Homosexual Relationships

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kitteh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sawman said:
Are you able to elaborate or make a point? how does this excruciating dialogue have anything to do with your oppression by the Church or the Bible or society or whatever.Over your homosexuality?
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but just minutes earlier we were discussing the sin of Sodom and how you had always associated it with homosexuality. And how the idea of inhospitality seemed novel to you. The passages you said you read should have helped put into perspective just how novel Sodom’s real sin really was. What gives you the right to assign a morality to the Sodom story of which the Bible never does?
 
truagape said:
An interesting choice of words.
Click to expand...
OK, you got me .You are, have been,and probobly always will be focused on how the whole world has gone out of it’s way to be unjust to poor little old truuy,who was just minding his own buissiness being gay and bam! everyone is unjust to you. believe what you want, you are wrong about scripture,and the Church’s teaching .I don’t think means much to you though.You obviously are’nt interested in knowing the truth.
 
sawman said:
OK, you got me .You are, have been,and probobly always will be focused on how the whole world has gone out of it’s way to be unjust to poor little old truuy,who was just minding his own buissiness being gay and bam! everyone is unjust to you.
Click to expand...
Take away the cynicisim, the sarcasim, and the patronizing rhetoric and you have for yourself a suprisingly factual statement.
 
john_ennis said:
Individuals are indeed forced to be celibate, if they find no one to marry. Think of the ones who really can’t, simply because no one will marry them. There are such people.
Click to expand...
And who knows, they may be perfect for each other!
 
In the true spirit of agape,I continue to diologue if you will,Truuy,Truuster Trustaman, Tru-dude
 
I seriously don’t believe that you think 2 verses from Ezekiel overturn 2000 years of constant teaching of the Church,not mention all the rest of scripture?Not to mention most teachers doctors and fathers of the Church?
 
sawman said:
In the true spirit of agape,I continue to diologue if you will,Truuy,Truuster Trustaman, Tru-dude
Click to expand...
😃 (laughing)
Alright, but I’ll be leaving soon to head to the gym to get my workout in before they close.
 
sawman said:
I seriously don’t believe that you think 2 verses from Ezekiel overturn 2000 years of constant teaching of the Church
Click to expand...
Actually what I believe is the opposite. It’s the over 2000 years of certain teachings that overturn the over 4000 years of biblical history that has been divinely recorded for our benefit. And it’s not just Ezekiel, but the bible as a whole and how it treats the Sodom story. I believe there’s a lot of faith that can be rested upon His word.
 
truagape said:
Actually what I believe is the opposite. It’s the over 2000 years of certain teachings that overturn the over 4000 years of biblical history that have been divinely recorded for our benefit. And it’s not just Ezekiel, but the bible as a whole and how it treats the Sodom story. I believe there’s a lot of faith that can be rested upon His word.
Click to expand...
OK’ if your serious,I’ll be glad to have a discussion with youI’ve never heard of what you are alluding to but it sounds interesting.I’ll need to leave soon as well for a couple of hours.
I said before that there is more in scripture than the sodom episode dealing with these issues.Also the whole isssue of scripture’s credibility,and provenance.
 
sawman said:
OK’ if your serious,I’ll be glad to have a discussion with youI’ve never heard of what you are alluding to but it sounds interesting.I’ll need to leave soon as well for a couple of hours.
I said before that there is more in scripture than the sodom episode dealing with these issues.Also the whole isssue of scripture’s credibility,and provenance.
Click to expand...
Ok, I am serious, and I do look foward to talking with you. But i really have to leave or else I won’t have much time to do much of a workout. Take care!!
 
truagape said:
It’s like approaching someone who’s black and politely telling them they have the mark of Cain. And assuring them of your prayers and sympathy.
Click to expand...
Truagape, if there is one person on this board that doesn’t judge you at all, it’s me. If I say you have the “mark of Cain”, I can only do so while declaring myself to be stained with the same mark.

My intent was simply to offer a different perspective on a very personal subject. Again, I apologize if you felt judged. That is the least of my intentions.
It’s not encouraging.
Click to expand...
Like you’ve probably noticed already, you are not going to find much encouragement for your interpretation of scripture (on this subject) here. If that’s what you are seeking (and I honestly doubt you are) it may be a very irritating time for you. If you want some good back-and-forth, I think you’ll probably find it. 😃

As for it going anywhere productive, who knows?

Peace!
 
