Analogy for Homosexuality -- Please help me dissect it

[SMGS127]

So I came up with a short script today as an analogy for Catholic sexual teaching, and I would very much like to present it to you guys so you can see how I experience Catholic teaching as a lesbian. I would like to know how God and/or His teachings on sexuality differ, if at all, from my analogy, and if not, how to reconcile God’s analogous form in this play with the Catholic description of God as all-loving and all-concerned.

 

[SMGS127]

Day 1

[A father builds a house and begins to raise a very large family in it (think hundreds or thousands of people – this is a gigantic house). Each member of the house lives in the front section of the house for a short time, and then is either kicked out of the house or brought further into the house on a day of the father’s choosing. The father can traverse between the front of the house and the remainder of the house, but no one else can. Each child has their own individual bedroom, fully furnished with a closet, but their closet is initially locked. At a certain age, differing for each member of the house, but all around 12-17, the father gives each child a key to their closet and tells them to open it. In the closet, there are literally billions of gloves, each with a unique style and coloring scheme. The father tells them that they can have unlimited access to the closet, but they can only pick one glove to wear, and they must wear it on their right hand, for they are all right-handed gloves. He does not physically restrain them from choosing more than one, and they still have unlimited access to the closet; it is merely a command. They can replace their glove if it falls apart over time, but not until then. When they wear their glove, all physical and emotional maladies are initially cured, and they glow, but the glove’s effect is only temporary – once owned for an extended period of time, it only functions at a third of its initial strength, and the glow eventually dulls out. And so we start the play.]

Sometime far in the future

[Claire, a young girl on her 14th birthday, is given her key and informed of the rules. Her father then leaves. She spends 7 years pondering over as many gloves as she can, until she finds a turqoise glove that stuns her; she just knows, absolutely, that this is the glove that she was meant to pick. So she takes it, walks back to her bedroom, and tries to wear it. But that’s when she notices she grabbed a left-handed glove. She is confused, as she thought all the gloves in her closet were right-handed… She tries in vain to wear it on her right hand, but it only causes discomfort and pain, as it cannot truly go on her right hand. After a few months of this, she begins to despair, until she experiments by wearing it on her left hand. All of a sudden, the effects of the glove work perfectly on her, and she experiences the complete elimination of her physical and emotional pain. However, she doesn’t begin to glow. However, she is still excited that her glove worked, and she runs to her father.]

Claire: “Dad! My glove wasn’t working, but I got it to work by putting it on my left hand instead!!!”

Father: “What have you done? I told you that you could only wear your glove on your right hand – that is its only true and proper order. You are not able to glow that way.”

Claire: “Yes, but I couldn’t wear mine in that orientation, so I just wore it on my left instead, and it now works exactly as it’s supposed to!”

Father: “No, it doesn’t, for you are not glowing.”

Claire: “But Father, I know many of my siblings who do not glow with their gloves. While most of them are older, some of my siblings have right-handed gloves that have never caused them to glow!”

Father: “That may be so, but they are still wearing their gloves how I asked them too. You have disobeyed me and used my gift in a disordered fashion. You must cease immediately, either setting it aside or wearing it on your right hand.”

Claire: “But Father, that means I’ll never be able to use your gift truly, as I experience nothing but discomfort wearing it in an ordered way.”

Father: “So it must be. But I consider you separated from me until you remove your glove from your left hand and apologize. I will not aid you in any way, shower you with love, or speak with you until you do so. If you reach the day I have marked on my calendar and have not apologized or removed your glove, I will throw you out of the house.”

Claire: “But Dad that’s arbitary! I won’t glow no matter if it’s on my left hand or set aside, and I can’t wear it on my right!”

Father leaves the room

[Claire spends years trying to understand her dad. At first she rebels, because she wants the gift her father gave her, and she finds it unfair that her glove is left-handed and almost all of her siblings all have right-handed gloves. Some of her siblings with right-handed gloves make fun of her; others pity her and show her compassion; still others encourage her to keep her glove on. Finally, she meets a few siblings who also have left-handed gloves, and she grows in close friendship with them. Her life continues like this for another 10 years, and eventually she finally grows lonely without her Dad. She tries to set aside her glove on the dresser in her room and apologize, but having it off returns all of her emotional and physical pain. She goes back and forth through cycles: sometimes wearing the glove to end her emotional pain, but cutting off her Dad; and sometimes suffering silently through the pain, but having her Dad with her. Still, she always fears that her father’s day will come while she’s wearing the glove, especially as she feels the rule is arbitrary, and she will forever be cut off from her family and him.]

 

[SMGS127]

Alright so that’s the end of it. If you can’t tell:

Claire = a lesbian,

The father = God,

The closet = one’s life experience once they begin experiencing sexual attractions,

The various gloves indicate all the people in the world, with varying degrees of personal appeal,

The handedness of the chosen glove indicates the sex of one’s life partner in relation to one’s own sex,

The glow is analogous to procreation,

The emotional/physical relief = the emotional/physical relief from life a sexual relationship gives.

This is how I’ve experienced Catholic sexual teaching. So please help me understand if my analogy is somehow wrong. And if it isn’t, please, please help me to understand how this reconciles with a loving God, who would want His children to be as happy as possible.

