I can’t have & can’t be. We all have limitations in life. Those limitations could be spiritual, emotional, physical, sexual, practical – any one of which could affect how many children we have (or whether we have any), what occupation(s) we can have, how far we can achieve despite our determination & talent, and much more. Where does it say that we should contort reality or alter society to suit our wishes? These extreme measures are largely unique to the modern era.
It’s natural to want to be around children, to want to nurture them, to want to be part of their lives & development. But actual parenthood is not a right at all costs, to be sought despite whatever consequences.result. Parenthood is a privilege & a gift.
Some of you act as if you are the first people in history entitled to have “everything.” Previously, people who came to terms with reality sought alternative outlets for their needs & desires. If for some practical reason they couldn’t be directly involved, say, in parenting, or in the arts, they fulfilled those needs avocationally.
Possibly, by cherry-picking, one can assert “no [demonstrated, to date] harm,” but that’s a different thing than the more patent reality that children are being raised in effectively constricted environments from a psychological standpoint. Further, the “studies” are limited in applicability, given the relative newness of this development, small population samples, absence of verifying data from similar sources, and short historical time frames.
(Junk science)
Like many others, you completely misunderstand the point. I am not talking about orientation of the children which “result” from same-sex coupling, or are raised by them. I am talking about the full gender-complete experience of being raised in a biologically complementary household, an experience which we have an obligation to provide for our children if at all possible. The deliberate choice to exclude the other gender as a primary parent is selfish & irresponsible when other options exist
The fact remains, for example (as I said earlier), that children without the opposing gender in the household have fewer guideposts for identity & a much longer learning curve for establishing heterosexual romantic relationships. Some never become assured in that department at all – forever questioning what is & is not healthy & normative in heterosexual relationships, as they have zero immediate models for that. To counteract that, a gay couple would have to spend enormous amounts of time cultivating the continual presence of heterosexual couples for the child/children in question, which in all the case histories I’m acquainted with, has never occurred & is counter-intuitive.
Our psyches develop most fully & most naturally when we have both male & female relationships in regular juxtaposition with each other.
I’m getting pretty annoyed with the attempt to twist reality & manipulate reality, & the language, to suit one’s desires. It’s a form of rationalization, i.m.o. There are a lot of things I can’t have & can’t be. We all have limitations in life. Those limitations could be spiritual, emotional, physical, sexual, practical – any one of which could affect how many children we have (or whether we have any), what occupation(s) we can have, how far we can achieve despite our determination & talent, and much more. Where does it say that we should contort reality or alter society to suit our wishes? These extreme measures are largely unique to the modern era.
It’s natural to want to be around children, to want to nurture them, to want to be part of their lives & development. But actual parenthood is not a right at all costs, to be sought despite whatever consequences.result. Parenthood is a privilege & a gift.
Some of you act as if you are the first people in history entitled to have “everything.” Previously, people who came to terms with reality sought alternative outlets for their needs & desires. If for some practical reason they couldn’t be directly involved, say, in parenting, or in the arts, they fulfilled those needs avocationally.
Possibly, by cherry-picking, one can assert “no [demonstrated, to date] harm,” but that’s a different thing than the more patent reality that children are being raised in effectively constricted environments from a psychological standpoint. Further, the “studies” are limited in applicability, given the relative newness of this development, small population samples, absence of verifying data from similar sources, and short historical time frames.
(Junk science)
A
Annn
Guest
Elizabeth, you write lengthy posts on the effects of being raised by two parents of the same gender, yet offer no evidence, not even anecdotal evidence, to suggest that what you are saying bears any weight. To suggest that kids raised by gay couples don’t understand how to be in straight relationships is downright silly - almost every single relationship they encounter, in their extended family and beyond, is straight. In addition to that, the “identity” question has not been proved or even suggested, and I wonder - if almost all gay and transgender people were raised by straight, gender-conforming parents, how is it that they emerged with the “identity” they did? Perhaps it is because parents model gendered behavior but do not really affect their child’s gender/sexual orientation “identity.” Also, just to be clear, most gay people are very secure in their “identities,” especially those who choose to raise children. Perhaps the emerging research is limited, but there is nothing offering anything convincing otherwise, just speculation dressed up as fact. I trust evidence that points to something more than words backed up by nothing any day.
E
ethereality
Guest
After reading through your post, and then skimming through it a second time after reading this paragraph, I’m still not seeing where your argument is to put a single straight person above a gay couple on the waiting list.
One reason, of course, is the same simple fact that prevents men identifying as homosexuals from being priests: It is sexual confusion, a psychological problem, and of course we want people without these problems before people who do have them, no slight to them. (Specifically, if a man has difficulty realizing God’s plan for gender and sexuality in his own life, how is he to counsel others on these matters? And with the scandal in the United States, we see what homosexual temptations can bring.) Perhaps this is the point you’ve implied with your post.
