Can homosexual attraction be true 'Love'?

[zdon011]

Dear CAF members,

Recently I heard a member of my local Anglican community say:
‘How can [homosexuals] be condemned for being in love and expressing that love in their own way?’

From a Christian, or even a secular natural/psychological point of view, can homosexual attraction be deemed true love? that is, at a similar level of sincerity, commitment, and maturity to that found in sacramental marriage?

I know that for Roman Catholics, any source outside the CCC and pronouncements of the Magisterium are fallible and of lesser authority. However, I tried to find material that address this question scientifically (even defences of homosexual ‘love’, but I found none). Considering the current medical acceptance of homosexuality as ‘normal’ and no longer a ‘disorder’, it is not surprising that all I found was a 1967 paper by Robert E. Buxbaum, a Presbyterian minister and clinical social worker:
‘Homosexuality and Love,’ Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 17-32.

I was able to access this article as a student through my University. Here is the summary:

"The following points have been made in this paper and are offered as preliminary conclusions:

1. Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible only as it detracts from the purpose of man’s creation–to love God and neighbor and self. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be taken as proof of God’s condemnation of homosexuality.
2. While there may be constitutional and existential factors to be considered, homosexuality seems to be best explained and treated when it is held to be a psychological illness. It is characterized by narcissistic and schizoid fantasy with an aggressive orientation toward others.
3. As an illness, homosexuality may have interpersonal consequences that are immoral but, in itself, it is as moral in its relation to its victim as is any other disease.
4. A mature love, characterized by care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge, is precluded in the homosexual’s relationships by the nature of his illness. It is possible, however, for the heterosexual to become more accepting and loving of the homosexual once he faces the dynamics behind his own feelings."

I am in no position either to affirm or refute these findings, and they may well be considered outdated and offensive to many people.
Please understand that I DO NOT intend to demean or put anyone down in this thread, nor am I implying that anyone’s ability to express love is in any way impaired if they have homosexual inclinations.

God bless,
zdon

 

[raaucoin]

I speak only from my own experience: Is it possible that one person truly love someone of the same sex? yes. Can that person love someone of the same sex so deeply that she takes on the role of friend, confidant, sharing and supporting mentally, emotionally, spiritually? yes. Is it possible that she loves another woman so much that she is willing to sacrifice her own needs, wants, desires?yes. Is this the same as heterosexual marital love? NO.

Again from my own experience- SSA is not the same as marriage. Bottom line-in marriage, man and woman become one. And that only happens by the grace and power of God when and if God so chooses.
I wish people would ask the question " Is it possible that someone who loves someone of the same sex could love that person so much that they put aside his/ her own wants and desires(sexual) to allow God to be first and foremost in the other persons life? To allow that person to live the vocation God has truly called him/her to be? And that answer is YES!

 

[catherine126]

I speak only from my own experience: Is it possible that one person truly love someone of the same sex? yes. Can that person love someone of the same sex so deeply that she takes on the role of friend, confidant, sharing and supporting mentally, emotionally, spiritually? yes. Is it possible that she loves another woman so much that she is willing to sacrifice her own needs, wants, desires?yes. Is this the same as heterosexual marital love? NO.

This is the most loving understanding of SSA that I’ve heard in a long time.

This really rings true for me, however limited and fallible my perspective is. I have a large number of friends who identify themselves as homosexual, and personally, I think it’s really important to acknowledge their sincerity, even while focusing on the perspective that matters most (God’s view and plan).

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi zdon,

raaucoin’s pretty much resolves the issues you raised, I think. I just wanted to comment on the research that was available to Buxbaum and then make one general remark on your question.

First to the notion that homosexuality is best thought of as an illness:

1. While there may be constitutional and existential factors to be considered, homosexuality seems to be best explained and treated when it is held to be a psychological illness. It is characterized by narcissistic and schizoid fantasy with an aggressive orientation toward others.

In the two decades following Evelyn Hooker’s 1957 study of homosexual adjustment, rigorously testing the disease model of homosexuality was a live research topic. The results were not too surprising: if you compare straight apples to gay apples and straight oranges to gay oranges, you find more similarities than differences, whereas, if you compare straight apples to gay oranges, or vice versa, you find more differences than similarities. Specifically, the studies that refuted the disease model tended to draw their homosexual and heterosexual subjects from the general population and to control for the variables which were thought to affect mental health independently of sexual orientation. By contrast, the studies that tried to confirm the disease model tended to draw their homosexual subjects from prisons, military installations, and mental health clinics, and then compare them to heterosexual subjects drawn from the general population. Thus, for example, the narcissism, schizoid fantasy, and aggression that Buxbaum points out are probably just artifacts of biased sampling. (This was all taken from John C Gonsiorek’s “Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality” in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, which you should be able find in just about any university library.)