 

[Amandil]

Do you believe that the fulfillment of any attraction is the “physical/emotional relief” from either actual sex or those acts which are only like to sex or merely simulate sex superficially?

If so, why?

 

[SMGS127]

Do you believe that the fulfillment of any attraction is the “physical/emotional relief” from either actual sex or those acts which are only like to sex or merely simulate sex superficially?

If so, why?

Umm well let me start by clarifying that I assent to Catholic teaching, even though I don’t understand it at all. But let me answer that from personal experience.

In my personal experience from before I converted, sex with women (or “simulation” if you define sex only as penile-vaginal intercourse) feels to me what sex should be. I’m not bisexual, so I can’t compare it to how androphilic women experience heterosexual sex, but it certainly feels like how Catholicism views sex. As in, the experience involves you feeling like you become one flesh with your girlfriend, the emotional bonding afterwards is insane, and the physical relief I’d imagine is the same (or better) for sure, regardless of theological issues. Unlike most sinful things (lying to people, stealing, etc.), there was no guilt for me after having sex with another woman, as long as I was in a relationship with them. It literally just felt like you became one flesh with that woman. It could drive you insane if done in a hook-up, which is why I was never into that, but when done with a steady girlfriend, it just made the relationship phenomenal.

I obviously can’t speak to the metaphysical, since it’s nearly impossible to observe metaphysical information.

 

[N0X3x]

By my understanding of Catholic teaching on this subject, I would alter the analogy so that half the children had only left hands, and the other half had only right hands. All the gloves would be in a communal closet, and there would be both left and right handed gloves. When each child comes of age, they are given individual keys to the communal closet, and allowed to pick out the gloves they want. Each child is told to pick out gloves that fit their own hand. Claire is right handed, but finds the left handed gloves far more appealing and even comfortable. She speaks about this with her father, who tells her that the left handed gloves were not intended to be gifts to her, and that He would prefer if she didn’t wear them. He goes on to mention that the reason Claire prefers left handed gloves is that a wicked witch cast a spell on her so that she would only like left-handed gloves, and that he had wanted her to like right-handed gloves instead.

If Claire chooses to live her life before her Father’s day according to her her father’s wishes, even though it might be difficult, it would be a great sign of love for her father, and she would be more likely to choose to move further into her father’s house when the day comes (Living in or out of the house is Claire’s choice when the day comes. The father doesn’t make the decision for her.) Regardless of Claire’s choice, Her father promises that Claire’s spell will be broken on that day.

 

[ynotzap]

Umm well let me start by clarifying that I assent to Catholic teaching, even though I don’t understand it at all. But let me answer that from personal experience.

In my personal experience from before I converted, sex with women (or “simulation” if you define sex only as penile-vaginal intercourse) feels to me what sex should be. I’m not bisexual, so I can’t compare it to how androphilic women experience heterosexual sex, but it certainly feels like how Catholicism views sex. As in, the experience involves you feeling like you become one flesh with your girlfriend, the emotional bonding afterwards is insane, and the physical relief I’d imagine is the same (or better) for sure, regardless of theological issues. Unlike most sinful things (lying to people, stealing, etc.), there was no guilt for me after having sex with another woman, as long as I was in a relationship with them. It literally just felt like you became one flesh with that woman. It could drive you insane if done in a hook-up, which is why I was never into that, but when done with a steady girlfriend, it just made the relationship phenomenal.

I obviously can’t speak to the metaphysical, since it’s nearly impossible to observe metaphysical information.

Understanding why we do the thing we do can be very difficult if not impossible. Even though we are biologically designed to be one sex or another, we share a common humanity. We have the same desires for love, companionship, understanding and the like But the church teaches us, and I have found this teaching to be so true, and time tested. We are all effected by sin and the consequences of sin form birth. One of these consequences is our proclivity to follow the dictates of our passions rather than the dictates of our mind. Now if our minds are not informed with the moral laws, and our determination to follow the law for the love of God, and we have never experienced this love in our personal lives, then we live with a real disadvantage. Then there is the easy path to follow our feelings without remorse, because our convictions don’t exist in us about real higher goals. Ignorance appears as bliss.

When we have this experience of God’s love for us, then we have a real advantage at conquering our passions, and controlling their drive. So this tendency to lustful pleasure is in all of us. And once we give in, this sharing with a friend, male or female forms a unitive bond, because sex brings with it an experience of unity, and its sharing a very personal action meant for marriage. So the act is perverted, but the psychological effects are still there, unity with the person. This is only one aspect. There may be a psychological as well the person may have experienced some difficulty with the male, the father, some repulsion, some rejection, or something else which caused a little girl some alienation from the father. She may have found more companionship from the mother, more bonding, more security where she would naturally prefer female companionship and love. There is also the possibility that one may not be, or feel, attractive enough to gain male companionship, and feel inadequate

One would have to do a lot of introspection to see if there is some psychological reason for homo-sexual behavior, of course this behavior is accompanied by concupiscence in all cases, its the spiritual condition of all humanity. We all need salvation, and the grace of God to conquer it. I also think the unitive bonding in a woman is stronger than that of a male, it seems to mean more of giving herself. A male is more agressive, and driven

 

[Ion]

So a human person is like a glove you use and eventually discard…

 

[Amandil]

Umm well let me start by clarifying that I assent to Catholic teaching, even though I don’t understand it at all. But let me answer that from personal experience.