Kitteh said:
First of all, I have no idea which forum this is supposed to go in, so if it’s in the wrong one, sorry -_-

I’ve become very confused over the issue of homosexual relationships lately. I used to be against them and did not support gay marriage, but since I went to college and made some friends, some of whom happened to be gay, I might be changing my stance on the issue.

I just can’t see how denying someone a companion is right. I do have to say that I don’t really approve of a gay couple raising children, but if two people of the same sex are in love and enjoy each other’s company, why would God disapprove of that? Doesn’t he want us to love one another?

I have one gay friend whom I hang out with every so often. He doesn’t have the greatest life, he’s in debt, smokes pot and takes other drugs, but he’s a human…and he has attractions to different people. Sometimes the people he is attracted to reject him and he becomes depressed. He seems much more happy when he has found someone as a companion, even if it is temporarily. I just don’t understand how this could be so wrong. It might be strange or unusual, but I don’t think that people should be denied love. Please help me understand this.

Thanks, Kitteh
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat something someone else has already said.

First of all, it’s important to realize that marriage is not merely intended as a means to prevent loneliness or provide companionship. Marriage is a vocation to which some people are called and others are not.

Furthermore, marriage is a sacrament that mirrors Christ’s relationship with the Church. It is an avenue through which grace enters the lives of the spouses and helps lead them to heaven. It also mirrors the love of the Trinity, which is the source of all life – hence the procreative aspect of marriage.

On top of all that is the fact that each individual’s ultimate goal should be to do God’s will. Is one striving to do God’s will if one seeks to marry regardless of whether one is called to marriage or not?

The Church’s stance on marriage is not about exclusion or condemnation. Rather, it is about preserving the meaning of a sacrament.

Yes, God wants us to love one another, but He also wants us to obey Him, who is the source of all goodness and wisdom. To that end, He founded a Church and gave it His authority and a guarantee of protection from error in its teachings. If we seek our satisfaction and fulfillment in Him, our need for companionship need not define us.

Peace,
Dante
 
truagape said:
But what you seem to be forgetting is that the opportunity is always there. Not so for same-sex couples.
Click to expand...
No. The opportunity exists only to the extent that someone actually can find someone who’ll marry them.

It’s simply a fact that SOMETIMES people have no opportunity to get married. There are countless people who’ve lived throughout the ages who NO ONE would marry.

They had no opportunity.

There’s simply no reason to believe that God doesn’t want anybody to have to live a celibate life if they wouldn’t choose to. He obviously does, in some cases.

Peace.
John
 
Some questions and statements regarding homosexuality.
  1. Statement: If a person has homosexual
    tendencies, this does not automatically make
    him a pedophile. Question: Has anyone seen a
    report regarding the priests who have been
    charged as pedophiles stating they are also
    homosexuals? If so, what is the percentage? If
    not, why not? I ask this as the defenses I have
    read by homosexuals state they are not
    pedophiles. Pedophilia and homosexuality are
    two different tendencies. Or could they be
    combined? Possibly, I guess.
  2. Question: What causes one to be homosexual?
    Are homosexuals just evil? Or could it be as in
    the case of some alcoholics, their alcoholism is
    caused by a chemical imbalence? Therefore,
    alcoholism can be a disease. Perhaps an
    imbalance of emotions plays a part, or
    aggravates the tendency. I don’t know. I’m not
    a doctor, just passing on what I have
    learned,/noticed at least up to now.
  3. Question: Could homosexuality be a disease, or
    is it a moral issue? Apparently there are drugs
    pedophiles can take which decreases their
    unnatural desires. Is there one for homosexuals?
  4. Question: If alcoholism is sometimes/always?
    caused by a chemical imbalance and is
    regarded as a disease, and some studies state
    that homosexuals are lacking one or the other
    gene, or chromosome (can’t remember which),
    could homosexuality be a disease?
  5. Question: If in heterosexuals, denying ones
    tendencies toward sex is called celebacy, what is
    this denial called in homosexuals? If one can
    be “celebate” whether heterosexual, or
    homosexual, why the ban on homosexuals in the
    priesthood? With either tendency, the
    breaking of vows is still a sin. I would imagine
    though it would be quite a strain to be
    surrounded completely by men if one is
    homosexual. Even in convents, those aspiring to
    be nuns are told not to become too fond of, or
    form a close relationship with another woman in
    the convent. Would this be fear of exposure to
    lesbianism, or whatever it’s called, under a more
    subtle guise?
“Knock and the door shall be opened”.
 
elt1956 said:
Some questions and statements regarding homosexuality.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for with all your questions (I think there are more than 5!)