Now to the general remark on your question. You ask

From a Christian, or even a secular natural/psychological point of view, can homosexual attraction be deemed true love? that is, at a similar level of sincerity, commitment, and maturity to that found in sacramental marriage?

In daily life, we’re not usually concerned with considering heterosexual relationships as such, since there is such a variety of relationships and, in this scientistic age, it is difficult to get anything out of thinking about things “as such.” From this perspective, a better question might be, “Do some homosexual relationships look like some heterosexual relationships? If so, do some homosexual relationships look like some good heterosexual relationships?” It is possible for a Christian to answer “yes” to both questions. The only consequence is that either some homosexual relationships are good (i.e., are good qua relationships and do not involve unnatural intercourse) or that here is yet another way mankind has of setting up his own good in preference to God’s.

Peace.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here’s a resource you might want to utilize [in .pdf format]:

Defending a Higher Law

It’s 200+ page book-length look at this issue. I have just skimmed through parts of it so far, but it looks like a very valuable resource for looking at this sensitive issue.

Catherine is right, we cannot doubt the sincerity of those who push for homosexual marriage. In the mind of most, they are just seeking happiness and are completely perplexed why we Christians want to “put a stop to it” when we seemingly gain nothing. If we fail to acknowledge this, we cannot be surprised if they do not pay attention to what we have to say.

 

[Edward_H]

The answer is no.

Any form of attraction is not true love. True love is willing and working toward the ultimate good of another. The eternal good of another.

Love has nothing whatsoever to do with attraction.

 

[JohnCS]

Hello,

I wrote an argumentative paper for a college course on a similar topic and used this book as a source:

TFP Committee on American Issues (2004). Defending a Higher Law. Why We Must
Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement. Spring Grove,
PA: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

I read through alot of it but it was over a year ago so I don’t remember all of the specifics, but they went into detail about how it is physically impossible for homosexuals to feel TRUE LOVE as the Church understands it. Society today has a different idea of what love is, and by society’s standards yes, they can love each other, but only by a different definition of love.

God bless,

John

It seems that it is the same book that a previous poster has linked to a PDF file.

 

[Pregustator]

The answer is no.

Any form of attraction is not true love. True love is willing and working toward the ultimate good of another. The eternal good of another.

Love has nothing whatsoever to do with attraction.

I think the thrust of the question, however it may have been worded, however, was can two men (or two women as the case may be) genuinely fall in love with one another, and I think the answer to that question is certainly yes, they can, and do.

What to do with that from a Christian perspective is another matter, of course, but one which I’m not sure the originator of this thread means to discuss, so I’ll leave it.

 

[Edward_H]

I think the thrust of the question, however it may have been worded, however, was can two men (or two women as the case may be) genuinely fall in love with one another, and I think the answer to that question is certainly yes, they can, and do.

What to do with that from a Christian perspective is another matter, of course, but one which I’m not sure the originator of this thread means to discuss, so I’ll leave it.

There is no such thing as falling in love.

There is love. There is the willing of the ultimate good of another. That is love.

Sure, there is attraction, there is sexual excitement, there is desire. These are not love.
Adding the word love to what is really desire doesn’t change or sharpen the question. It merely makes the water murky.

Attraction, sexual excitement, sexual desire, longing-ness, etc. within genders is disordered. Acting on these desires is a sin. The only proper way to progress these desires licitly is within marital union between a man and woman, and only if done as an act of love, the willing of the true and ultimate good of the other.

Sexual desires and the acting out of such desires between a husband and wife, which don’t have love as their end, the willing of the ultimate good of the other, but instead which seeks only satiation of desire, domination, whatever is also a sin.

Nursing sexual attraction, seeking sexual satiation between unmarried and/or homosexuals is not “willing and working toward the ultimate good of the other”. And therefore is not love.

 

[zdon011]

I speak only from my own experience: Is it possible that one person truly love someone of the same sex? yes. Can that person love someone of the same sex so deeply that she takes on the role of friend, confidant, sharing and supporting mentally, emotionally, spiritually? yes. Is it possible that she loves another woman so much that she is willing to sacrifice her own needs, wants, desires?yes…

Again from my own experience- SSA is not the same as marriage. Bottom line-in marriage, man and woman become one. And that only happens by the grace and power of God when and if God so chooses.
I wish people would ask the question "Is it possible that someone who loves someone of the same sex could love that person so much that they put aside his/ her own wants and desires(sexual) to allow God to be first and foremost in the other persons life? To allow that person to live the vocation God has truly called him/her to be? And that answer is YES!