(And again, I keep hearing that violence is disproportionately greater between homosexual relationships than non-, as well as promiscuity, depression, and so on. A catholic.com article even mentioned the inability for many homosexual couples to remain together as “yet another” reason why legalizing gay ‘marriage’ would be detrimental to our understanding of it, as marriage is indissoluble. It was, however, rather biased. It cited several things, but mentioned only one study around San Francisco where something like 70% had more than five partners in like two years, or some radical amount … if you search you’ll probably find the article – it wasn’t too long ago.)
E
ethereality
Guest
I wonder if this is the relationship shared by David and Jonathan. It certainly seems plausible – their love was deep, “beyond the love of women.” (And, you know, how many women did David have? It appears he cared more for Jonathan than for them.) But you suggest that David had a homosexual love and people see the word “sexual” and get dirty thoughts – so I suppose “homosexual” is a misnomer, even for your case, Ryan. You are saying there is nothing sexual about your love? Rather, it’s simply a relationship – a “same-sex” relationship, if you wish to describe the (physical) sex of those involved…
I need to go to bed. It’s finals week – I’m an undergraduate – and I have a ton of work to do. (Please pray for me! – as selfish as that request is … I suppose others need prayer far more.)
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Annn,
Again you miss the point & fail to understand the entire argument. The evidence is that gay people are largely raised by parents of 2 different genders. They already have incorporated the male & female patterns within themselves; no searching outside for the other half of their identity is necessary. Yet they choose to limit their own offspring’s experience of gender differences.
You keep arguing something else than the points I’m making, which is a favorite tactic of gay “couples”: to ignore the primal relationships which form us & which are elemental to human experience – choosing instead to shape the futures of their “offspring” by reconstructing society to fit their personal “righs” to alter society radically & permanently in order to fulfill their own desires.
Tired myself of “lengthy posts” which do not address these fundamental questions of the order of the universe.
Again you miss the point & fail to understand the entire argument. The evidence is that gay people are largely raised by parents of 2 different genders. They already have incorporated the male & female patterns within themselves; no searching outside for the other half of their identity is necessary. Yet they choose to limit their own offspring’s experience of gender differences.
You keep arguing something else than the points I’m making, which is a favorite tactic of gay “couples”: to ignore the primal relationships which form us & which are elemental to human experience – choosing instead to shape the futures of their “offspring” by reconstructing society to fit their personal “righs” to alter society radically & permanently in order to fulfill their own desires.
Tired myself of “lengthy posts” which do not address these fundamental questions of the order of the universe.
P
pathia
Guest
Actually that’s counter to several couples I know. They conceived naturally in the following fashion. They have a gay couple and a lesbian couple, they actually did have the mono-gender worry…so they did this…
The lesbians would carry children to term one way or another and both couples would raise the resulting children. In essence they ended up with two moms and two fathers.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
One of my co-workers is a lesbian with a life-time partner. She adopted an entire family of children. Many other of my co-workers constantly praise her for having done so, expressing a desire to be like her. I remain silent at these times. I consider her situation gravely disordered, and absolutely nothing to want to emulate. Sorry.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
You have nothing to be sorry about. You have a right to be concerned because this goes against the natural law. The Catholic Church is the last guardian of truth and common sense in the world. The world may disagree, but our morality was given to us by God, and we should never be ashamed of it.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The situation described in post 73 merely magnifies the disordered relationships by multiplying them. Terrific. It mocks heterosexual love by manipulating genital relations to achieve the mutual wishes of different same-sex couples. Sick.
And by the way I already knew that. These arrangements are often celebrated in the gay community. It’s been going on for quite some time.
This is otherwise known in technical psychological terms as polymorphous perversity.
And by the way I already knew that. These arrangements are often celebrated in the gay community. It’s been going on for quite some time.
This is otherwise known in technical psychological terms as polymorphous perversity.
A
Annn
Guest
This post has a lot of words but says little; you claim that children of gay couples are lacking something yet offer no evidence that this is true.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
(Post 77):
No, it is you who have no evidence for your statements that those raised by only one gender have as complete a model of parenting as those raised by two genders. It is actually up to you to demonstrate that the human race needs only one gender at a time. It is no different than the highly disordered & self-centered behavior of single professional women deciding they “don’t need men” to raise a child, & therefore engage the services of sperm banks to fulfill their self-deceptive desires.
No evidence whatsoever of your positions which include long, long posts & speculation, Merely your wish-fulfillment based on your personal inclinations, and your convincing yourself that all sexual inclinations and all parenting situations can be judged according to rationalized personal whim.
No, it is you who have no evidence for your statements that those raised by only one gender have as complete a model of parenting as those raised by two genders. It is actually up to you to demonstrate that the human race needs only one gender at a time. It is no different than the highly disordered & self-centered behavior of single professional women deciding they “don’t need men” to raise a child, & therefore engage the services of sperm banks to fulfill their self-deceptive desires.
No evidence whatsoever of your positions which include long, long posts & speculation, Merely your wish-fulfillment based on your personal inclinations, and your convincing yourself that all sexual inclinations and all parenting situations can be judged according to rationalized personal whim.
- Status