I never assumed that you didn’t. I was merely asking a question based upon what you provided, I made no other assumptions.

In my personal experience from before I converted, sex with women (or “simulation” if you define sex only as penile-vaginal intercourse) feels to me what sex should be. I’m not bisexual, so I can’t compare it to how androphilic women experience heterosexual sex, but it certainly feels like how Catholicism views sex. As in, the experience involves you feeling like you become one flesh with your girlfriend, the emotional bonding afterwards is insane, and the physical relief I’d imagine is the same (or better) for sure, regardless of theological issues.

When Satan and other devils devise and direct us towards temptation and sin their first attack is directed at a mockery of what is actually a known good.

The second, and more direct attack against us is to get us to ignore right reason and instead have us direct our wills through our passions or feelings instead of reason.

So there’s the deception; you’re brought through sins which make mockery of sex and which are contrary to God’s design, and are further confirmed in the attachment to that sin by the deception that what you feel by the completion of those acts is what actual sex “feels like”.

The problem is that with homosexual acts the lie is that the bonding is at best superficial and only lasts as long as the feelings last. They are not directed towards any full sense of “agape” and there is no transcendental relationship established.

Unlike most sinful things (lying to people, stealing, etc.), there was no guilt for me after having sex with another woman, as long as I was in a relationship with them.

People who habitually lie, steal, etc., often possess no explicit guilt either. That’s not a confirmation of any supposed good in the act but merely proof that a person has deceived themselves, have hardened their hearts, and silenced their conscience in regards to the sin they are hardened to.

It literally just felt like you became one flesh with that woman. It could drive you insane if done in a hook-up, which is why I was never into that, but when done with a steady girlfriend, it just made the relationship phenomenal.

I obviously can’t speak to the metaphysical, since it’s nearly impossible to observe metaphysical information.

So the basic answer to my question is “yes”, correct?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your analogy certainly makes its point, and far be it from me to say it is “wrong.” For it simply expresses your feelings on the matter, and feelings are neither right nor wrong: they just are.

First, I would just say that my heart goes out to you. I cannot fathom the cross you must bear, but I admire the strength you demonstrate in doing so.

I’d like to address one element of your lament in particular in hopes that it might prove helpful, namely your feeling that this commandment of God is arbitrary. Even though I’m not homosexual myself, I too struggled (and sometimes still struggle) with this teaching. But one thing about it has become clear to me in my study of the faith, and it is one that is more implicit than explicit, so it often gets left out of the discussion, and that is this: contrary to the modern understanding of sex, sex is not JUST a “private” act.

While it is indeed the most intimate act two people can undertake, and should most certainly be done in private, it is really the ultimate social act: it is the very act by which societies are built. Ergo, what we do with our sexuality affects not only ourselves and our partners, but the rest of society as well, and whenever we use our sexual faculties in such a way as to separate it from its procreative meaning and purpose–whether via contraception, homosexual acts, masturbation, etc.–we are, in the words of Pope Saint John Paul II, “telling a lie with our bodies.” And when this lie spreads through society, we reap its fruits: divorce, parentless children, abortion and so on. So we see that our private acts have very drastic social consequences. For what is a society if not the collective actions of its individual members? It is in this light that I began to understand that the Church’s teaching was not arbitrary, but quite the opposite. I hope it may help you to come to a similar understanding.

This, of course, is not the only reason the Church teaches that homosexual acts are morally impermissible, but, as I said, it’s one that really helped paint a broader picture for me.

On a separate note, have you looked into the Courage apostolate? Also, this new film has been generating a lot of buzz lately, and in fact I first happened upon through the posting of a fellow forum member with SSA: erha/movie/ Perhaps the testimonies of those featured in this film, who share your cross, would be helpful to you as well?

I wish and pray the best for you.

I’d like to close with these words spoken to St. Faustina by Our Blessed Lord, of which I like to remind myself frequently: “…there is no way to heaven except the way of the cross. I followed it first. You must learn that it is the shortest way… I am giving you a share in [my] sufferings because of My special love for you and in view of the high degree of holiness I am intending for you in Heaven. A suffering soul is closer to My heart.”

As hard as it is for us to accept sometimes, though God does want us to be happy, He wants us to be happy with Him in eternity first and foremost. Due to the state of our world and our wounded nature, however, that happiness will inevitably entail a certain amount of suffering in this world, and some of us will suffer more than others. But, as Our Blessed Lord made clear to St. Faustina, those who suffer more for love of Him are dearer to Him still. And to quote Viktor Frankl, a brilliant psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, "“Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’.”

Finally, I just pray that my words here may not be construed as hurtful, condescending or insensitive in any way. I am always wary of engaging in these discussions because I know how sensitive a topic it can be and am all too aware of my own shortcomings in terms of tact and compassion, so if I have caused offense in any way, you have my deepest apologies. Your story just moved me so that I could not resist responding.

God bless and keep you always.