No, homosexuals are not “evil”. It’s important to make a distinction. First, there is the homosexual inclination (aka same sex attraction [SSA]). Then, there are homosexual acts. The Catholic Church does not condemn the inclination, but only the act.

You bring up alcoholism. Using that as an example, someone who is an alcoholic is not in a state of sin simply because of that fact. However, if he or she acts on that impulse and goes binge drinking, that would be sinful. Of course, due to the fact that alcoholism is an addiction, an individual’s subjective culpability might be diminished or removed. Therefore, I wouldn’t presume to judge the state of such a person’s soul. But the act of abusing alcohol is still objectively wrong.

For those who have SSA, simply having the inclination is a cross they have to bear, but it is not sinful and does not make them “evil.” If they act on it, that is sinful (but we still don’t call them “evil” - all of us are sinners). But, again, as with alcoholism, there may be factors that reduce an individual’s culpability, so I would certainly hesitate in presuming to know the fate of their soul.

As to the causes of SSA, some say it is genetic, some say it is the result of upbringing, some say it is a combination of the two. Frankly, that is a matter for scientists to investigate and doesn’t really matter from a moral standpoint, objectively speaking. (I started a thread on this subject - The “Gay Gene”: Does it Matter?. You only need to read the first 10 or 20 posts to get the general idea. The rest is mostly off topic :))

Regardless of the cause of SSA, the act is still objectively wrong. But, of course, we want to always act with charity to all people, and this includes those with SSA. Calling them “evil” or “diseased” is probably not the most productive tactic towards that end.

We don’t want to sugar-coat the fact that the Catholic Church teaches (in accordance with Revelation and the natural law) that homosexual acts are disordered and sinful. But neither do we want to be unnecessarily harsh or condemning. That usually only serves to alienate people and drive a wedge between them and the Church.

Equating homosexuality with pedophilia is also a poor tactic, IMO. Some people equate the two, I think, because most pedophiles seem to be men, and most of them seem to target boys (i.e. people of the same sex). I don’t know if there’s any research that investigates the link between the two (my guess is probably not). In any case, it seems wise to treat the two issues separately. Those with SSA tend to get offended if you accuse them of being a pedophile (and who can blame them?). Maybe some of those with SSA are also pedophiles, but not all. And there are probably heterosexuals that are pedophiles, too. We wouldn’t want to make the leap that all heterosexuals are pedophiles.

Hopefully this answers some of your questions?
 
elt,
In response to your first question, please read the John Jay Study on the priest scandals. It is considered the most thorough and unbiased source on this matter.
usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
As has been pointed out numerous times on other threads, the molestations almost unanimously involved older boys or young teens. There were very few who were pre-pubescent and even fewer who were female.

Alcoholism has not been decisively found to be a physiological disease. While it is true that the brains of alcoholics show some differences, this is not necessarily conclusive proof of organic disease. As an ex-drunk, I can certainly testify that I was alcoholic from the first drink. But whether my brain chemistry pre-disposed me to such excess is irrelevent to my behavior. Because the Church does not hold as sinful the inclination to sin, it would not matter a whit where the inclination comes from.

If either of these inclinations were found to be genetic in origin, and a “cure” were to be found, one would certainly have the option of taking such a cure to correct the condition. In this case, there are probably quite a few alcoholics who would choose not to “cure” this condition with a pill just as I am certain there are many with homosexual tendencies who would choose to reject such a treatment. In the former case, some drunks simply wish to continue to drink. In the latter case, some homosexuals see nothing “wrong” with their behaviors and would find it offensive if such a cure were offered. In either case, it still depends on the CHOICE of the human to refrain from the behavior, whether it is through abstinence and chastity or a magic pill.

In the case of sexual morality, one is not considered celibate unless one has abstained from marriage vows. The more applicable state is chastity. We are all called to be chaste, no matter what our state in life. True chastity is not simply a matter of denying one’s tendencies but rather an acceptance of one’s station in life. I have been separated from my spouse for over 20 years. I live in accordance with that vocation. In this situation, it is not a denial of tendencies but rather an acceptance of the experience through grace and obedience. When one truly lives in accordance with God’s will for us, freedom, peace and joy will be guaranteed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top