Another homosexuality thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter VeritasLuxMea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

VeritasLuxMea

Guest
When I see a video like this, it’s just hard for me to respond with the Catholic line about homosexuality being evil.

Just bear with me before reacting. I think that I understand what the problem is… I mean, I’m looking at this video and seeing love, straight up… love…genuine love… there’s no better way to describe what this man has for the man that he lost.

By contrast, why am I telling him that all of that was wrong or evil? Because in the opinion of the Church, God did not “design” it that way? Because it’s “unnatural”?

Even after reading all of the literature, I still can’t wrap my head around what “designed” or “unnatural” mean in this context.

Instead, I find myself being nothing less than INFURIATED with not the homosexual but the family of the deceased. I find their actions so cruel and uncaring, I can’t ever imagine acting like that if my son were in the same situation.

So some questions:
What I understand is that in such a situation, I’m to have these goals:
  1. Articulate the reasons why this is wrong.
  2. Deny the love that existed between these men.
  3. Explain why the Catholic position is the position of “true love.”
Right now, I can’t accomplish any of these three goals. None of my Catholic education in middle school, high school, university, or in working for the Church for years has prepared me to accomplish any of these three goals. So please tell me, in such a situation, how would I go about accomplishing these three goals?
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
When I see a video like this, it’s just hard for me to respond with the Catholic line about homosexuality being evil.

Just bear with me before reacting. I think that I understand what the problem is… I mean, I’m looking at this video and seeing love, straight up… love…genuine love… there’s no better way to describe what this man has for the man that he lost.

By contrast, why am I telling him that all of that was wrong or evil? Because in the opinion of the Church, God did not “design” it that way? Because it’s “unnatural”?

Even after reading all of the literature, I still can’t wrap my head around what “designed” or “unnatural” mean in this context.

Instead, I find myself being nothing less than INFURIATED with not the homosexual but the family of the deceased. I find their actions so cruel and uncaring, I can’t ever imagine acting like that if my son were in the same situation.

So some questions:
What I understand is that in such a situation, I’m to have these goals:
  1. Articulate the reasons why this is wrong.
  2. Deny the love that existed between these men.
  3. Explain why the Catholic position is the position of “true love.”
Right now, I can’t accomplish any of these three goals. None of my Catholic education in middle school, high school, university, or in working for the Church for years has prepared me to accomplish any of these three goals. So please tell me, in such a situation, how would I go about accomplishing these three goals?
Click to expand...
I don’t try to get my head around things. I trust the Church’s teachings. If I didn’t trust her teachings, I would move on. I do have compassion and pray for those suffering anguish, :signofcross:
 
Though those experiencing it may be in love with each other, and it may appear to be ‘love’ between them, it is actually a perversion of ‘true love’, which was given to us from God. There are several facets of true love, but the procreative nature is one of the more dominant (and important) facets. The same holds true for sexual relations outside of marriage, or the use of artificial birth control. God designed us male and female to complement each other, and in following the teachings of God on love, we have the only true love that exists.

Remember, it is not ‘evil’ to be homosexual. A lot of those issues are formed in early psychological development, from sexual abuse, or for other reasons. I believe same-sex attraction must be one of the hardest crosses to bear. In reality, the only option is a life of chastity. If one were to marry a member of the opposite sex, it would be a lie if true love was not there. But fortunately, look at the examples set by the Holy Virgins, chiefly the Blessed Mother, and also all of the priests and religious who have given up physical relationships to dedicate themselves to the Lord.

Homosexual relations is the same as masturbation or pre-marital sex - it is singling out pleasure from genital contact, whereas that pleasure should only be derived in the marital act open to procreation.

