Dealing with the Gay family member at Christmas

[TheRealJuliane]

The church does not really view homosexuality as a sin or anything bad anymore, so as long as they are not married then it is not a problem. Marriage between two men (or women) is what the church really frowns upon.

Not true at all! Homosexual acts are always gravely sinful. We love the sinner but still hate the sin. We can be kind to those with same sex attraction but not sanction the act that makes the attraction into a sinful behavior and lifestyle.

 

[andrewp13]

Not true at all! Homosexual acts are always gravely sinful. We love the sinner but still hate the sin. We can be kind to those with same sex attraction but not sanction the act that makes the attraction into a sinful behavior and lifestyle.

This is untrue. Take a look at this document.

Excerpt: “A homosexual person can have an abiding relationship with another homosexual without genital sexual expression. Indeed the deeper need of any human is for friendship rather than genital expression.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/upload/minstry-persons-homosexual-inclination-2006.pdf

Basically, homosexuals can be “together,” as long as it is without sexual acts & marriage.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This is untrue. Take a look at this document.

Excerpt: “A homosexual person can have an abiding relationship with another homosexual without genital sexual expression. Indeed the deeper need of any human is for friendship rather than genital expression.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/upload/minstry-persons-homosexual-inclination-2006.pdf

Basically, homosexuals can be “together,” as long as it is without sexual acts & marriage.

And that is NOT what you stated originally. Also, your quote is not from the CCC.

From the document you quoted:

"By its very nature, the sexual act finds its proper fulfillment in the marital bond. Any
sexual act that takes place outside the bond of marriage does not fulfill the proper ends of human sexuality. Such an act is not directed toward the expression of marital love with an openness to new life. It is disordered in that it is not in accord with this twofold end and is thus morally wrong. “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”7

 

[andrewp13]

And that is NOT what you stated originally. Also, your quote is not from the CCC.

That is exactly what I stated in my original post, just without the sex part, but that should be assumed considering that’s forbidden outside of marriage for *anyone. * The quote is in the document. It is taken from the Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee.

Not here to fight, just wanted to state some facts. I don’t know when the last time you looked into this type of stuff, but the church has changed their views. It is not right for homosexuals to be x-ed from the faith.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That is exactly what I stated in my original post, just without the sex part, but that should be assumed considering that’s forbidden outside of marriage for *anyone. * The quote is in the document. It is taken from the Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee.

Not here to fight, just wanted to state some facts. I don’t know when the last time you looked into this type of stuff, but the church has changed their views. It is not right for homosexuals to be x-ed from the faith.

If you read what it says, it uses the word “friendship”. A romantic relationship is still not approved.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That is exactly what I stated in my original post, just without the sex part, but that should be assumed considering that’s forbidden outside of marriage for *anyone. * The quote is in the document. It is taken from the Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee.

Not here to fight, just wanted to state some facts. I don’t know when the last time you looked into this type of stuff, but the church has changed their views. It is not right for homosexuals to be x-ed from the faith.

You either misread the document or purposely misquoted it. The passage you cited is directed at FRIENDSHIPS with same-sex attracted people within the Church, NOT at approving of chaste homosexual relationships.

THE CHURCH HAS NEVER CHANGED HER VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALITY. IT CANNOT. You need to stop stating that as if it were a fact.

 

[andrewp13]

You either misread the document or purposely misquoted it. The passage you cited is directed at FRIENDSHIPS with same-sex attracted people within the Church, NOT at approving of chaste homosexual relationships.

THE CHURCH HAS NEVER CHANGED HER VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALITY. IT CANNOT. You need to stop stating that as if it were a fact.

No need to get offended here. I don’t know your age, or care to know your age, but I’m only 16 so perhaps my “facts” are missing some validation. I’m just sharing what I’ve learned and my understanding. Me not being homosexual, this doesn’t really affect me at all so I suppose I don’t have much knowledge on the topic. BUT, I must ask, isn’t a friendship essentially the same as a “relationship” if there is no 'intimacy" and marriage to long for? Basically if they are following the guidelines to a friendship between two homosexuals, they’d rather CONSIDER it a relationship. Not sure if that would be sinful or not but yeah…

 

[mannyo249]

You either misread the document or purposely misquoted it. The passage you cited is directed at FRIENDSHIPS with same-sex attracted people within the Church, NOT at approving of chaste homosexual relationships.

THE CHURCH HAS NEVER CHANGED HER VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALITY. IT CANNOT. You need to stop stating that as if it were a fact.

wow, users like you are the reason half of me was telling me not to join this site. have some respect. remember what this forum is FOR. i’m embarrassed for you. i’m trying to be as respectful as I can, but posts like this really throw me off.

Andrew-- don’t let posts like his/her’s get to you too much. you are young and you have so much wisdom as I can see from your posts. keep in mind we are called to follow Christ, and he would NOT verbally attack you like that. cheers God bless.

 

[Seeker1961]

wow, users like you are the reason half of me was telling me not to join this site. have some respect. remember what this forum is FOR. i’m embarrassed for you. i’m trying to be as respectful as I can, but posts like this really throw me off.

Andrew-- don’t let posts like his/her’s get to you too much. you are young and you have so much wisdom as I can see from your posts. keep in mind we are called to follow Christ, and he would NOT verbally attack you like that. cheers God bless.

I’m glad you BOTH chose to join and hope you both stay. Not everyone here will be more interested in displaying their knowledge of the faith than in actually living it.

