I tend to agree that they wouldn’t go but they might. As it’s not their home they couldn’t easily object. But as they consider it sinful they might not go as they could consider that condoning their son’s relationship.I suspect that the parents would not go. It seems that if they won’t allow the son and his partner to stay overnight at their house unless they are in separate rooms, they would be equally as against staying overnight at the son’s house unless the son and his partner agreed to sleep in separate rooms while they were there. Maybe not though, I don’t know.
We welcome our son and his partner when they visit and they are in the same room when they stay overnight. It seems ridiculous to pretend that they are ‘just friends’ or whatever other fiction would be maintained by separate bedrooms. I know most on this forum do not agree.
Your paragraph contradicts your second.And just quickly on the ridiculous analogy of an obese relative. The clear difference is that the allowing the sharing of a room, even if not guaranteeing the occurrence of a mortal sin, is very clearly putting the couple in a near occasion of sin, whereas having an obese relative sleepover would do no such thing.
An argument might be made that offering an obese relative a meal might put him/her in a near occasion of sin and therefore you could refuse to feed the fat relative, but that example wouldn’t actually hold up because eating isn’t mortally sinful, even for an obese person. Whereas sex between a same sex or an unmarried Hetero couple is always obectively sinful.
The difference is they’re treating the homosexual couple differently. If the parents would say “I am not comfortable wit having ANY couple sleep together in the same thing”, although bizarre, that rule is fair. BUT when you tell everyone can sleep together EXCEPT the gay couple, then there’s a problem.I don’t understand why the son won’t compromise and say well you let us come and stay, you just want us in separate rooms. I in fact have been in simuilar circumstances. When I was a uni student I shared a house with my girlfriend and we slept together. If we visited my parents we had to sleep in separate rooms. My mother strongly objected to premarital sex. We respected my mother’s wishes. It didn’t cause any great upset. I don’t think there’s any reason why this gentleman should have estranged himself from his parents over this issue. That is very, very sad.
Count your lucky stars madam, you are very, very, VERY lucky to have a son so open about being treated like that, I know personally that if my mother refused to treat me like a son, I wouldn’t treat her like my mother.I am also the mother of a same sex attracted son(ssa) who is living the lifestyle. I love him more than I can say and it is because I love him so much that I will never allow him and his partner to share a bed under my roof. Thankfully, unlike another poster in this thread, he respects my views and would never push that on me. He understands, even if he disagrees, that it is out of love that I will always stand firm on that. Even if he didn’t understand and chose to treat me as the previous poster has treated his parents I would still stand firm, because, as a parent, I could never cooperate in something that would further separate my child from God. Choosing to allow a ssa child and his/her partner, or indeed an unmarried heterosexual child and their partner to share a room in my house would be an affirmation of their sinful choices. No matter the age of a child, a parent’s approval always carries weight. I know that myself with my own father. It would be a grave shirking of my duty as a parent to affirm a sinful relationship by allowing the sharing of a bedroom in my home.
Gluttony is a sin, I agree. Why do you say it’s mortal? Two people in a bed may not itself be sinful but it may lead to the occasion of sin. Let’s look at this from another perspective: if you woke up one morning and found your spouse in another person’s bed would you think oh they just slept in the same bed. there’s nothing suspicious or inapproproiate about that. It could be that the two men would just sleep. But it is as in appropriate as for an unmarried man and woman to share the same bed and as two straight adults in an extramarital affair.Gluttony is a mortal sin.
The couple mentioned in the OP sleeping in the same bed is not inherently sinful.
I have just re-read the OP. They only talk about their son and his partner. How can you say they’re treating homosexuals differently?The difference is they’re treating the homosexual couple differently.
They are only talking about their son. I don’t know how you have formed the idea they’d allow others to share a room such as an unmarried man and woman.If the parents would say “I am not comfortable wit having ANY couple sleep together in the same thing”, although bizarre, that rule is fair. BUT when you tell everyone can sleep together EXCEPT the gay couple, then there’s a problem.
I am sorry to jump in here, but I need to say that, in many families (and I speak from experience) a lot of hurt has to he swallowed in order to maintain relationships. Ethan, your feelings are hurt, and I am truly sorry for that. However, Catholics are taught not to be sentimentalists. Sentimentalism, as defined by Elizabeth Scalia, is “an upbeat over emphasis on the inherent goodness of mankind that judges what is good or evil according to how well it accords with our feelings, or the feelings of people we want to impress.” We are not a religion of “if it feels good, do it.” Rather we are a religion or moral absolutes. There is a right and wrong.Suppose that you and your wife are obese, and your Catholic children invited you to their home for a Christmas dinner, along with several other family members. At the end of the night, after everyone is escorted to their rooms, your child turns to you and says “mom, dad, I believe gluttony is gravely sinful, and as such you’re going to have to find a motel or hotel to stay at for the night”. For arguments sake, leaving gluttony out of it, what if your child said “Listen, mom, dad, I don’t want my kids to be influenced by obesity and feel it’s right to eat a lot and thus gain excess weight, therefore I respectfully ask you to stay away from them, and please find a hotel to sleep at for the night.”