Forget what the media and our culture tells us and look at it this way. Sex is a necessity for the species to survive. Both parents are preferred for the overall health and well-being of the child, so marriage is a natural institution to aid with this. Although it is a necessity, God did not want it to be a chore for us, so he wanted it to be pleasurable for the husband and wife. Pleasure is never the point, it is merely a gift from God. By making pleasure the point, whether with oneself or someone you are not married to, even if there are true emotional feelings there, you are seeking pleasure, the add-on, and not the focus of sex. That is why it is gravely wrong. That is why the Church’s teaching of true love reflects God’s love for us, and also is in line with what we could view as ‘natural law’.
 
garyo49 said:
I don’t try to get my head around things. I trust the Church’s teachings. If I didn’t trust her teachings, I would move on. I do have compassion and pray for those suffering anguish, :signofcross:
Click to expand...
Well, OK.

But there’s some obvious problems with that.

For one, I do like to think that the Church has some reasons beyond “because I said so.” I don’t imagine God would give us brains and then ask us not to use them, right?

For another, We have to talk to people who aren’t necessarily of the same position on the Church’s teachings. Clearly, for example, an unrepentant homosexual is not of the same position. So, “The Church said so,” is not a very compelling reason for them to deny their natural tendency and something that they take great joy in.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
What I understand is that in such a situation, I’m to have these goals:
  1. Articulate the reasons why this is wrong.
  2. Deny the love that existed between these men.
  3. Explain why the Catholic position is the position of “true love.”
Right now, I can’t accomplish any of these three goals. None of my Catholic education in middle school, high school, university, or in working for the Church for years has prepared me to accomplish any of these three goals. So please tell me, in such a situation, how would I go about accomplishing these three goals?
Click to expand...
I suppose that the situation in and of itself isn’t wrong. Having those tendencies, and loving someone aren’t bad things. The problem, in truth, is really the sex and the marriage, because both of those are wrong. Mumbles140 explained it better than I ever could, in that respect. It’s not wrong for a man to love a man, any more than it is wrong for a man to love a child. But when that love becomes a sexual love, then you can see the problem. Compassion and love are very necessary in cases like this, but compassion and love do not mean condoning actions which aren’t right.

In addition, the actions of the parents were less than condonable. They could certainly have handled the situation with more love and compassion and kindness than they did. Despite this, we cannot know the full implications of the story. We were not in their shoes. However, their treatment was wrong despite the reasons they may have had for it, just as wrong as homosexuality is (and I mean the acts, not the tendency). I hope I’ve helped you with your questions a bit.
 
Mumbles140 said:
Though those experiencing it may be in love with each other, and it may appear to be ‘love’ between them, it is actually a perversion of ‘true love’, which was given to us from God. There are several facets of true love, but the procreative nature is one of the more dominant (and important) facets. The same holds true for sexual relations outside of marriage, or the use of artificial birth control. God designed us male and female to complement each other, and in following the teachings of God on love, we have the only true love that exists.

Remember, it is not ‘evil’ to be homosexual. A lot of those issues are formed in early psychological development, from sexual abuse, or for other reasons. I believe same-sex attraction must be one of the hardest crosses to bear. In reality, the only option is a life of chastity. If one were to marry a member of the opposite sex, it would be a lie if true love was not there. But fortunately, look at the examples set by the Holy Virgins, chiefly the Blessed Mother, and also all of the priests and religious who have given up physical relationships to dedicate themselves to the Lord.

Homosexual relations is the same as masturbation or pre-marital sex - it is singling out pleasure from genital contact, whereas that pleasure should only be derived in the marital act open to procreation.

Forget what the media and our culture tells us and look at it this way. Sex is a necessity for the species to survive. Both parents are preferred for the overall health and well-being of the child, so marriage is a natural institution to aid with this. Although it is a necessity, God did not want it to be a chore for us, so he wanted it to be pleasurable for the husband and wife. Pleasure is never the point, it is merely a gift from God. By making pleasure the point, whether with oneself or someone you are not married to, even if there are true emotional feelings there, you are seeking pleasure, the add-on, and not the focus of sex. That is why it is gravely wrong. That is why the Church’s teaching of true love reflects God’s love for us, and also is in line with what we could view as ‘natural law’.
Click to expand...
Really that’s just mean. Of course they were in love. It’s clear. Who said anything about their relationship being based on sex? Love does not always mean sex. 🤷
 
JNdoum said:
I suppose that the situation in and of itself isn’t wrong. Having those tendencies, and loving someone aren’t bad things. The problem, in truth, is really the sex and the marriage, because both of those are wrong. Mumbles140 explained it better than I ever could, in that respect. It’s not wrong for a man to love a man, any more than it is wrong for a man to love a child. But when that love becomes a sexual love, then you can see the problem. Compassion and love are very necessary in cases like this, but compassion and love do not mean condoning actions which aren’t right.