 

[SMGS127]

By my understanding of Catholic teaching on this subject, I would alter the analogy so that half the children had only left hands, and the other half had only right hands. All the gloves would be in a communal closet, and there would be both left and right handed gloves. When each child comes of age, they are given individual keys to the communal closet, and allowed to pick out the gloves they want. Each child is told to pick out gloves that fit their own hand. Claire is right handed, but finds the left handed gloves far more appealing and even comfortable. She speaks about this with her father, who tells her that the left handed gloves were not intended to be gifts to her, and that He would prefer if she didn’t wear them. He goes on to mention that the reason Claire prefers left handed gloves is that a wicked witch cast a spell on her so that she would only like left-handed gloves, and that he had wanted her to like right-handed gloves instead.

If Claire chooses to live her life before her Father’s day according to her her father’s wishes, even though it might be difficult, it would be a great sign of love for her father, and she would be more likely to choose to move further into her father’s house when the day comes (Living in or out of the house is Claire’s choice when the day comes. The father doesn’t make the decision for her.) Regardless of Claire’s choice, Her father promises that Claire’s spell will be broken on that day.

While this is true, how does it make sense that a loving God would not make allowances for those who, by the interaction of original sin, can only have fulfilling experiences from that which he explicitly bars? If someone is not in a position where they could get married, why would a loving God not allow for that person to have even a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex, if they were loyal to that person? It obviously would not be anywhere near the same thing as a marriage, but it would allow them a path to express their natural physicality if they did not feel called to celibacy. And obviously that is not the case in Catholicism.

In other words, even if Claire disobeys her Father, she is ultimately doing so on an issue that has no real practical effect. This is not the same thing as contraception, which directly interferes with God’s plan. Gays & lesbians would be highly unlikely to marry and have children in sacramental marriages, so even if they were allowed to have monogamous sexual relationships, it would not interfere with his plan. Much like the gloves do not interfere with the father’s love for his daughter, yet her actions regarding the gloves still lead him to throw her out of the house. Why would a loving God not accept his daughter, sins and all? Even if she didn’t want to follow him 100%, if she loved him and obeyed almost all of his rules, why would he throw her out? Does a father throw his child out because the child consistently chooses to not do the dishes?

When Satan and other devils devise and direct us towards temptation and sin their first attack is directed at a mockery of what is actually a known good.

The second, and more direct attack against us is to get us to ignore right reason and instead have us direct our wills through our passions or feelings instead of reason.

So there’s the deception; you’re brought through sins which make mockery of sex and which are contrary to God’s design, and are further confirmed in the attachment to that sin by the deception that what you feel by the completion of those acts is what actual sex “feels like”.

People who habitually lie, steal, etc., often possess no explicit guilt either. That’s not a confirmation of any supposed good in the act but merely proof that a person has deceived themselves, have hardened their hearts, and silenced their conscience in regards to the sin they are hardened to.

But it didn’t feel wrong the first time. The attractions have never felt wrong. There was no point at which I was like “oh this is wrong,” except when I hooked up. I felt guilty as all can get out when I hooked up the first time. And I never did it again because of it. But relationship? Relationship sex has never felt wrong…I never had the chance to callous my soul, yet you think it’s calloused.

The problem is that with homosexual acts the lie is that the bonding is at best superficial and only lasts as long as the feelings last. They are not directed towards any full sense of “agape” and there is no transcendental relationship established.

Well there’s no metaphysical relationship. I don’t know that I’d say there’s no transcendental relationship, unless you mean it to be synonymous. Gay & lesbian relationships have the same level of love, commitment, and passion as heterosexual ones. And many of them are very open to life – gay adoption is a huge battle specifically because there are so many gay and lesbian couples who badly want children – they just have the unfortunate side effect of not being able to create new life together. The relationships are the same – they just don’t have the “glow” in my example, the procreation.

So the basic answer to my question is “yes”, correct?

No, I actually misread your question. The ultimate end of a relationship is the complete and reciprocal love and wish for the good of the other person. In my analogy, the initial benefit is the emotional/physical relief, but the ultimate benefit is the daughter’s love and cherishing of her glove, in her case even to the disobedience of her father. She loved it so much she picked it out of billions of gloves, took care of it, wanted to wear it everywhere. The physical/emotional relief died over time, but she still took care of it all the same.

 

[SMGS127]

So a human person is like a glove you use and eventually discard…

No, a life partner is someone whom you wear close to you, cherish every day of your life, take care of and let them take care of you. The daughter LOVED her glove. She spent seven years picking it out. She treated it well, she wore it everywhere, she would do anything to keep it. She even rebelled against her father, as I said above, just to make sure she could have it, even when it did not provide her in the same way as when she initially picked it out.

Your analogy certainly makes its point, and far be it from me to say it is “wrong.” For it simply expresses your feelings on the matter, and feelings are neither right nor wrong: they just are.

First, I would just say that my heart goes out to you. I cannot fathom the cross you must bear, but I admire the strength you demonstrate in doing so.

I’d like to address one element of your lament in particular in hopes that it might prove helpful, namely your feeling that this commandment of God is arbitrary. Even though I’m not homosexual myself, I too struggled (and sometimes still struggle) with this teaching. But one thing about it has become clear to me in my study of the faith, and it is one that is more implicit than explicit, so it often gets left out of the discussion, and that is this: contrary to the modern understanding of sex, sex is not JUST a “private” act.