Just curious, what would you say? Would you hug and kiss your child only to say “No problem! Your house, your rules! Love ya, see you next Christmas!”, OR…would you leave the house fuming and angry?
The title of the thread said “Dealing with a Gay family member”, I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t be an issue if the son was heterosexual.I have just re-read the OP. They only talk about their son and his partner. How can you say they’re treating homosexuals differently?
Whenever I hear someone say “gay agenda”, I can’t help but feel sorry for them for wasting away their lives listening to talk radio or Fox news. But in any case, gay people have an “agenda” of equal rights, the reason people are hating on you is because you’re actively seeking to demean who they are and the rights they deserve. Marriage did not originate as a religious term, yet religious people think they own it, but that is for another topic.One has chosen to act on his SSA and one has not–he remains prayerfully chaste. I will not comment if either were born that way, as I do not think that is conclusive. However, I will leave you with this. I have received, in my personal experience, far more hatred and bullying thrown at me and my husband by people supporting the gay agenda than most any other demographic I have encountered. I would be very careful about pointing fingers…the bullying goes both ways.
There are many other reasons a person might be overweight besides a genetic problem or gluttony.Is gluttony not one of the deadly sins, or are we cafeteria Catholics now? If you’re fat and it isn’t genetic, you are just as much of a sinner as a practicing homosexual, no?
You can only guess that. Neither of us knows for sure. The title of the thread is relevant because that’s what they’re discussing. Only the OP can say whether there would be an issue if the son was a heterosexual. It was an issue for my parents. My girlfirend and I accepted their decision. I don’t see why the parents should be criticised for standing by their religious beliefs. There is a lot of this problem in the UK. There is a law that says homosexuals must be treated equally. For most things I don’t have an issue with this. But, there have been court cases where a couple who owned a B&B were practising Christians. They didn’t want homosexuals staying. The court said they were wrong. That creates a very difficult situation as I’m sure you can see. It leads to the question: who’s rights are greater? It seems to me in the UK courts it’s now often happening that when it comes to promoting the rights of Christians and any other group the other group wins. Why should the rights of Christians be less than the rights of any other group within society?The title of the thread said “Dealing with a Gay family member”, I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t be an issue if the son was heterosexual.
I’m not angry, this is a discussion. I’ve read Robert George’s paper (which you dishonestly stated was secular), neither it nor you can definitively tell me where marriage originated or debate the thousands of changes that the tradition had incurred.Ethan,
You know nothing about me nor what I seek or do not seek to do. Those are your conclusions about me. However, I will end my portion by saying that there is a very good secular paper by Robert George entitled, “What is Marriage?” I think you are too angry to read it now, but I hope you would consider it some day. Peace.
If the B&B didn’t want black people staying, and the court said it was wrong…would it have been an issue to you?But, there have been court cases where a couple who owned a B&B were practising Christians. They didn’t want homosexuals staying. The court said they were wrong.
By calling the comparison absurd is to call God’s word absurd. I have never witnessed a Catholic prevent an overweight or obese person from eating dessert at a table, despite it being sinful and gluttonous.But this is an absurd comparison because gluttony is a sin of degree. Eating is not itself disordered. Homosexual relationships are.
Where do you want to take the discussion? It’s about whether Christians can accept a sin being committed in their home. Do you believe that it is a sin to be black? I am sure you don’t. On what grounds could the B&B owners say we are not accepting black people? None that are valid. Are you saying that what Christians believe is invalid? Do you believe that a Christian’s rights are less than homosexual people? It doesn’t help to try and keep changing the basis of the discussion. I understand that you think homosexual people should have equal rights. If a homosexual person wanted to go in to a shop and buy items sold in that shop I would be very angry if the shop said we don’t serve homosexuals. I would be angered if someone was refused a job because of their homosexuality, or if they were denied access to healthcare. I am not anti-homosexual. I am anti-sin. It is my belief and the belief of many Christians that homosexual sex is sinful. That is where we probably disagree. I think I’ve got a right to not put people in my home in a situation where they can with my complicitness commit mortal sin. If I can borrow an example similar to what someone else used. Alcoholism is probably sinful on the grounds of gluttony. It would not be wrong to let an alcoholic in my house. It would be wrong to sit an alcoholic down next to a table with lots of bottles of alcohol. i would not have a problem with a homosexual man and his partner coming to my house for dinner. I wouldn’t let them sleep together in a bedroom in my house. You would argue that they have the right to be treated as a couple and sleep together. Are their rights greater than mine? Should I give up my beliefs so they can exercise their rights? Why are their rights greater than mine in my house?If the B&B didn’t want black people staying, and the court said it was wrong…would it have been an issue to you?