 

[mannyo249]

I’m glad you BOTH chose to join and hope you both stay. Not everyone here will be more interested in displaying their knowledge of the faith than in actually living it.

Glad to hear that, thank you! God bless!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The church does not really view homosexuality as a sin or anything bad anymore, so as long as they are not married then it is not a problem. Marriage between two men (or women) is what the church really frowns upon.

To remind you, this was your original statement. You were in the wrong and should retract this statement.

If you don’t know anything about the topic, then don’t make these assertions.

 

[coachdennis]

No need to get offended here. I don’t know your age, or care to know your age, but I’m only 16 so perhaps my “facts” are missing some validation. I’m just sharing what I’ve learned and my understanding. Me not being homosexual, this doesn’t really affect me at all so I suppose I don’t have much knowledge on the topic. BUT, I must ask, isn’t a friendship essentially the same as a “relationship” if there is no 'intimacy" and marriage to long for? Basically if they are following the guidelines to a friendship between two homosexuals, they’d rather CONSIDER it a relationship. Not sure if that would be sinful or not but yeah…

Andrew,

Sometimes wording can be confusing. What others are trying to say that the sexual act out of marriage is not allowed, whether the couple is gay or straight.

A friendship may be called by definition a type of elationship, but when most adults use the phrase “I am in a relationship” then do not mean “I have a friendship with someone” – otherwise they would say “this is my friend”. The implication of the word “relationship” implies intimacy.

If you look at the OP it was concerning a specific situation. A gay child is coming home for Christmas with a significant other and about the two sharing a room. The consensus is that the parents have a right in their home to set the rules and that if they do not allow couples (either straight or gay) who are unmarried to share a bedroom they must communicate this to the couple and stand by their moral principles

By your own admission you are 16 and don’t have much knowledge on the subject. Nothing wrong with that. But as a priest once said to me, “God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason” Think of your fingers typing on the keyboard as your online “mouth”. In other words, think and pause before opening your “mouth”.

Does this mean you should never challenge or ask questions? Of course not – but there are ways to ask and challenge and *accept *the feedback you receive. There are primarily adults on this board and if you are going to participate then you need to think about how you are presenting yourself when you say things like “I don’t know your age, and I don’t care to your know age” Frankly, you sounded like a smart-mouth rather than a person honestly seeking clarification. Is everyone on this forum perfect? No, of course not – but most try to be civil to one another.

Ask yourself, who would you want to spend time with online or in person - a smart mouth or a person seeking clarification?

BTW, being 16 is not an excuse

With attempt to be charitable,

Coachdennis

 

[Burdensome1]

OP - the Christian view is that what homosexuals do to each other behind closed doors is abuse. It doesn’t matter that this view is more or less popular decade to decade or that some Church prelates forget it from time to time.

You should not let anyone abuse your child in your home where you have power to stop it.

You should always look for opportunities to end this abuse even where you have no power.

The fact is that this behavior could very well cost your child their soul. That soul is worth everything, and you may have to sacrifice a lot, including a lot of simple family happiness, in your quest to save it. The Holy Family was Holy, not Happy.

Ignore everyone who places sentimentality above holiness. Frankly that is Satan talking.

Good luck.

 

[dshix]

The church does not really view homosexuality as a sin or anything bad anymore, so as long as they are not married then it is not a problem. Marriage between two men (or women) is what the church really frowns upon.

That is incorrect. The church frowns upon all homosexual acts, as they are immoral in an of themselves. The idea of “marriage” between homosexuals is a farce; it is giving holy authority to something absolutely false.

 

[dshix]

wow, users like you are the reason half of me was telling me not to join this site. have some respect. remember what this forum is FOR. i’m embarrassed for you. i’m trying to be as respectful as I can, but posts like this really throw me off.

Andrew-- don’t let posts like his/her’s get to you too much. you are young and you have so much wisdom as I can see from your posts. keep in mind we are called to follow Christ, and he would NOT verbally attack you like that. cheers God bless.

A statement like this is passive aggressive. When andrew stated something contrary to church teaching, and “backed it up” with a source, and then further persisted, Juliane could have done nothing less than refuting it in the way she did in order to avoid the misinformation of other Catholics. You are just piling on and supporting a person who is stating an erroneous belief.

 

[Burdensome1]

A statement like this is passive aggressive.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that passive-aggressive people are posting in an heated debate about homosexuality.



I’d be equally shocked to learn that a propensity of posters in a gay thread had weird haircuts, STD’s, and tattoos.

 

[dshix]

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that passive-aggressive people are posting in an heated debate about homosexuality.



I’d be equally shocked to learn that a propensity of posters in a gay thread had weird haircuts, STD’s, and tattoos.

LOL

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

If you read what it says, it uses the word “friendship”. A romantic relationship is still not approved.

Depends on what you mean by romantic, 600 years ago a number of things we associate with romantic were common in friendships

To remind you, this was your original statement. You were in the wrong and should retract this statement.

If you don’t know anything about the topic, then don’t make these assertions.

He said homosexuality not homosexual acts…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Depends on what you mean by romantic, 600 years ago a number of things we associate with romantic were common in friendships.

We don’t live 600 years ago. I think people nowadays are smart enough to differentiate the difference between what constitutes romance nowadays vs. what constitutes friendship.

 

[bilop]

He said homosexuality not homosexual acts…

Homosexuality general implies living the lifestyle, including the sex. Church groups generally use SSA (same sex attraction) to indicate the inclination, rather than the act.

God Bless