Can homosexuality not be a sin if

[Valtiel]

There is no sex involved…
I get this a lot actually that if a same sex couple go through everything in love except sex, then it’s okay…
What in the world do I say to this???

 

[urquhart]

On the face of it, that is correct; if there is no homosexual activity, there is no sin.

 

[mercygate]

urquhart:

On the face of it, that is correct; if there is no homosexual activity, there is no sin.

One would need to know what “everything except sex” means.

 

[Valtiel]

mercygate:

One would need to know what “everything except sex” means.

I suppose kissing, holding hands, being intimate you know all that relationship stuff just minus any and all sexual activity…

 

[mercygate]

Valtiel:

I suppose kissing, holding hands, being intimate you know all that relationship stuff just minus any and all sexual activity…

“being intimate?” What’s that? Kissing? That’s sexual (at least it was when I still had hormones!)

 

[Valtiel]

“being intimate?” What’s that? Kissing? That’s sexual (at least it was when I still had hormones!)

So then kissing your mother is sexual!?!?!?!

Seriously kissing may lead to sex, but it’s not sexual activity itself…
Not to my knowledge anyway…

 

[buffalo]

You would have to live as brother and sister. In this case brother and brother or sister and sister, chastely.

 

[mercygate]

Valtiel:

So then kissing your mother is sexual!?!?!?!

Seriously kissing may lead to sex, but it’s not sexual activity itself…
Not to my knowledge anyway…

Since the question was about homosexuality I presumed (reasonably, I think) that the question did not refer to one’s mother. There is kissing and then there is kissing. There is sex and there is sex. Bill Clinton said he “did not have sex” with Monica Lewinsky. Again: apologies if I misunderstand.

Generally with this stuff: when in doubt – don’t.

 

[YinYangMom]

Here’s the deal…from what I’ve come to understand…

‘being’ a homosexual (specifically being born that way) is not a sin (I’ve known a few).

those who ‘choose’ to be homosexual (I’ve known a few) are making a conscious decision to live out a homosexual lifestyle.

It is the homosexual ‘act’ which is a sin.

That means those born homosexual are challenged to live with the condition through a celibate/chaste life.

Those who are not born into it sin by ‘choosing’ to live the active lifestyle.

Chastity for heterosexuals and homosexuals is the same call…we live our lives for God…we respect the bodies God gave us…we protect our mind, body and soul against temptation.

So when they say ‘everything except sex’ then they are already admitting the ‘couple’ has entered into a commitment on whatever level to share their life with a member of the same sex. There is a sharing of one’s heart, one’s love, one’s desires, one’s needs with someone of the same sex. This is an intimate relationship.

The intent is not toward chastity and toward God, instead it is to go as far as they can without crossing the line. Since God knows the intentions of one’s heart this ‘arrangement’ would also be sinful.

Put the situation in a heterosexual context and the sin becomes evident: a single male lusts and longs for an intimate relationship with a single woman…If the two engage in conversations, develop emotions and behave in such a manner indicative of an intimate relationship but do not get together ‘physically’ they are still sinning. It’s not as grave a sin as if they did indeed connect, but it’s a sin nonetheless.

This, again, is just my understanding based upon reading Humanae Vitae, Theology of the Body for Beginners, and various other church articles on the subject. If anyone can help clarify my understanding please post away, I’d welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Here’s the deal…from what I’ve come to understand…

‘being’ a homosexual (specifically being born that way) is not a sin (I’ve known a few).

those who ‘choose’ to be homosexual (I’ve known a few) are making a conscious decision to live out a homosexual lifestyle.

It is the homosexual ‘act’ which is a sin.

That means those born homosexual are challenged to live with the condition through a celibate/chaste life.

Those who are not born into it sin by ‘choosing’ to live the active lifestyle.

Chastity for heterosexuals and homosexuals is the same call…we live our lives for God…we respect the bodies God gave us…we protect our mind, body and soul against temptation.

So when they say ‘everything except sex’ then they are already admitting the ‘couple’ has entered into a commitment on whatever level to share their life with a member of the same sex. There is a sharing of one’s heart, one’s love, one’s desires, one’s needs with someone of the same sex. This is an intimate relationship.

The intent is not toward chastity and toward God, instead it is to go as far as they can without crossing the line. Since God knows the intentions of one’s heart this ‘arrangement’ would also be sinful.

Put the situation in a heterosexual context and the sin becomes evident: a single male lusts and longs for an intimate relationship with a single woman…If the two engage in conversations, develop emotions and behave in such a manner indicative of an intimate relationship but do not get together ‘physically’ they are still sinning. It’s not as grave a sin as if they did indeed connect, but it’s a sin nonetheless.