While it is indeed the most intimate act two people can undertake, and should most certainly be done in private, it is really the ultimate social act: it is the very act by which societies are built. Ergo, what we do with our sexuality affects not only ourselves and our partners, but the rest of society as well, and whenever we use our sexual faculties in such a way as to separate it from its procreative meaning and purpose–whether via contraception, homosexual acts, masturbation, etc.–we are, in the words of Pope Saint John Paul II, “telling a lie with our bodies.” And when this lie spreads through society, we reap its fruits: divorce, parentless children, abortion and so on. So we see that our private acts have very drastic social consequences. For what is a society if not the collective actions of its individual members? It is in this light that I began to understand that the Church’s teaching was not arbitrary, but quite the opposite. I hope it may help you to come to a similar understanding.

This, of course, is not the only reason the Church teaches that homosexual acts are morally impermissible, but, as I said, it’s one that really helped paint a broader picture for me.

On a separate note, have you looked into the Courage apostolate? Also, this new film has been generating a lot of buzz lately, and in fact I first happened upon through the posting of a fellow forum member with SSA: erha/movie/ Perhaps the testimonies of those featured in this film, who share your cross, would be helpful to you as well?

I wish and pray the best for you.

I’d like to close with these words spoken to St. Faustina by Our Blessed Lord, of which I like to remind myself frequently: “…there is no way to heaven except the way of the cross. I followed it first. You must learn that it is the shortest way… I am giving you a share in [my] sufferings because of My special love for you and in view of the high degree of holiness I am intending for you in Heaven. A suffering soul is closer to My heart.”

As hard as it is for us to accept sometimes, though God does want us to be happy, He wants us to be happy with Him in eternity first and foremost. Due to the state of our world and our wounded nature, however, that happiness will inevitably entail a certain amount of suffering in this world, and some of us will suffer more than others. But, as Our Blessed Lord made clear to St. Faustina, those who suffer more for love of Him are dearer to Him still. And to quote Viktor Frankl, a brilliant psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, "“Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’.”

Finally, I just pray that my words here may not be construed as hurtful, condescending or insensitive in any way. I am always wary of engaging in these discussions because I know how sensitive a topic it can be and am all too aware of my own shortcomings in terms of tact and compassion, so if I have caused offense in any way, you have my deepest apologies. Your story just moved me so that I could not resist responding.

God bless and keep you always.

Thank you so much for your post. I try really hard to apply Catholic teaching to my life. It is hard to follow something you assent to but don’t believe in, however. I am trying to be convinced…I just have such, as another poster posted on a different thread, a cognitive dissonance between how I see God in relation to His love for me and how I see God in his (in my view) completely arbitrary ban on homosexual sex that I highly disagree with. And I’m not sure I can follow something forever that I don’t even believe in, even though I know Catholicism is real and true and that Christ is present in the Church and the Eucharist.

I get what you’re saying about previous legalities (divorce, contraception), but they directly interfere with social functioning and procreation, whereas homosexuality does not. I could see a bisexual being forbidden from engaging in gay sex, but it makes no sense for a gay man or lesbian to be forbidden from engaging in gay sex.

Also, I try to stay in communities that I can evangelize in – Courage is not really one of those. I feel too uncomfortable being places like there, like I’m in a mental ward where everyone talks about how ashamed they are to be gay. Not my kind of place. I’m glad they withdrew support for conversion therapy though; I would boycott anywhere that endorsed NARTH.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’m not going to delve into the symbolism of the OP’s post, but simply refer to a testimony I heard from a homosexual years ago, when I was still in the Presbyterian Church. It was probably 25 or so years ago, as it was definitely before I was married, but I’d been a Christian for a few years.

At the time, we had a presentation from some (protestant) ministry which reached out to homosexuals. (Incidentally we used to have a member in our Catholic church who was president of a Catholic ministry for homosexuals, but he’s since retired and moved away.)

I think the ministry was based in Sydney, which is the Australian equivalent to San Francisco when it comes to the homosexual movement.

But before I give the details, I’ve had the peculiar experience of my own father turning up the night he died. While I think he went to hell, judging by his departing scream, and the church’s teachings on mortal sin, my personal experience of his apparition (and we talked and argued), means that I have no problem with the supernatural element of the testimony I heard.

I think the ministry was also founded by Rev. Fred Nile, an Australia moralist, who is also a member of the New South Wales (NSW) Upper House in state government. Sydney is the capital city of NSW. The following link gives some indication of the sort of opposition he faced when he remarried in 2013 (which I didn’t realise till I went looking for a suitable bit of background information). The journalist shows his own bias. Whether he was homosexual himself I don’t know.

smh.com.au/nsw/fred-nile-79-remarries-as-gay-activists-demonstrate-outside-church-20131215-2zfcv.html

Anyway this ministry had a guest speaker, a fairly young former male homosexual who had since gone hetero, married and had a couple of young lads. His wife and sons were present on the night (although the kids are probably now in their thirties).

