D
dshix
Guest
Um… I wasn’t talking to you. I haven’t even seen you in this thread at all.
- Status
K
Kamaduck
Guest
I definitely don’t think it’s a sin for a man with homosexual temptations to marry a woman, and it makes sense to me that even his wife doesn’t have a right to know about all of his temptations (although I also don’t think there’d be a problem with him confiding in her). But I do think that if he’s exclusively attracted to men, and therefore not sexually attracted to the woman he’s seriously discerning marriage with, it would probably be wise to tell her. That seems like it could lead to problems if left unsaid.
D
dshix
Guest
What you say is true. It is especially true when you consider that a man who is exclusively attracted to other men would be intentionally deceiving a woman if he showed interest in her, (because he is cultivating a romantic relationship where no such romance exists on his part) and thus this would be sinful. He would, essentially, be luring the woman into a loveless marriage.
However, there is nothing wrong with a man with only pressing temptations, who knows that this attraction is wrong and is fighting it back, to cultivate a romantic relationship with a woman. So long as his intention is clear and good, there is no sin on his part.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
Yes, definitely. :yup:
Taking this question into more hypothetical territory (hope nobody minds, sorry if it seems like derailing!)- I was reading about asexuality a while ago, and it seems there are some people who experience romantic attraction, but not sexual attraction, towards members of one or the other sex. Many of them will even engage in sex to please a partner, to conceive children, etc., but will never actually feel the desire to engage in sex for their own sake. That’s doesn’t mean they don’t love people, just that they’re not interested in having sex with them.
Would our hypothetical man be sinning by entering into a marriage with a woman, while knowing this about himself (that he will never desire sex with her, even if he is willing to engage in it for her sake)? I definitely think he should talk to her about a situation like that, but as far as I know, if she’s OK with it, it wouldn’t be immoral for them to get married. Is that correct? Just making sure I understand this.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Some of these replies make it sound as if the only reason I’m (or anyone else ) not gay (or have SSA) is because I haven’t fallen victim to temptation, or concupiscence. Am I getting the gist of this?
D
dshix
Guest
The only reason I’m not a murder is because I’ve never given in to any temptation to strangle, shoot, burn, or stab someone.
The only reason I’m not a thief is because I have never given in to any temptation to steal or otherwise deprive other people of their possessions.
The only reason I’m not a sex offender is because I have never given in to any temptation to rape, molest, or otherwise sexually assault another person.
Whether I have ever had these temptations or not is irrelevant. The point is that yes, if you haven’t committed a particular sin, that’s because you either have never had a temptation to or you have successfully cast away any temptation to do so.
So, I ask, what exactly was the point of your statement?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
As a married man with persistent same-sex attractions, I really have a hard time imagining how a man could honestly and virtuously marry a woman without letting her know about these attractions.
Perhaps my thinking on this is heavily influenced by the fact that – in most cases, in modern society – a man with same-sex attraction has a history of looking at erotic materials involving men. Now, supposing that a wife were to come across any such material, I feel that it would create a shock, and (given the culture we live in) cause her to do some serious soul searching. “How could my husband, who is supposedly sharing his whole self with me, be hiding such a fact about himself?”
The point is not that the fact is particularly “awful”. It’s a sin, not dissimilar from other sexual sins. Or rather, the tendency to lust after men, in itself, is just a temptation. But, given today’s society, men who hide this from their wives are “in the closet”. It will not do to pretend that they are not, and keeping a secret like this from your wife is a sure way to allow the devil to tempt you. How can you feel fully loved by her, if she does not know the truth about you?
Now, mind you, I don’t think that – in the end – same-sex attraction is a hugely important fact about a person. But I can only begin to see that because I’m being honest about it. When I was hiding it, it seemed like an extremely important fact about me; in some ways, it seemed like the ONLY fact about me.
We clear out such lies and rubbish from our marriages and relationships by being open about them, not by sweeping them under the rug.
Perhaps my thinking on this is heavily influenced by the fact that – in most cases, in modern society – a man with same-sex attraction has a history of looking at erotic materials involving men. Now, supposing that a wife were to come across any such material, I feel that it would create a shock, and (given the culture we live in) cause her to do some serious soul searching. “How could my husband, who is supposedly sharing his whole self with me, be hiding such a fact about himself?”
The point is not that the fact is particularly “awful”. It’s a sin, not dissimilar from other sexual sins. Or rather, the tendency to lust after men, in itself, is just a temptation. But, given today’s society, men who hide this from their wives are “in the closet”. It will not do to pretend that they are not, and keeping a secret like this from your wife is a sure way to allow the devil to tempt you. How can you feel fully loved by her, if she does not know the truth about you?