This, again, is just my understanding based upon reading Humanae Vitae, Theology of the Body for Beginners, and various other church articles on the subject. If anyone can help clarify my understanding please post away, I’d welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut!

Except no one is born that way according to the current research, despite what they want you to think.

 

[AuntMartha]

Valtiel:

I suppose kissing, holding hands, being intimate you know all that relationship stuff just minus any and all sexual activity…

A guy gazing lovingly into another gay guy’s eyes? Two gay guys, arms about each others shoulders, hip to hip, walking along the beach at sunset? Is this the sort of things two guys who are just friends do? Or anyone who is not romantically involved? What is the intention behind the actions? Gay love, or friendship? If it’s simply friendship, two guys are not going to be all over each other.

 

[thessalonian]

Valtiel:

There is no sex involved…
I get this a lot actually that if a same sex couple go through everything in love except sex, then it’s okay…
What in the world do I say to this???

The scriptures say iff a man lusts after a woman he has committed adultery in his heart. (see Matt 6) Therefore it is not just sex that is sinful. I would assume that the same applies with someone who has a homosexual attraction. They could lust without engaging in any sexual activity. Further it seems to me that such a person is playing with fire. The Church says that homosexuality is a disorder (regardless of if it is genetic or not. Genetic does not mean normal for there are genetic cancers and other diseases). Therefore it would behove the person with such a disorder to not act on it in any manner.

Let’s take a similar situation. A man is married. That is ordered. Now would it be okay for him to be kissing another woman if there was no sexual activity between them. Let’s say that he was very dilligent in keeping his mind from lusting. Seems like there is a problem.

Blessings

 

[space_ghost]

…how can you be “almost pregnant”?

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Jesus says that if any man [meaning man or women] looking upon another woman or man] with lust in their heart is guilty of commiting adultery. If that be the case there are no adulterers getting in into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[YinYangMom]

Valtiel:

So then kissing your mother is sexual!?!?!?!

Seriously kissing may lead to sex, but it’s not sexual activity itself…
Not to my knowledge anyway…

When one kisses as an expression of conjugal love…that’s sexual.

We kiss our mothers, fathers, relatives, friends without any sexual intention behind it. THAT kiss is one of affection and respect…besides, it’s usually a kiss on the cheek or a quick peck.

Two men or two women who kiss mouth to mouth are expressing their intent to be one of physical intimacy. If they ‘restrain’ themselves by kissing on the cheek only, then the intent is not as obvious and they and God would be the only ones to know whether or not it’s a sin.

I don’t think those born homosexual should have to live alone. I would like to believe that mature, Catholic homosexuals could live together as a support system for each other as they try to live the life God has called for them. They carry a particularly heavy cross. So just as there are room mates in college - purely platonic - I’d like to believe there could be platonic homosexual living arrangements. But society is so quick to pass judgement it is very difficult.

One of my daughter’s best friends believes she was born homosexual. We’ve known her and her family since she was in first grade, but as the hormones kicked in this girl became more and mroe convinced internally that she is a guy in a woman’s body. She wear’s men’s clothes, she wears her hair in a male buzz cut, so there’s no hiding her identity struggle. While my daughter and the other girls in their group are definitely heterosexual, they are certainly descriminated against at school through inuendo.

At 14, the girl has not expressed intimate intentions toward anyone - male or female - so I’m rushing against time to learn as much as I can about how to help her before that part kicks in. I explain the position of the church to my daughter and while she gets it, it makes her sad to think her friend can never know love. The only way I know to respond is to tell her she can always know love - the love of her family, her friends and of God, she’ll just never know intimate love, but that’s just the path God has set for her. I encourage my daughter to help her respond to God’s call.

My heart breaks for this girl. Please include her in your prayers.

 

[YinYangMom]

buffalo:

Except no one is born that way according to the current research, despite what they want you to think.

It has nothing to do with what I think or what you think…science is science, and while there are scientists ready to ‘prove’ it is not biological, there are scientists ready to prove otherwise. Dear Abby named a couple just the other day:

" If I did not believe with all my heart that what I wrote is true, I wouldn’t have put my thoughts on paper. Homosexuality is simply a variant of sexual orientation. Those who claim it is “unnatural” should direct their attention to Dr. Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University with a Ph.D. from Harvard, who states that more than 300 vertebrate species have been found to practice homosexuality. (A visit to any zoo might confirm it.) And while one gene may not be responsible for this variant, Italian researcher Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua notes that research findings point to there being more than one “gay gene,” and that the genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men are also linked to increased fertility in women.
I stand by my reply."

Dear Abby, Chicago Tribune, May 11, 2005

Now all this really tells me is MAN does not know definitively one way or another - yet. But apparently there is scientific evidence supporting both claims.

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi Valtiel!