You have to understand something, because you keep making this about you. Let me get this out of the way, I couldn’t care less what you did or didn’t do in your own house. If you wanted to only allow gazelles in your house for dinner then that is your choice.Where do you want to take the discussion? It’s about whether Christians can accept a sin being committed in their home. Do you believe that it is a sin to be black? I am sure you don’t. On what grounds could the B&B owners say we are not accepting black people? None that are valid. Are you saying that what Christians believe is invalid? Do you believe that a Christian’s rights are less than homosexual people? It doesn’t help to try and keep changing the basis of the discussion. I understand that you think homosexual people should have equal rights. If a homosexual person wanted to go in to a shop and buy items sold in that shop I would be very angry if the shop said we don’t serve homosexuals. I would be angered if someone was refused a job because of their homosexuality, or if they were denied access to healthcare. I am not anti-homosexual. I am anti-sin. It is my belief and the belief of many Christians that homosexual sex is sinful. That is where we probably disagree. I think I’ve got a right to not put people in my home in a situation where they can with my complicitness commit mortal sin. If I can borrow an example similar to what someone else used. Alcoholism is probably sinful on the grounds of gluttony. It would not be wrong to let an alcoholic in my house. It would be wrong to sit an alcoholic down next to a table with lots of bottles of alcohol. i would not have a problem with a homosexual man and his partner coming to my house for dinner. I wouldn’t let them sleep together in a bedroom in my house. You would argue that they have the right to be treated as a couple and sleep together. Are their rights greater than mine? Should I give up my beliefs so they can exercise their rights? Why are their rights greater than mine in my house?
Have you spoken out against the Boy Scouts of America for denying homosexuals leadership positions? I’m assuming you’re against that policy?I would be angered if someone was refused a job because of their homosexuality
It seems you do not understand the sin of glutony. For an overweight person to eat a dessert is not by itself sinful or gluttonous. Gluttony is excess. Eating a single dessert is not excess.By calling the comparison absurd is to call God’s word absurd. I have never witnessed a Catholic prevent an overweight or obese person from eating dessert at a table, despite it being sinful and gluttonous.
The point of the comparison is to illustrate the absolute hypocrisy in people choose to enforce some sins while turn a blind eye to others. Remember:
James 2:10
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
If that was true, there would be a problem. But the BSA has not denied homosexuals leadership positions so your analogy (again) is flawed.Have you spoken out against the Boy Scouts of America for denying homosexuals leadership positions? I’m assuming you’re against that policy?
So why be against a homosexual couple sleeping together if they don’t act on it?It seems you do not understand the sin of glutony. For an overweight person to eat a dessert is not by itself sinful or gluttonous. Gluttony is excess. Eating a single dessert is not excess.
Except they are:If that was true, there would be a problem. But the BSA has not denied homosexuals leadership positions so your analogy (again) is flawed.
What are you making this about? I am trying to give you examples. I’ve even asked you a number of questions. You have ignored them. I think I can make inferrences from your silence on those matters.You have to understand something, because you keep making this about you. Let me get this out of the way, I couldn’t care less what you did or didn’t do in your own house. If you wanted to only allow gazelles in your house for dinner then that is your choice.
How am I being a hypocrit? You are making a point I too have made but which you have repeatedly ignored. I am a Christian. I have a right to my beliefs. You state homosexual people have a right to live the way they do. You believe that a homosexual couple should stay in the B&B run by the Christian owners. That is saying your values are better and thereby more important. I have asked and will ask again who’s rights are more important? Because when it comes to the example of the homosexual couple wanting to stay at the B&B run by the Christian owners there is a clash over who’s rights are put first. I don’t see where or how we can reach agreement here. I would say that the Chrisitan’s rights should be put first whereas you would say the homosexuals rights should come first How does that make me a hypocrit and you not?All I’m saying is, don’t be a hypocrite about it. Why is it okay for a B&B to discriminate against a gay couple, but not a black couple? If your only answer is “it’s against my religion”, then what you’re ultimately doing is saying your values are better (and thereby more important) than that who’s values come from something other than the Bible.
I haven’t spoken out about this because I don’t live in America. I know nothing about this issue. Because I don’t know anything about it I’m not going to make any comment. As I don’t know the details or the reasons given on either side I couldn’t possibly have a point of view.Have you spoken out against the Boy Scouts of America for denying homosexuals leadership positions? I’m assuming you’re against that policy?
If they show up as a “couple” and ask to share a bed, they** are **acting on it. The sin of acting on homosexual inclination isn’t limited to sex acts.So why be against a homosexual couple sleeping together if they don’t act on it?
Except they are:
It doesn’t appear that you read the very link you posted. The BSA doesn’t care if someone is homosexual. What they do not want is people who are openly announcing their homosexuality. They are not hiring these individuals because of their actions, not because of thier orientation. The cases the Wiki article cited were someone who went to a “gay” resort and another who attempted to marry a same-sex partner. Those individuals where denied further employment due to thier actions.