Now, mind you, I don’t think that – in the end – same-sex attraction is a hugely important fact about a person. But I can only begin to see that because I’m being honest about it. When I was hiding it, it seemed like an extremely important fact about me; in some ways, it seemed like the ONLY fact about me.
We clear out such lies and rubbish from our marriages and relationships by being open about them, not by sweeping them under the rug.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
The point is that there’s more to homosexuality than simply giving in to temptation. The reason I haven’t had sex with a hundred women is because I haven’t given in to the temptation. The reason I’m not gay is because I’m revolted by the idea. There’s a vast chasm of difference between he two.
R
Rau
Guest
The nub of your question seems to be: “Is it OK for a homosexual (man) to try finding a girl to marry”. [All the stuff about your suspicions etc. is not relevant.]
I assume that by definition, a man who describes himself as homosexual, is not attracted to women, so marriage would not likely have a place in his life. So what is the man’s motivation to pursue marriage? Not stated, but I think it is implied in your statement of the question, is that the man/men concerned seek to marry in order to conceal their homosexuality (which you say is “highly looked down upon”) from others, and by implication, marry under false pretences. If that describes the situation, it is plainly wrong.
Other scenarios or interpretations can be considered - a bisexual man for instance. Such a man could fall in love and marry, though must be committed to a monogamous relationship.
O
OraLabora
Guest
A homosexual marrying a woman strikes me as plainly wrong, a deception (assuming she doesn’t know), and likely to cause serious difficulties with the exercise of conjugal rights.
A homosexual needs to be true to himself first, then to others, then to do his best at leading a moral life, all in the assurance of God’s unconditional love for him, and God’s limitless mercy for him each time he falls and asks for help to pick himself up again.
Even if the woman enters into the marriage knowing his condition, in the hopes he will “change”, or simply accepting him as is, she is setting herself up for a huge deception when he inevitably falls to temptation. Such à mariage is unlikely to fulfill the requirements for a sacramental union and would be open to being easily annulled.
I can’t imagine a serious priest ever knowingly marrying such a couple, and if the sexual orientation of the man was hidden from the priest in the pre-nuptial arrangements, again such deception could affect the sacramentality of the union. Deception is generally pretty shaky ground on which to attempt to build a marriage.
A homosexual needs to be true to himself first, then to others, then to do his best at leading a moral life, all in the assurance of God’s unconditional love for him, and God’s limitless mercy for him each time he falls and asks for help to pick himself up again.
Even if the woman enters into the marriage knowing his condition, in the hopes he will “change”, or simply accepting him as is, she is setting herself up for a huge deception when he inevitably falls to temptation. Such à mariage is unlikely to fulfill the requirements for a sacramental union and would be open to being easily annulled.
I can’t imagine a serious priest ever knowingly marrying such a couple, and if the sexual orientation of the man was hidden from the priest in the pre-nuptial arrangements, again such deception could affect the sacramentality of the union. Deception is generally pretty shaky ground on which to attempt to build a marriage.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Your point seems to rest entirely on an understanding of being “homosexual” as having something akin to an addiction which will inevitably consume the individual and take over. A similar view applied, say to “heterosexual,” would mean ANY woman who marries a heterosexual man is “setting herself up for a huge deception” when he “inevitably falls to temptation.”
Seems a rather skewed view from where I stand.
O
OraLabora
Guest
There’s a major flaw in your argument. A heterosexual man has a good chance of being sexually satisfied within the confines of a chaste marriage.
A homosexual man never will be sexually satisfied within the confines of marriage to a woman. Quite apart from the problems that will cause with the exercise of conjugal rights, it makes it far more likely that the homosexual will seek to satisfy his urges, if not elsewhere, then perhaps through porn.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Yes, I understand that is your assumption, i.e., that “homosexual” is in the very nature of the person. Given that premise, the rest of your point does, apparently, follow. I am just not clear that the premise is a good starting point.
We could say the same thing about someone with a proclivity towards desiring material goods. If such a person has an adequate amount of chattel, they will not be tempted to steal the property of others. By that definition, a thief is, by nature, a thief and the only means of preventing thievery is by ensuring “thieves” have adequate access to property. Otherwise, thieves will be thieves.
The monkey wrench to be lobbed into such a myth is that those with vast amounts of property can continue to be thieves.
Likewise, it would seem, a heterosexual may or may not be “satisfied” within the confines of a chaste marriage just as thieves are not satisfied by the mere fact of having their own property.
It just seems a very twisted view of human nature that implies disorders (or even desires) at some level ultimately define the way things are. It seems to propose that the ordering implied by morality is not, at ground, the basic ordering principle because disorders (or desires) ultimately are in control.
