Gay but not feeling called to religious life or celibacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter roseproject
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie said:
normal therapy might be used to help someone increase one’s heterosexual tendencies and reducing one’s homosexual tendencies
Click to expand...
Annie said:
I don’t know if that ever happens or anything, but I find it disturbing that the two are conflated and both called wrong.
Click to expand...
There is no therapy that can decrease somebody’s homosexual tendencies or increase somebody’s heterosexual tendencies. Human sexuality cannot be changed in that way. And nor should it be changed in that way. If people choose to refrain from certain sexual activities for religious reasons, that is fine if it is their own choice to do so. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with having homosexual orientation. All reputable mental health experts now agree that being gay or bisexual is not an illness. If something is not an illness, it does not have to be changed. Aversion therapy with vomiting and electric shocks is just one of the more extreme manifestations of this kind of therapy. Any therapy that aims to change somebody’s sexual orientation is inherently wrong because it is not a disorder and it cannot be changed.
 
Exactly. Not only is a person’s sexual orientation impossible to change, no matter what method is used, but teaching people that something is “wrong” with them over something they did not choose and cannot control is a major contributing factor to depression and suicide in the LGBT+ community. That kind of thinking literally kills people. It’s on the same level of absurdity as telling someone they’re “wrong” for being left-handed or for having red hair.
 
The attraction is objectively disordered and the act is intrinsically disordered. This language perfectly describes God’s position on the matter.
Good enough for me.
 
Do you find fault with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
 
Last edited:
On this, yes I do. This is a scientific matter, not a theological one, as numerous people here have noted. And the Catechism, which I do respect, is not the infallible voice of God.
 
I’m happy to discuss this with members of the hierarchy (and have–and, by the way, not all of them agree with what you insist is the “infallible voice of God”). But the hierarchy is not the entirety of the Church.
 
Why do you want legitimization of sodomy and / or the unholy desire for sodomy in the Catholic Church?
 
Last edited:
So I ask this as a legit question, not a means to debate or anything. I genuinely wish to understand better this viewpoint. 🙂

It seems to me that sexual attraction from a purely biological standpoint serves the purpose to attract one creature to a suitable sexual partner, and create the drive to reproduce and create healthy offspring.

When the reproductive system fails to function and conception or the egg or pregnancy fail to produce an offspring, it’s considered a disorder of the system since it’s failing to function it’s purpose (creating offspring). And, in humans, this is considered ethical to treat or work to change so that infertility can be overcome and produce offspring.

So, when the mechanism of sexual attraction fails to draw together two partners suitable to produce offspring (by being attracted to the same sex, those who have not reached sexual maturity, a different species, or some other situation where conception or a viable egg or pregnancy is impossible) why is that not considered a disorder owing to the fact that the natural purpose of sexual attraction is not functioning to its end goal in reproduction? Again, from a purely biological standpoint, setting human ethics aside since this phenomena can be observed in animals as well.

Thanks in advance for helping me understand this better. 🙂
 
Last edited:
NevermoreLenore said:
May I please ask you a question? If this offends you or is inappropriate, please tell me and I will delete or amend this comment.

As a heterosexual woman, I am strongly attracted to men. I chose to marry Mr Nevermore and focus my sexuality toward him alone. Having the propensity for intense attraction to other men, I guard carefully my heart and I do not have any close relationships with men (because honestly, as much as I love and adore and respect my amazing husband of twenty years, it is possible to feel attraction to others and be tempted). So, if a bisexual man chooses to marry a woman, he has chosen his spouse–can he not guard his sexuality by focusing solely on her and taking care not to fall into potential dangerous temptations?

Please know that I completely respect your choice not to answer this question and I also am sincere and without judgment. I truly want to understand the predicament with which you live. I also acknowledge that sexuality is an incredibly powerful force that I have struggled to…contain, I supposed that would be the word. Regardless of any answer anyone provides, please know you have my respect and prayer.
Click to expand...
It is possible for a bisexual guy to be faithful to his wife. He has to be convinced that his wife is more beautiful (not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually). If I were married, I would be completely faithful to my wife. The thought of adultery would make me sick. I suspect that there are some bisexual persons who feel the same way.
 
I’d probably say “maybe it’s time to leave the church and find someone who makes you happy” but I imagine that’s probably not the kind of advice you’re looking for.

I’ll expand a bit: leave the church for say, 8 months. Try dating a few guys. If you still feel drawn to the church at the end, go back and leave your flings behind you
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top