The young chap giving the testimony stated that he’d been well and truly into the homosexual scene in Sydney. Mardi Gras, BS&M, chains, group sex, you name it, he was in it. He said he and other homosexuals would stand around on street corners in Sydney talking about how they’d slowly kill Fred Nile, the above mentioned moralist, who opposed them.

So he was right into it. But it got too much, and he tried to commit suicide. Somehow or other he got into a Christian church as a consequence, or maybe this ministry, and became a Christian.

But he had a fall. The old bug bit. And in his desperation he set himself up for a second suicide attempt, but this time he was serious. He had everything set up in his own lounge room.

Yet in his own words, just as he was about to pull the pin, Christ materialised in the far corner of the room, moved towards him, and somehow merged with him.

From that moment on he said, he never even had to struggle with homosexuality. He met a woman who accepted his past, married and had the two sons I mentioned above. At the time they were probably too young to understand his past, but I suppose they do now.

My old pastor, who had invited that ministry to speak at his church, said to me, and he’d spoken to and counselled a lot of homosexuals over the years, “Homosexuals are made, not born.”

I’m not quite so sure - when I was growing up, there was another kid two houses away, who was almost a case model for a future homosexual. Even as a kid, he had the sort of behaviour one tends to associate with homosexuality. Years later I found out via my mother he was an airline steward (almost a homosexual career at that time - I still remember driving a cab, and picking up a steward from the airport. But just before he hopped in the cab, he gave this other male steward what seemed to be a heartfelt hug - a bit more than a hug if you know what I mean - I was a bit wary taking him home to be honest, right or wrong) and had a male partner in Sydney. Where he is now I have no idea.

The former church member from our church claimed “it’s built in! There’s nothing you can do about it.” So that’s two different opinions from people I respect.

But that’s the testimony I heard, so I think, deep down, there s also a spiritual aspect to it, which cannot be avoided.

And I have no trouble believing him, as my own father turned up the night he died, in my bedroom. So the possibility of Christ materialising in someone’s room doesn’t surprise me in the least.

 

[ynotzap]

Mary Magdalene had seven devils cast out of her by Jesus, and the result was a very deep love for Jesus. Luke 7: 47 So I tell you her many sins have been forgiven, hence she has shown great love. But to the one little has be forgiven, loves little…your faith has saved you , go in peace.

It’s the encounter with Jesus that turns one on, and makes sin disappear, makes a new person. Those that are having moral problems are still gripped by Satan because they possibly don’t know about Christ, or ignore Him. We can’t rationalize this condition away.

I also had a similar experience trying to bring Jesus into the life of a homo-sexual, who as far as I know was baptized a Catholic. I was friends with two of his consecutive partners (I was being christian towards them- some Catholics are not so friendly) one died of aids, the other had a liver transplant. Our friend denied that he was homosexual, and belittled me and the Pope. The day after the incident (and we were friends for l3 years) he was caught in a homo-sexual sting in a neighboring town and it was published in the local paper. He said to me after, that he was in a state of denial, and now the whole world knew he was a homosexual. I could sense God’s defence of my wife and myself, because we took care of him in his sickness, and many other ways. Our neighborhood had many immoral situation going on. It got so bad that we had to move. What happened next, a person bought our house and he was openly hateful against gays, and I was told by the partner of our gay friend that the new neighbor hastened the death of our friend. It is my prayer that our friend had experienced some kind of conversion to Christ before he died. Death bed conversions are so unsure, but possible.

 

[ynotzap]

SMGS l27:

The psychological aspect is one that many people do not care to discuss, because of the public’s misunderstanding, and lack of compassion and kindness to those who have these problems. They are labelled as “nut”, “weird”. “crazy” and it natural to want to disassociate ourselves from these ideas, it makes us appear as something less than humans. It is my contention that we all have our psychological quirks, we are born in the state of sin and its effects, and they do have a real effect on our psyche, no exemptions.

I do believe that childhood experiences have an effect on homo-sexual tendencies. A child surrounded by one sex, all brothers and father, and no mother, or a brother surrounded by all sisters and mother for example. I also see some women that tend to show some masculine traits in the way they carry themselves, or physical build, etc. this may not be attractive to some of the opposite sex, but acceptable by the similar sex. Males may show some traits of femininity and sensitivity. Again this may not be appealing to the opposite sex. All of these conditions can leave one isolated, and alone, even in the lack of love. They would find some love and acceptance with people like themselves, and with that they bring along their own spiritual brokenness. There is a lot of healing needed of a real mental nature, and spiritual nature. So its no wonder the situation of homo-sexuality is complicated. An encounter with Jesus, the Divine healer can make all things good, and new, the Good News!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

S,

First of all, your analogy is clearly heartfelt, and I was touched by it. It resonates with a certain experience in my own life, a thing that I’ve always longed for – not precisely what you might think, by the way – but a thing that is very clearly “off limits” by order of my Father. I don’t understand why it is off limits. Or rather, I don’t understand why God would make me to want this thing SOOOO badly, and yet say that I can’t have it.

The key in your analogy, as I see it, is this section:

After a few months of this, she begins to despair, until she experiments by wearing it on her left hand. All of a sudden, the effects of the glove work perfectly on her, and she experiences the complete elimination of her physical and emotional pain.