In addition, the actions of the parents were less than condonable. They could certainly have handled the situation with more love and compassion and kindness than they did. Despite this, we cannot know the full implications of the story. We were not in their shoes. However, their treatment was wrong despite the reasons they may have had for it, just as wrong as homosexuality is (and I mean the acts, not the tendency). I hope I’ve helped you with your questions a bit.
Click to expand...
Such as this person said. Love does not always mean sex. But there is a problem when love does become sex outside of marriage.
 
Thanks for all the responses. I want to reply now but time is limited.
 
I don’t see anything wrong or unnatural in a close friendship between a couple of young men. But I don’t see how their story is an example of why legal same-sex marriage ought to be created.

On the one hand, I have a hard time understanding how [heeere it comes…] two men can enter a permanent, binding, irrevocable and lifelong contract to hand over their bodies to each other and become one flesh for the sake of cooperating in God’s creative activity in bringing new human beings into existence and raising them and to be a sign of Christ’s relationship with the Church.

Let’s not forget what is necessary to consummate a gay marriage.

On the other hand, I see the gay marriage issue as a huge non-sequitur to this story.
  • If Bridegroom and Crone had been merely close friends, then gay marriage would not have been an issue.
  • Had they been heterosexual, gay marriage would not have been an issue.
  • Had one or both of them been married to someone else, gay marriage would not have been an issue.
  • Not only was domestic partnership available to them, but so also was legal same-sex marriage - yet they chose not to avail themselves of either.
  • Furthermore, the hostility of Bridegroom’s family was thoroughly known to both them.
What bothers me most is that the thesis of the video pretty much boils down to “I’m sad I lost my best friend, his parents are mean, therefore we must legalize same-sex marriage”.

Finally, two side points:
  • These two young men lived an affluent, jet-set lifestyle, which totally contradicts the mainstream cliche that homosexuals are victims of unjust discrimination and are often driven to suicide.
  • Lest we forget, legal marriage wasn’t much of a consolation to Terri Schiavo.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
When I see a video like this, it’s just hard for me to respond with the Catholic line about homosexuality being evil.

Just bear with me before reacting. I think that I understand what the problem is… I mean, I’m looking at this video and seeing love, straight up… love…genuine love… there’s no better way to describe what this man has for the man that he lost.

By contrast, why am I telling him that all of that was wrong or evil? Because in the opinion of the Church, God did not “design” it that way? Because it’s “unnatural”?

Even after reading all of the literature, I still can’t wrap my head around what “designed” or “unnatural” mean in this context.

Instead, I find myself being nothing less than INFURIATED with not the homosexual but the family of the deceased. I find their actions so cruel and uncaring, I can’t ever imagine acting like that if my son were in the same situation.

So some questions:
What I understand is that in such a situation, I’m to have these goals:
  1. Articulate the reasons why this is wrong.
  2. Deny the love that existed between these men.
  3. Explain why the Catholic position is the position of “true love.”
Right now, I can’t accomplish any of these three goals. None of my Catholic education in middle school, high school, university, or in working for the Church for years has prepared me to accomplish any of these three goals. So please tell me, in such a situation, how would I go about accomplishing these three goals?
Click to expand...
What does “homosexuality” mean in this context? Is it a) the disordered sexual preference for someone of the same sex, or is it b) the sexual activity between those of the same sex.

