Are romantic homosexual relationships moral or immoral?

[Nate13]

I went to that link…I had no idea anything like that existed!
Thank you for the heads up, Tsk.
It makes me feel hope for the future of religion…it really does. So thank you.

The points in the article have been refuted in other threads where this poster has been spamming that link. The article is a disgrace.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I went to that link…I had no idea anything like that existed!
Thank you for the heads up, Tsk.
It makes me feel hope for the future of religion…it really does. So thank you.

I just read it and it is basically people trying to justify sexual homosexual relationships as long as they are faithful to each other.

I agree with what seems to be the majority view here that it is immoral for a homosexual to have a romantic relationship with another person of the same sex. As for the person who said that “romantic” implies a sexual relationship, that is not what I meant. I am asking if a chaste homosexual romantic relationship is moral or immoral. I think they are immoral.

define “romantic”, we are getting nowhere because we do not have the term defined

 

[Leegal]

Actually, the link I posted argues just the opposite and seeks to include committed, loving gay relationships with biblical support for the author’s position. I encourage you to read the article and understand the etymology of the original biblical texts.

But it is anti-thetical to the teachings of the Church. The Pope teaches to take pastoral care of homosexuals but to guard against those with an agenda that seek to change the teachings of the Church.

I think the article is inappropriate here in response, and will only confuse the question. Conversely, I encourage anyone not to read the article since it is against teaching. If anyone has doubt, show it to a Catholic priest and if he’s up on the Pope’s pastoral letter on homosexuals, he will recognize it as the agenda it is.

Vatican letter on pastoral care of homosexuals

 

[Leegal]

I just read it and it is basically people trying to justify sexual homosexual relationships as long as they are faithful to each other.

define “romantic”, we are getting nowhere because we do not have the term defined

Romantic as defined is something leading toward courtship, whether the two marry or not. The dating ritual.

However, that’s not to say that homosexual men do not have platonic relationships with other men with whom they have no sexual interest but share other interests such as music or film or art, etc., just as we all do.

 

[Nate13]

define “romantic”, we are getting nowhere because we do not have the term defined

romantic as an adjective:
Inclined toward or suggestive of the feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love.

From here we have to define what kind of love we are talking about. Even if your description of a relationship would be technically correct by calling it a romantic homosexual relationship, in practical use it falls short. I would never describe the relationship between one of my close female friends and I to be “romantic” especially if I was to call it a “romantic relationship”. “Romantic friendship” might be a better way of describing it that would get your point across but even calling it that might make a lot of people assume you were saying you had a “friends with benefit’s relationship”.

You need to accept that there is a difference between what “romantic relationship” technically means and what most people will assume it means if they heard it.

 

[michelleds]

lolwut?

The “author” you appear to be talking about would be John Boswell (a sodomite who sodomized history and language to try to fabricate evidence for religious “gay marriages” in the Middle Ages and died of AIDS complications…) who I hate with a passion, the author I have been using is Alan Bray whose book The Friend actually eviscerates Boswell’s argument without mentioning it. I would like to point out that sworn brotherhood and romantic friendship are actually two different things, Bray covers the former not the latter. You may find it beneficial to read Jeremy Taylor’s Discourse of the Nature, Offices and Measures of Friendship (1657) concerning friendship for the latter (although it is not called romantic friendship). Bray was actually very careful to avoid saying that the people were gay or homosexual or implying such, much to the LGBT community’s chagrin.

The romantic friendships I’m talking about lack the sexual element and mostly it was women not men in these relationships.

Of course such a friendship today would need to be driven by agape love for another to allow both to flourish in the light of the Holy Spirit.

I’m glad to read more about your thoughts on this, Dakota. It seems that maybe “chaste romantic friendships” is a more accurate description given your 21st century audience? although I admit to some discomfort with the “romantic” aspect since I think this word has come to encompass sexual desire. perhaps i’m wrong.