Dear raaucoin,
Thank you for sharing your experience. I, like Catherine, found your conclusions both compassionate and orthodox (in the best sense of those words). Perhaps the problem is when human attributes that are naturally good and God-given, such as love and freedom, are divorced from God’s scheme for mankind.
Pax tecum,
zdon

 

[zdon011]

In the two decades following Evelyn Hooker’s 1957 study of homosexual adjustment, rigorously testing the disease model of homosexuality was a live research topic. The results were not too surprising: if you compare straight apples to gay apples and straight oranges to gay oranges, you find more similarities than differences, whereas, if you compare straight apples to gay oranges, or vice versa, you find more differences than similarities. Specifically, the studies that refuted the disease model tended to draw their homosexual and heterosexual subjects from the general population and to control for the variables which were thought to affect mental health independently of sexual orientation. By contrast, the studies that tried to confirm the disease model tended to draw their homosexual subjects from prisons, military installations, and mental health clinics, and then compare them to heterosexual subjects drawn from the general population. Thus, for example, the narcissism, schizoid fantasy, and aggression that Buxbaum points out are probably just artifacts of biased sampling. (This was all taken from John C Gonsiorek’s “Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Illness Model of Homosexuality” in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, which you should be able find in just about any university library.)

Dear Chrysostim,
Thank you. I was concerned that I could not find any research more recent than Buxbaum’s that directly addressed my question. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but empirical science generally treats quantities like love as somewhat ‘je ne sais quoi’.

In daily life, we’re not usually concerned with considering heterosexual relationships as such, since there is such a variety of relationships and, in this scientistic age, it is difficult to get anything out of thinking about things “as such.”

I agree with your observations regarding comparisons between ‘straight/gay’ relationships.
However, I posited such a comparison in my original question because my Anglican friend (mentioned in the first sentence of my OP) was implying that the Church was unjust in condemning one sort of ‘love’ and championing another. My question is whether such an implication is in any way justified.
Regards, zdon

 

[Et_Cetera]

I’m not gay, but I believe that homosexual attraction can be true love.

 

[zdon011]

What to do with [same-sex couples who fall in love] from a Christian perspective is another matter, of course, but one which I’m not sure the originator of this thread means to discuss, so I’ll leave it.

That issue is intimately linked with my original question (in my opinion). Feel free to discuss it if you wish. The main reason I started this thread was that my Anglican friend (mentioned at beginning of OP) was implying that the Church should regard committed, monogamous homosexual relationships in the same way she regards committed, monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Blessings,
zdon

 

[Kevin42]

Having been in a gay relationship for three years now, I of course would say that what my partner and I share is true love. It certainly fits every good description of love I have ever known. In addition to this, I have to say that our relationship is more healthy and more stable than many straight relationships I have seen. I understand that, to those who believe that my partner and I are condemning each other to hell, it may seem we are not acting in a very loving way towards each other. However, since I do not believe this, I would say it is not relevant to me.

 

[Edward_H]

There’s some really muddled thinking and emoting above. Lots of words and opinions but few clear thoughts.

• There aren’t “sorts of love”.
• True love is, according to Catholic teaching, willing the ultimate - the final - good of another.
• Homosexual relations are disordered in contrast to God’s design.
• Attraction isn’t love.

No opining, emoting, jaw-boning, beard-twisting will lead to clarity or truth, or in the end real holiness or happiness.

Just because someone makes up a question, and people opine on it, doesn’t mean there’s truth or goodness to be gained by it.

Sorry.

 

[zdon011]

The answer is no.

Any form of attraction is not true love. True love is willing and working toward the ultimate good of another. The eternal good of another.

Love has nothing whatsoever to do with attraction.

Dear Edward,

I’ve read both your posts and must say that, from an purely Christian point of view, I would agree with your position. Homosexual ACTIVITY (NOT the passive acceptance of the presence of SSA: I say that to any ‘gay activists’ reading this) is indeed not part of God’s plan for humanity. The only appropriate context for romantic love is between a man and a woman who are either married or seriously discerning whether to be married. The innocent infatuation that often occurs between children is irrelevant to that statement.

Blessings,
zdon

 

[zdon011]

Here’s a resource you might want to utilize…Catherine is right, we cannot doubt the sincerity of those who push for homosexual marriage. In the mind of most, they are just seeking happiness and are completely perplexed why we Christians want to “put a stop to it” when we seemingly gain nothing. If we fail to acknowledge this, we cannot be surprised if they do not pay attention to what we have to say.