I suspect, you have been so immersed in modern western culture that a secular perspective has become your observational starting point.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
This could get really interesting from an Economics standpoint. Is there a satisfaction point for thieves? Do they reach an equilibrium where they no longer steal until they have to? Can they reach a moment when the marginal cost (risk of being caught) of thievery is greater than the marginal benefit of thievery?
I think some people are simply wired wrong. Just as someone is born to have poor eyesight, someone can be born with brain chemistry that leads him to aberrant behavior. There are people who are violent by nature, and without medication they will remain violent.
So–if a person born with homosexual tendencies can subdue them and not act on them, that person doesn’t sin. Obviously. If that person can marry (a woman) and raise a biological family, more power to him. But I think for some, overcoming the “concupiscence” of SSA is an impossibility.
And I think I’m babbling. I was born with tendencies toward attention deficit disorder. I cannot help myself without medication. And sometimes the medication causes my brain to keep going when it needs to be redirected. That’s the part I’m still working on.
Without the medication, my brain just…slows…to…a…st…o…pppppp.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I think you’re mixing lust, a specific sin, into the debate on orientation. A homosexual or heterosexual may or may not experience lust depending on their disposition. However the homosexual’s basic orientation is incompatible with heterosexual relations, and therefore this is likely to cause grave issues in the marriage. It may make it difficult to perform his conjugal duties and there’s a high likelihood of deep sexual dissatisfaction for both spouses in such a marriage.
There may be rare instances where this may work but the odds are against this becoming a fulfilling, happy marriage.
R
Rau
Guest
I think you over-complicate the matter.
In the context set out by the OP, the homosexual man seeks marriage under false pretences. Failure is likely on that basis alone.
But beyond that, it is clearly likely that the absence of a physically intimate relationship will result in an unhappy marriage. It does not follow that the man will stray, however. It is likely that the man’s homosexuality will “come out”, the deception revealed and the couple will part.
D
dshix
Guest
In the context set out by the OP, the OP has seen certain young men which the OP “suspects” to be gay, and who the OP disapproves of dating young girls.
This is not evidence. This is not any reason to suppose that these are homosexual men who are dating under false pretenses. This is a person who is making assumptions about other people and is trying to gain some kind of satisfaction for his judging of other people from anonymous posters on an internet forum.
The entire discussion is resting on the *assumptions *made by the OP. No facts.
R
Rau
Guest
No, no, we’ve moved on (or at least I have) from the matter of “suspicions” (which would be a silly basis for concluding anything) to address the nub of the question, which was about the (hypothetical) circumstance of a homosexual seeking to marry. So, the starting point that my post relies on is here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11355565&postcount=29In the context set out by the OP, the OP has seen certain young men which the OP “suspects” to be gay, and who the OP disapproves of dating young girls.
This is not evidence. This is not any reason to suppose that these are homosexual men who are dating under false pretenses. This is a person who is making assumptions about other people and is trying to gain some kind of satisfaction for his judging of other people from anonymous posters on an internet forum.
The entire discussion is resting on the *assumptions *made by the OP. No facts.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I think you overestimate a couple things:
(1) the likelihood that a closeted homosexual man will be outed somehow – this doesn’t happen all that often, because men with SSA are VERY good at hiding (we have to be).
(2) the likelihood that a man’s being gay (or having significant SSA) will make him unable to have a physically intimate relationship with his wife. Gay men don’t generally have any problem (mechanically or affectively) having sex with women. Mind you, if there is not real romantic love in the relationship, physical intimacy is a lie. But there’s no reason that a gay man can’t love a woman.
(3) Both you and OraLabora seem to have a fixed idea of sexual orientation, as if this wasn’t a spectrum. But in fact, most “gay” men are also attracted to women, just not as viscerally as they are attracted to men. Our society’s labels confuse the matter; they don’t clarify anything.
R
Rau
Guest
I agree in part.
(1) Hiding may be difficult in the scenario where a man who acknowledges he is homosexual seeks to marry as a “cover”. I would speculate that most married homosexuals did not determine or accept their primary orientation till after they were married - at least I hope that is the reality.
(2) OK. I guess I would expect the “romance” to fail. I presume the position on the orientation “spectrum” of the individual man may also impact his ability (beyond the mechanical) to play sincerely the part of conjugal partner?
(3) I agree with the notion of a spectrum of orientation, though I admit I take the word “homosexual” (as opposed to bisexual) to denote a recognised and accepted strong preference for same sex relationships. [If we were talking in terms of a “person who experienced SSA”, then I’d take the extent of preference to be unstated and not to be assumed.]
I take your point about labels, but such is a part of language, and we can’t communicate without it.
- Status