 

[sw85]

Are homosexual romantic relationships moral or immoral? I believe they are immoral and the reason why is that the purpose of dating is to find a marriage partner. Since a homosexual is only attracted to people of the same sex then they would only want to marry a same sex partner. However, “gay marriage” is not, never has been, and never will be valid in the eyes of the Church. Therefore, since it is impossible for a homosexual to marry someone they are attracted to unless they change their sexual orientation to where they are attracted to the opposite sex then they should not date because the purpose of dating is to find a marriage partner. So, what do you all think about my argument against romantic homosexual relationships? Is it a sound argument or not? What does the Church say? Are romantic homosexual relationships moral or immoral? Or maybe the Church hasn’t officially taken a stance on the issue? If the Church has not taken a stance on the issue, what do you think the Church’s stance would be based upon existing doctrine if they were to have a stance on the issue?

Yes, they are immoral.

Relationships are ALWAYS a proximate occasion for sin in that they provide temptation to sexual self-indulgence. They are permissible ONLY when they are ordered toward, ultimately, marriage.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Holly, please define romantic so we can stop talking in circles.

 

[Holly3278]

If you use the word “romantic” about homosexuals then it is immoral.

Huh? I think you are being sarcastic here but in a way it seems that you are saying I am being immoral by using the word “romantic” about homosexuals.

Holly, please define romantic so we can stop talking in circles.

I thought I already did but maybe I didn’t. Anyway, here you go. When I say romantic, I mean love. Let me just rephrase my question that was in my original post and see if that helps:

Are chaste homosexual dating relationships immoral?

So, basically what I am asking is: Is it immoral for two people of the same sex to date each other since they can never marry each other?

Does that clear things up? If not, let me know and I’ll try again.

 

[thistle]

Huh? ** I think you are being sarcastic here but in a way it seems that you are saying I am being immoral by using the word “romantic” about homosexuals.**

I thought I already did but maybe I didn’t. Anyway, here you go. When I say romantic, I mean love. Let me just rephrase my question that was in my original post and see if that helps:

Are chaste homosexual dating relationships immoral?

So, basically what I am asking is: Is it immoral for two people of the same sex to date each other since they can never marry each other?

Does that clear things up? If not, let me know and I’ll try again.

You are being ridiculous. That’s not what I am saying at all.
My comment clearly means that any “romantic” relationship between homosexuals is immoral.

 

[RCIA4]

All homosexual activity (even committed relationships) are immoral… But I won’t nail the hammer on the head like some people and start passing judgement…

What two guys do behind closed doors is their business and certainly none of ours

 

[Jaroslaw]

Dakota Roberts -

Glad to see you’re not taking anything personally - Quote “I hate John Boswell…a sodomite who sodomized history…” Hmmm…calling him a sodomite means what exactly? Anything he has to say is completely null and void? I am aware that his work has its detractors, but I think that is probably true of most controversial subjects. (every single concept in his books are lies?)

It is hard to know where the truth is when the Western world has demonized homosexuality for centuries (punishment seems to have been much worse for this when compared to punishments for other offenses) and so many people lied about being homosexual, contributions of kniown homosexuals has been completely ignored in history classes etc.

 

[RCIA4]

lolwut?

The “author” you appear to be talking about would be John Boswell (a sodomite who sodomized history and language to try to fabricate evidence for religious “gay marriages” in the Middle Ages and died of AIDS complications…) who I hate with a passion, the author I have been using is Alan Bray whose book The Friend actually eviscerates Boswell’s argument without mentioning it. I would like to point out that sworn brotherhood and romantic friendship are actually two different things, Bray covers the former not the latter. You may find it beneficial to read Jeremy Taylor’s Discourse of the Nature, Offices and Measures of Friendship (1657) concerning friendship for the latter (although it is not called romantic friendship). Bray was actually very careful to avoid saying that the people were gay or homosexual or implying such, much to the LGBT community’s chagrin.

The romantic friendships I’m talking about lack the sexual element and mostly it was women not men in these relationships.

Of course such a friendship today would need to be driven by agape love for another to allow both to flourish in the light of the Holy Spirit.

Please refrain from using the word sodomite… It’s mean…

 

[michelleds]

Dakota Roberts -

Glad to see you’re not taking anything personally - Quote “I hate John Boswell…a sodomite who sodomized history…” Hmmm…calling him a sodomite means what exactly? Anything he has to say is completely null and void? I am aware that his work has its detractors, but I think that is probably true of most controversial subjects. (every single concept in his books are lies?)