So, to point 1., if homosexuality is as a) it is not sin. It is a disorder, like many others that afflict mankind. If it is b) it is a sin because it is a misuse of sexuality. It is contrary to God’s design of humans. “…male and female, he made them…” “…the two become one…”

Re: point 2. What does “love” mean? Is it the same meaning God uses?

Re: point 3. What do you think the Church’s position is?
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Well, OK.

But there’s some obvious problems with that.

For one, I do like to think that the Church has some reasons beyond “because I said so.” I don’t imagine God would give us brains and then ask us not to use them, right?

For another, We have to talk to people who aren’t necessarily of the same position on the Church’s teachings. Clearly, for example, an unrepentant homosexual is not of the same position. So, “The Church said so,” is not a very compelling reason for them to deny their natural tendency and something that they take great joy in.
Click to expand...
Just an observation and questions:
  1. You seem to be struggling with the Church teaching on homosexuality and gay ‘marriage.’ And you also bring in God’s gift to man of a brain, which, from the context of your objection above, touches on formation of conscience or use of free will. What are you trying to say?
  2. How does Church teaching on homosexuality / gay ‘marriage’ come into the life of a gay couple who obviously were unencumbered in the joined life they lived until the untimely death of one of the partners?
mitex said:
Really that’s just mean. Of course they were in love. It’s clear. Who said anything about their relationship being based on sex? Love does not always mean sex. 🤷
Click to expand...
There is nothing mean in the post by Mumbles.

What’s clear is the linked video is a personalized romanticized youtube production of supposed love between two young males, that does not lend itself to scrutiny as to veracity and / or completeness. As with 99% of youtube productions on the Internet. It’s tragic that a life ended, which the narrator said was an accident. However, the portrayal with a sad violin musical score in the background was played up as if the death resulted from the non-acceptance of his family of their gay relationship, with a claim of physical attack by the father and threat with use of a gun and the mother speaking of homosexuality as sin, etc. etc.

If the viewer were to look down and read the posts below the youtube link, one poster indicated: “Tom did NOT commit suicide. Get your facts straight before you talk please. He fell off a building taking pictures of a friend.”

There are other claims made by the narrator which will never be proven, all of which is one sided unless the parents of Tom go public.

If it was true that they were together for six years in a committed long term relationship, meaning Tom was 23 when they became a couple, they could have taken legal protections for shared assets and health / life related contingencies. It comes across from the video that they were a successful financially well off gay couple, with a business in L.A., and the ability to travel around the world. The charges of bullying and intolerance … and a pitch for marriage equality at the end sound gratuitous. Please.
,
 
Simple answer:

All pure love (agape love, friendship love, unselfish love) is good, and a reflection of God’s own love. Not all sexualized love is good. Sexualized love belongs exclusively to a married man and a married woman. One does not necessarily love “more” when the friendship takes on a sexual dimension.

The friendship remains legitimate, but the sexual intimacy does not. Everyone grieves when losing a friend. Should grieve. Should be supported in that grief. The fact that one grieves over the death of a friend is a sign of genuine loss, not a sign that the sexualized aspect of the friendship was “good.” No video can change that.
 
mitex said:
Really that’s just mean. Of course they were in love. It’s clear. Who said anything about their relationship being based on sex? Love does not always mean sex. 🤷
Click to expand...
Why was this mean? I didn’t imply the relationship was based on sex, but only that homosexual relations (read as ‘acts’, not ‘relationships’) seek only pleasure from genital contact because it is not capable of procreation, and that is a perversion of true love given to humanity by God. True love combines the emotional and the sexual, and that is why it is only for husband and wife, because only then can the sexual act be true. It was given to us from God with a specific meaning and purpose, and using it outside of that is pleasure-seeking, plain and simple.