Now, if God doesn’t exist, or if God doesn’t love us, there’s no theological problem raised by the way that disordered activity “fits”, by the way it seems to make life better. But we’re going to logically work under the assumption, here, that your Father really does exist, and really does love you. Can we reconcile THAT with His actions and His forbiddings?

If we want to reconcile it, we have to start by understanding that symptoms can sometimes be removed by improper treatments. If I deal with persistent headaches, taking cocaine might make those headaches go away. Moreover, symptoms can be masked by certain treatments that take away the symptom, but leave the disease unaffected. An infection causes pain, but morphine takes the pain away – leaving the infection uncured.

You describe the girl’s experience before putting on the glove as one of “physical and emotional pain”. I think it’s clear that the girl’s father did not intend her to have that pain, and was not the source of that pain. If He said, “It is not good for a person to be ungloved”, He was not talking about the “marriage” kind of glove, but the “friendship” kind of glove. The girl’s pain did not proceed from lacking a marital/sexual glove.

But it was ameliorated by putting on the glove. The symptom of pain went away, because the treatment of a glove took it away. There are two alternatives, logically: (1) Her father was wrong/deceptive, or (2) This is a false cure. The father did not want her to be in pain in the first place, and certainly doesn’t want her to have an untreated illness. If he doesn’t want her to wear the left-handed glove, it must be because the left-handed glove is not good for her – even though it appears good to her in every way!

That’s the only logical way to believe that the Father is all-good and all-knowing.

Now this is why many people, on analyzing the girl’s desire for the left-handed glove, will say that the desire itself is diseased – because they want to maintain the belief that the Father is all-good and all-knowing. But what is CERTAIN is not that the desire is diseased; rather, what is CERTAIN is that the disease the girl possesses is masked by the wearing of a left-handed glove. The pain and agony subsides when she wears that left-handed glove.

Now the question she must ask the Father is this: is there some other way to ease my pain? If He is all-good and all-knowing, and if He genuinely forbids the wearing of the glove, there must be some other way to treat her illness, the thing that is causing her such distress. That is the only logical conclusion.

Can I tell you what that way is? No! Wish I could, but I’m in the same boat. I know you’ll get a lot of advice from Job’s counselors, but they’ve all got the same disease – just a different manifestation of it. The disease is not “homosexuality” or some such thing. It is a deep brokenness and pain that pretty much everyone experiences, often occasioned by some childhood loss.

Know that you always have my affection and my prayers. I think of you as my little sister, in some ways – though, who knows, you could be taller than me! (I guess we could stick with “I think of you as my *younger *sister”).

I consider my role here just to work on making the logic clear. Other than that, I don’t know what to say. Two things need to go on: God needs to step up His game, and we need to submit to Him wholeheartedly. Pray for me, that I can do my part. And I will pray for you!

 

[SMGS127]

S,

First of all, your analogy is clearly heartfelt, and I was touched by it. It resonates with a certain experience in my own life, a thing that I’ve always longed for – not precisely what you might think, by the way – but a thing that is very clearly “off limits” by order of my Father. I don’t understand why it is off limits. Or rather, I don’t understand why God would make me to want this thing SOOOO badly, and yet say that I can’t have it.

The key in your analogy, as I see it, is this section:

Now, if God doesn’t exist, or if God doesn’t love us, there’s no theological problem raised by the way that disordered activity “fits”, by the way it seems to make life better. But we’re going to logically work under the assumption, here, that your Father really does exist, and really does love you. Can we reconcile THAT with His actions and His forbiddings?

If we want to reconcile it, we have to start by understanding that symptoms can sometimes be removed by improper treatments. If I deal with persistent headaches, taking cocaine might make those headaches go away. Moreover, symptoms can be masked by certain treatments that take away the symptom, but leave the disease unaffected. An infection causes pain, but morphine takes the pain away – leaving the infection uncured.

But morphine has no lasting effects. A person addicted to heroin might be as enchanted by heroin as this girl by her glove, but that person would also see objectively negative consequences. Drug use, in this analogy, would be if the girl slightly burned her hand every time she wore it, and the burns were permanent, and eventually her hand got so burned it looked like nothing but scar tissue. But, with homosexuality, there are no consequences, at least not physically. If you, as a virgin, stay together with another girl, who is also a virgin, for your whole life, there are no consequences to sexual behavior. There is no emotional tearing, because she’s still in your life. There are no physical problems, because neither of you had the chance to develop STDs. The same applies to two men as well. So the glove has the exact same effects on her left hand as other gloves do on her siblings’ right hands, and it has no negative effect on her whatsoever, other than her father won’t speak to her. But considering her father created the gloves, this is a ridiculous, tautological argument.

So, in reality, we only have negative consequences of homosexuality that God directly imbues us with as punishment. He created the world, and He created the spiritual harms of homosexuality; it is not possible for us to merely develop spiritual damage without His having created it, for He created everything. So how would a loving God allow for sinful behavior to take place with literally zero temporal consequences? It doesn’t strike me as the Catholic God who says, after death, “You have spent your whole life taking care of another woman and doing nothing of harm to yourself in life, but I will still send you to Hell because you only follow 99% of my rules.”