It is hard to know where the truth is when the Western world has demonized homosexuality for centuries (punishment seems to have been much worse for this when compared to punishments for other offenses) and so many people lied about being homosexual, contributions of kniown homosexuals has been completely ignored in history classes etc.

a grand total of 4 posts and you appear to operating with an agenda to teach contrary to the Catholic Church.

CCC 2357

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. **Under no circumstances **can they be approved.

I bolded the phrase above because you seem to think that there are exceptions for loving, committed homosexual relationships. There aren’t.

We are all called to Chastity and while close friendships are not only acceptable but wonderful and affirming, we should avoid near occasions of sin. If a behavior would not be acceptable in a chaste friendship between a male and female, it would not be acceptable in a chaste friendship between 2 persons who are homosexual or SSA.

 

[michelleds]

Please refrain from using the word sodomite… It’s mean…

“sodomite” is not a mean word. that’s just silly. a sodomite is one who practices sodomy. Sodomy is often thought of as only anal sex, but it can also mean oral sex (see criminal statutes defining sodomy for the purpose of prosecuting forced sodomy as being oral or anal contact with genitals). it can also mean copulation between two persons of the same sex.

a person who openly admits to being a sexually active homosexual, is by definition, a sodomite. (as is the case with the person to whom Dakota referred.)

 

[RCIA4]

I work in my Catholic university’s outreach program to people who are homosexual…

Sodomite is offensive according to our priest who runs the program… You will get no where with a gay man by calling him a sodomite Michelle…

It hurts peoples feelings… When we try to win gay people over to celibacy we follow the three golden rules from the Catechism “respect, sensitivity, and compassion.”

Don’t use the word… If your trying to win a sexually active gay man or lesbian woman over don’t call them a sodomite… It’s offensive, mean spirited and hurtful

 

[Jaroslaw]

Michelleds -

There isn’t much point to discuss things if we only talk with people we agree with. If that is an agenda so be it. I comment on things that interest me.

You have zeroed in on places of disagreement, perhaps, mostly I think I asked questions or brought up alternate points of view. What if no one ever challenged the idea that “woman are supposed to remain silent in the assembly,(with their heads covered no less)”? You and I would not be speaking now. History is a testament to the fact that for century upon century most women in most places had less (or no ) rights and less value than a male infant! This and the charging of interest you completely ignore. (point being, again, like it or not, admit it or not, things CHANGE.) — I’m sure someone said there would never be altar girls either!

As to the term “sodomite”, yes, it means everything you say, but look at the context of how it was phrased. There is no doubt that it was a term of derision. A neutral term is simply ‘homosexual.’

Man, I wish people got as worked up about social justice (1% of the people having 99% of the money) as they do about this topic!

 

[sw85]

I work in my Catholic university’s outreach program to people who are homosexual…

Sodomite is offensive according to our priest who runs the program… You will get no where with a gay man by calling him a sodomite Michelle…

It hurts peoples feelings… When we try to win gay people over to celibacy we follow the three golden rules from the Catechism “respect, sensitivity, and compassion.”

Don’t use the word… If your trying to win a sexually active gay man or lesbian woman over don’t call them a sodomite… It’s offensive, mean spirited and hurtful

Are we trying to win over a sexually active gay man right now? If not, then what is the point in chastising her for using the (ecclesiastically appropriate) language?

Homosexuality is merely the inclination; sodomy is the sin. Speaking of sodomites euphemistically as homosexuals tells us nothing. It would be about as useful as referring to masturbators or fornicators as heterosexuals.

 

[RCIA4]

Please don’t use those words… It just goes to basic human dignity… While they are accurate… They are mean spirited and offensive…

You need to be politically correct in this day and age dealing with the homosexual or talking about them…

I do believe I am qualified to speak on this… I work with homosexuals every morning five days a week for my work study

I think I know what I’m talking about

 

[sw85]

Please don’t use those words… It just goes to basic human dignity… While they are accurate… They are mean spirited and offensive…

We need to refrain from speaking accurately because it offends certain people?

What are you saying is that certain people object to REALITY – and it is the obligation of EVERYONE ELSE to accommodate those people.

Frankly, that is simply insane. I will not accept that. I will continue to use the ecclesiastically correct language to discuss the appropriate concepts.

As for “mean spirited,” I am not speaking from a place of malevolence but of simple deference to the appropriate usage of the English language. Please do not accuse me of malevolence in the future.