I’m not saying romantic love between a husband and a wife is the only form of love in the world - there is love for family, love for friends, compassion, etc. But when it comes to marriage, and physical relations, those are reserved for man and wife in true love.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Had they been allowed to get married–something they both wanted to do–it would *not *have been sex outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
Sex is used for procreation - pleasure is an added bonus to that. How could they accomplish that, then? Knowingly (as opposed to those who may be infertile) unable to procreate means their purposes for sex are purely for pleasure. Not all marital sex is sacred - the use of artificial birth control takes away the procreative aspect of sex. The Catholic Church does not teach all sexual intercourse should be to produce children, but it does teach that it can have no barriers to conception. And since two men can’t make a baby, their sexual relations is never acceptable.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Two men can make a baby–just not the way you see it.

They can have sex for the pleasure part, and adopt for the procreation part. That way they are having both–expressing love to each other for emotional and physical bonding, and also, bringing up children and helping the human race thrive with love.

They are not using any barriers to conception, so that’s good. In fact, they are welcoming it and embracing children–they are “open to life”!

Their sexual relations is “unnacceptable” in the religion you yourself follow…but not to the God of many other religions. Or in the heart of atheists or agnostics.
Click to expand...
note; i think its clear on a biological physical level, how one can argue the sexual nature, union of a man and woman. [contd]
 
Homosexual marriage might be wrong in the Church. But that doesn’t mean that God wants us to treat homosexuals as dirt. They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. When they hurt we are supposed to be there in their time of need. Whether they’re straight or not.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
When I see a video like this, it’s just hard for me to respond with the Catholic line about homosexuality being evil.

Just bear with me before reacting. I think that I understand what the problem is… I mean, I’m looking at this video and seeing love, straight up… love…genuine love… there’s no better way to describe what this man has for the man that he lost.

By contrast, why am I telling him that all of that was wrong or evil? Because in the opinion of the Church, God did not “design” it that way? Because it’s “unnatural”?

Even after reading all of the literature, I still can’t wrap my head around what “designed” or “unnatural” mean in this context.

Instead, I find myself being nothing less than INFURIATED with not the homosexual but the family of the deceased. I find their actions so cruel and uncaring, I can’t ever imagine acting like that if my son were in the same situation.

So some questions:
What I understand is that in such a situation, I’m to have these goals:
  1. Articulate the reasons why this is wrong.
  2. Deny the love that existed between these men.
  3. Explain why the Catholic position is the position of “true love.”
Right now, I can’t accomplish any of these three goals. None of my Catholic education in middle school, high school, university, or in working for the Church for years has prepared me to accomplish any of these three goals. So please tell me, in such a situation, how would I go about accomplishing these three goals?
Click to expand...
You don’t need to deny the love that existed between them. You need to understand that their love is a love of passion and sentiment.

Passion and sentiment is a good thing and a blessing when its ordered toward its proper object. But it’s completely irrelevant to Christ’s mission. Your heart can be exploding with positive sentiment and you can still go to Hell. And you can be emotionally dead inside and still be saved. It’s irrelevant. In fact I suspect passionate love damns more souls than it saves precisely because it is more often than not ordered toward the things of the world.

The love which we’re called to have, the love of which Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 13, the love we mean when we say “God is love” and “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, etc.” is emphatically not passion or emotion. It is caritas, agape: the love of the will, ordered toward the good of another, simply for that other’s sake.

Their love may be “love” in the loose, modern, sentimental sense. It is not love in the meaningful, salvific sense; i.e., it is not charity. It is the opposite of charity. It is scandal and sin. It murders charity and it murders souls.

What you need right now is faith. Faith, properly understood, is simply trust in the truth of what you know to be true. That faith is being challenged as a result of certain prejudices inculcated in you by an avidly anti-Catholic society. When I go bungy-jumping or skydiving, I know that the odds my parachute won’t deploy or that my cord will break are very, very low, but nevertheless I am afraid. I jump anyway – because I have faith in what I know to be true, even when my body screams out against it.

The Catholic position on normative sexuality is a rational one. It needs rational fortification. So fortify yourself intellectually: read. Why does the Catholic Church believe homosexuality is wrong? Where does this belief come from? (Hint: it isn’t just the Bible). A good place to start is Edward Feser’s Aquinas.
 