You describe the girl’s experience before putting on the glove as one of “physical and emotional pain”. I think it’s clear that the girl’s father did not intend her to have that pain, and was not the source of that pain. If He said, “It is not good for a person to be ungloved”, He was not talking about the “marriage” kind of glove, but the “friendship” kind of glove. The girl’s pain did not proceed from lacking a marital/sexual glove.

But it was ameliorated by putting on the glove. The symptom of pain went away, because the treatment of a glove took it away. There are two alternatives, logically: (1) Her father was wrong/deceptive, or (2) This is a false cure. The father did not want her to be in pain in the first place, and certainly doesn’t want her to have an untreated illness. If he doesn’t want her to wear the left-handed glove, it must be because the left-handed glove is not good for her – even though it appears good to her in every way!

That’s the only logical way to believe that the Father is all-good and all-knowing.

Yes, but considering that every single other (obvious) sin has some physical or emotional negative effect, be it murder, theft, cheating on a partner, lying, promiscuity, etc., it seems absolutely ridiculous that an all-good Father would allow for someone to live a life of sin with literally zero negative [non-metaphysical] effects. I cannot reconcile that, period, with an all-good Father. And maybe that is the reason I will never understand the Church’s teaching.

Now this is why many people, on analyzing the girl’s desire for the left-handed glove, will say that the desire itself is diseased – because they want to maintain the belief that the Father is all-good and all-knowing. But what is CERTAIN is not that the desire is diseased; rather, what is CERTAIN is that the disease the girl possesses is masked by the wearing of a left-handed glove. The pain and agony subsides when she wears that left-handed glove.

Yes, but the disease others are possessed with is masked by the wearing of their right-handed glove. Via the same logic, marriage is merely a mask of a disease as well. When their loved and cherished glove eventually loses its threads (the spouse dies), they will initially mourn, but eventually most people choose another glove, because the disease returns and they want to get rid of their disease and that of the person they love.

 

[SMGS127]

Now the question she must ask the Father is this: is there some other way to ease my pain? If He is all-good and all-knowing, and if He genuinely forbids the wearing of the glove, there must be some other way to treat her illness, the thing that is causing her such distress. That is the only logical conclusion.

Can I tell you what that way is? No! Wish I could, but I’m in the same boat. I know you’ll get a lot of advice from Job’s counselors, but they’ve all got the same disease – just a different manifestation of it. The disease is not “homosexuality” or some such thing. It is a deep brokenness and pain that pretty much everyone experiences, often occasioned by some childhood loss.

Know that you always have my affection and my prayers. I think of you as my little sister, in some ways – though, who knows, you could be taller than me! (I guess we could stick with “I think of you as my *younger *sister”).

I consider my role here just to work on making the logic clear. Other than that, I don’t know what to say. Two things need to go on: God needs to step up His game, and we need to submit to Him wholeheartedly. Pray for me, that I can do my part. And I will pray for you!

I’m probably not taller than you unless you’re fairly short .

But I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut Prodigal. I pray and pray for an understanding, but half of me wants to leave the Church. I don’t understand it. I know the Church is real; God imbued me with knowledge that the Church was real. So why won’t he give me understanding? Why do I have to choose between what logically makes sense and what the Church teaches?

I will still pray for you, and yes, please continue to pray for me

 

[Thorns]

The only solution is that the person doesnt wear any gloves.

Not wearing gloves = Celibacy.

 

[ynotzap]

I’m probably not taller than you unless you’re fairly short .

But I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut Prodigal. I pray and pray for an understanding, but half of me wants to leave the Church. I don’t understand it. I know the Church is real; God imbued me with knowledge that the Church was real. So why won’t he give me understanding? Why do I have to choose between what logically makes sense and what the Church teaches?

I will still pray for you, and yes, please continue to pray for me

Because logic has nothing to do with salvation in conforming with the truths of our faith. Salvation comes from supernatural belief because it is a gift.of supernatural love, God for us. This gift when it is experienced causes us to love God, He loved us first. Our lives are not saved, or healed by our reason or logic. We were born in sin, and suffer from its affects. We must be born again. Something has to happen to us to make us turn from what we recoginize as sin and turn us to God, it’s called conversion. I like to call it "an encounter of the first kind. there are many encounters, and each one brings us deeper in the love experience of God, and God for us. All of this is the work of the Holy Spirit who causes this supernatural love which gives us the power to overcome all obstacles to the love of God. We are made for Him, and by Him, and through Him. Like any love,it must be tried for its genuineness. And what makes you think your logic makes sense. I thought for many years, and so did St.Paul when he persecuted Christians.that our logic made sense He was spiritually blind, and so was I until I received the grace of enlightenment, then I experienced remorse for my blind mistakes that caused others to suffer, especially ones that were close to me. We trust in our own judgements too much. God reserved this experience for me to humble me,and turned me from self-righteousness to God-righteousness, and it makes all the difference in my life, it was a spiritual healing and a real experience of an “encounter with Jesus” and He let me know absolutely that I can’t do anything without Him, and I learned to kiss the ungloved hand that disciplined me. A child can have this faith, so it’s not logic or reason though there is no conflict with logic or reason, actually I found it very consistent.