 From hat I have learned on my brief membership at the forums, is that the couple in your example still sin even if there is no sexual activity between them. The sin they invoke is the sin of scandal. Put simply, this couple leads others to believe that they are living a sinful lifestyle. Even on this thread many have expressed skepticism that the relationship is truly non-sexual. If a man is known to experience same-sex attractions, then he invokes this sin whenever he has any type of close, personal relationship with a member of his own gender.

So you see, the homosexual condition is completely different from a lustful heterosexual condition. In addition to refraining from sexual contact with a member of his own gender, he must also refrain from any close, personal relationship with anyone (including a member of the opposite gender since this would invoke heterosexual scandal). The homosexual’s chastity can take no advantage of the friendship that the Catechism says it would blossom in (2347).

 

[javelin]

YinYangMom:

Here’s the deal…from what I’ve come to understand…

‘being’ a homosexual (specifically being born that way) is not a sin (I’ve known a few).

those who ‘choose’ to be homosexual (I’ve known a few) are making a conscious decision to live out a homosexual lifestyle.

It is the homosexual ‘act’ which is a sin.

That means those born homosexual are challenged to live with the condition through a celibate/chaste life.

Those who are not born into it sin by ‘choosing’ to live the active lifestyle.

Chastity for heterosexuals and homosexuals is the same call…we live our lives for God…we respect the bodies God gave us…we protect our mind, body and soul against temptation.

So when they say ‘everything except sex’ then they are already admitting the ‘couple’ has entered into a commitment on whatever level to share their life with a member of the same sex. There is a sharing of one’s heart, one’s love, one’s desires, one’s needs with someone of the same sex. This is an intimate relationship.

The intent is not toward chastity and toward God, instead it is to go as far as they can without crossing the line. Since God knows the intentions of one’s heart this ‘arrangement’ would also be sinful.

Put the situation in a heterosexual context and the sin becomes evident: a single male lusts and longs for an intimate relationship with a single woman…If the two engage in conversations, develop emotions and behave in such a manner indicative of an intimate relationship but do not get together ‘physically’ they are still sinning. It’s not as grave a sin as if they did indeed connect, but it’s a sin nonetheless.

This, again, is just my understanding based upon reading Humanae Vitae, Theology of the Body for Beginners, and various other church articles on the subject. If anyone can help clarify my understanding please post away, I’d welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut!

I think this is the best explanation thus far, and one I completely agree with. It touches on the foundation of WHY homosexual acts are sinful, and uses a holistic approach to the nature and morality of human sexuality, and skillfully avoids the pit-trap of whether or not homosexuality is genetic (it’s a pit trap because it really doesn’t matter).

Thank you, YinYangMom.

Peace,
javelin

 

[oat_soda]

‘being’ a homosexual (specifically being born that way) is not a sin (I’ve known a few).

those who ‘choose’ to be homosexual (I’ve known a few) are making a conscious decision to live out a homosexual lifestyle.

there is absolutely no evidence that people are born with a sexual orientation. the latest evidence shows that most people who practice homosexuality become heterosexual life and that the environment is the controling factor.

2nd, since lust is a disordered desire to have sex, and homosexuality is considered disordered, then objectivley speaking, homosexual desire is always sinful and evil. this is because homosexuality desire is inheirently evil. sexual attraction between heterosexuals is not inheriently evil. it depends on the circumstances.

Now all this really tells me is MAN does not know definitively one way or another - yet. But apparently there is scientific evidence supporting both claims.

there is no scientific evidence. these scientists have agendas and already had their minds made up before they looked at the data. this is very common in academia and in the sciences.

more than 300 vertebrate species have been found to practice homosexuality

this is a ridiculous statement. animals are incapable of the homosexual act primarily because they lack an intellect. i am certain that animals do noy seek the large intestines of other animals for copulation. but to compare the actions of homosexuals with animals is quite appropriate in a sense.

and skillfully avoids the pit-trap of whether or not homosexuality is genetic (it’s a pit trap because it really doesn’t matter).

there is no genetic link!!! what is true is that physically, men belong with women. this is all that matters. man is not made for animals, but for his wife. it’s all quite clear in genesis. our bodies and our whole genetic make up proves that we are not born homosexuals.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

oat soda:

this is a ridiculous statement. animals are incapable of the homosexual act primarily because they lack an intellect. i am certain that animals do noy seek the large intestines of other animals for copulation…

I haven’t read all the latest research, but I think the so-called “homosexuality” among animals is quite a different thing from human homosexual behavior. E.g. researchers working with fruit flies have found certain mutations that cause male fruit flies to do their little fruit fly mating dance for other males. But to call this “homosexuality” and to equate this with something as complicated as human sexual behavior is quite wrong-headed.