Dear Joe and John (I had to write that),

Thank you very much for for the book, I look forward to reading it. I’m sure it will give me some authoritative guidance on this topic.
Yes, Catherine is right. Most of those who support ‘gay marriage’ are sincere, though I cannot speak for those who have immoral compulsions (whether or not they know the moral value of their actions). It’s facile but true to say that they do not see things as we do.
By the way, John, when you wrote your college paper, did you come to a conclusion that was similar to what the book said?

Society today has a different idea of what love is.

Ain’t that the truth

God bless,
zdon

 

[DexUK]

Jesus told us to love one another as we would ourselves wish to be loved.

Surely that’s all anyone needs? To just do to and for others what they would wish us to do to and for them because we care about their happiness and their good and not to do anything that would cause them unhappiness or harm?

I would suggest that two persons of the same gender can have a loving relationship (notwithstanding the Church’s rules on genital activity) because they can act within that relationship in ways that express that mutual love, care and affection AND harm nobody else in the process.

I don’t have to like it, but I don’t have to impose myself into their situation any more than I might not like the pictures my neighbour has put up on his walls, but then again I don’t need to force my way into his house to look at them. I may find eating prawns offensive (indeed, the thought nauseates me) but it’s utterly of no interest to me whether anyone else eats them and I am not harmed if they do. The Jews think some foods (prawns again!) are ‘unclean’ and therefore sinful and would not associate with the people who did eat ‘unclean’ foods. Christians have got past that. I suggest that we might need to get past the idea that same-sex chaste relationships are similarly sinful or invalid.

 

[JohnCS]

Dear Joe and John (I had to write that),

Thank you very much for for the book, I look forward to reading it. I’m sure it will give me some authoritative guidance on this topic.
Yes, Catherine is right. Most of those who support ‘gay marriage’ are sincere, though I cannot speak for those who have immoral compulsions (whether or not they know the moral value of their actions). It’s facile but true to say that they do not see things as we do.
By the way, John, when you wrote your college paper, did you come to a conclusion that was similar to what the book said?

Ain’t that the truth

God bless,
zdon

Dear zdon,

The paper I wrote was not on the moral implications of homosexuality, or homosexual marriages. Earlier that week I was called a bigot by someone in my class because I hold to Church teachings, my paper was written to show that the Catholic Church is not bigoted. I showed that it is with love and caring that the church condemns homosexual acts. The book I linked has some statistical data that shows the physical dangers of same sex sexual relationships and I tied that in with Church teaching on loving our neighbors. If we know it is a unhealthy physically and spiritually, then it is our duty to try to point it out to them. They can choose to listen or not, but we must still try. My daughter likes to ride her bike in the street instead of the sidewalk, she doenst recognize the danger of speeding cars on the road while I do. Because I LOVE her I have to be the bad guy sometimes and tell her NO it is going to hurt her. Just as the Church has to sometimes be the “bad guy” and tell people that they are hurting themselves (and others).
I can see the point of the argument that we should butt out and let them do what they want, but I really do not understand the “your a bigot” idea.
God bless,

John

 

[JohnCS]

Jesus told us to love one another as we would ourselves wish to be loved.

Surely that’s all anyone needs? To just do to and for others what they would wish us to do to and for them because we care about their happiness and their good and not to do anything that would cause them unhappiness or harm?

I would suggest that two persons of the same gender can have a loving relationship (notwithstanding the Church’s rules on genital activity) because they can act within that relationship in ways that express that mutual love, care and affection AND harm nobody else in the process.

I don’t have to like it, but I don’t have to impose myself into their situation any more than I might not like the pictures my neighbour has put up on his walls, but then again I don’t need to force my way into his house to look at them. I may find eating prawns offensive (indeed, the thought nauseates me) but it’s utterly of no interest to me whether anyone else eats them and I am not harmed if they do. The Jews think some foods (prawns again!) are ‘unclean’ and therefore sinful and would not associate with the people who did eat ‘unclean’ foods. Christians have got past that. I suggest that we might need to get past the idea that same-sex chaste relationships are similarly sinful or invalid.

I don’t think anyone in here has said that “same-sex chaste relationships” are sinful or invalid, in fact I love my brother we are obviously chaste, there is no problem with that. I love my best friend, again we are chaste, there is nothing wrong with that. Living together as a “couple” can be sinful even if they are chaste because of the scandal it can cause, but that is a different matter.

God bless,

John