DaddyGirl said:
They are not using any barriers to conception, so that’s good. In fact, they are welcoming it and embracing children–they are “open to life”!
Click to expand...
Unbelievable.

Are you seriously trying to establish that homosexual artificial procreation is in line with the morality of the Catholic Church? Have you no knowledge of what the phrase Open to Life actually means, both in what it includes and what it excludes (such as, IVF, such as AID, such as egg donation, etc.?) On the one hand, you proclaim that homosexual couples (whether Catholic or not, by the way) need not obey any Catholic moral doctrine, because they might “have a different God,” or be atheists. On the other hand, you imply that somehow the various technologically engineered offspring corresponds to Catholic values, and that “therefore” Catholics should support homosexual coupling and “marriage.” !

Unreal.

Just FYI: multiple options are employed by homosexuals attempting to give birth. Many of them involve utilitarian fornication with the opposite sex.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Two men can make a baby–just not the way you see it.

They can have sex for the pleasure part, and adopt for the procreation part. That way they are having both–expressing love to each other for emotional and physical bonding, and also, bringing up children and helping the human race thrive with love.

They are not using any barriers to conception, so that’s good. In fact, they are welcoming it and embracing children–they are “open to life”!

Their sexual relations is “unnacceptable” in the religion you yourself follow…but not to the God of many other religions. Or in the heart of atheists or agnostics.
Click to expand...
Then they aren’t really making it, are they? They are having exceptions made for something that is not naturally supposed to be. And the barrier to conception is that two men cannot conceive - it doesn’t need to be a barrier in the sense of ABC, such as a man having a vasectomy would be considered a barrier. Lastly, you yourself admit their sex is for pleasure, which is gravely disordered because pleasure is never the focal point of sex - it is the unifying, procreative nature. Two becoming one flesh doesn’t just mean the sexual act, but the creation of a child from that sexual act.

Look back to the ancient Greeks, the most famous philosophers, who were experts on homosexual relations. It was believed sex with women was for procreation, and sex with men was for pleasure. They did not try to combine the family life with the pleasure aspect, as they lived in a world where pleasure outside of one’s marriage was acceptable.

For all the arguments that homosexuality is ‘natural’, it is funny how hard one most go outside of nature to make homosexuality appear that way. At the end of the day, marriage is a religious institution designed to promote and follow religious beliefs. Governments recognize marriage and regulate it, just as they recognize and regulate certain statuses of churches and religions (i.e. tax-exemptions). However, they did not create it, they did not define it, so what right have they to redefine something which is not theirs?

Those of us how know and accept the truth know that homosexuality is unnatural, and those engaging in homosexual relations do so for pleasure only, as the procreative nature is permanently absent. It is a perversion of true love, and therefore should not be accepted. My prayers go out to those dealing with same-sex attractions - it is a difficult burden to bear, but I hope they can lead a happy and chaste life.
 
Their story is one shared by many men and women who when faced with the death of their partner find themselves alone and no recourse to deal with their partner’s family.

I was very good friends with a gay couple…they were older…I was in my 40"s then…they were in their 50’s…one of them died…and when the family of the dead partner showed up at their home to take his belongings…a home the family had never visited before in the 25 years they had been together…they sought to force the surviving partner to sell the house as they wanted “their share”…luckily they had wills and had a “right of survivorship” as part of the mortgage…the surviving partner still had to hire an attorney to fight the deceased partner’s family to preserve the home they had shared…

This was a moving story…and I’m sure one dismissed by many as being “just about sex”…obviously it wasn’t …but for many it is much easier to dismiss the love two people of the same sex have for one another as just “sex”…as if their own relationships with their spouses is no more than “sex”…

At least hearts are changing…slowly our nation will recongnize same sex marriages…it will take time…but eventually it will become a reality as it has in other countries and in states of our Union.

More of these stories need to be told…to put a face on real people instead of hateful caricatures some “religious” people paint of same sex couples…amazing story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top