Homosexuals, celibacy, and relationships

[mbc22488]

Hello!

I want to see the viewpoint of some more people on here. I am a celibate homosexual. Before you post and begin chastising me, please check your Catechisms on this issue. My question is…

What if two homosexuals lived together, were in a committed relationship, but were committed to God and their vows of Chastity? What do you think about this? Is this sinful?

 

[Apollos]

Hello!

I want to see the viewpoint of some more people on here. I am a celibate homosexual. Before you post and begin chastising me, please check your Catechisms on this issue. My question is…

What if two homosexuals lived together, were in a committed relationship, but were committed to God and their vows of Chastity? What do you think about this? Is this sinful?

Of course not. Why would it be?

 

[mbc22488]

Of course not. Why would it be?

Ha! Excellent answer. I dont know how it would be, but somebody on here always has something to say that makes me think in a new way.

 

[musicality]

Ha! Excellent answer. I dont know how it would be, but somebody on here always has something to say that makes me think in a new way.

It is an excellent answer and is correct. What many CAF members will caution you is that you may be placing yourself in a near occasion of sin or in scandal. (People will assume that two homosexuals living together are living together for certain reasons–not really your fault). This concern is warranted just as concern would be warranted if I (a straight male) started living with a woman in a committed, chaste, relationship.

I would never live with a woman I was in a relationship with if I was not married to her. The temptation would be too much.

That being said, Apollos’ response is correct.

 

[1ke]

I want to see the viewpoint of some more people on here. I am a celibate homosexual. Before you post and begin chastising me, please check your Catechisms on this issue. My question is…

Why would you assume someone would “chastise” you for living chastely?

What if two homosexuals lived together, were in a committed relationship,

Define “committed relationship.” If you mean a *romantic *relationship, even without physical expression, I think this is problematic from several fronts.

This is a serious occasion of sin. It is a tempation to both persons. It also can give scandal if you are known to have same sex attraction and known to be "committed’ to this person.

Regardless of whether or not you are expressing this “commitment” physically-- you are expressing-- embracing-- your same sex attractionthrough making such a “commitment.”

This type of commitment is for couples who will marry. It is a declaration of a romantic attraction. It says “we are a couple.” That is feeding a disordered desire and is certainly not living chastely. Chaste behavior includes our thoughts and desires. Giving in to being a “couple” with another person of the same sex is violating chastity.

So at a minimum I would say it is imprudent, and yes it would be sinful.

but were committed to God and their vows of Chastity?

A commitment to chastity includes the commitment to avoiding tempation and avoiding promoting same sex attraction. Can you honestly say that living with someone as you propose does this?

Can you answer this question for me:

What is the purpose of being a “committed couple?”

 

[tuscany]

There is no way that is a sin. You are born the way you are, and God loves and accepts all of us as we are. Some of us have a harder row to hoe in life, (like the handicapped, mental disorders, losing a spouse,or child, or being homosexual). Some of us just have more to bear. But I look at it like God’s own son had to go through compete hell on Good Friday, and He had never done anything wrong in His life. If He had to suffer, why do we, who are mere specks, think we never should? If God asks certain things of certain groups of people, so be it. People who are widowed now have to lead celibate lives(unless they remarry), as do divorced Catholics, homosexuals, or people in religious life. I would think it wouldn’t work if you were sexually attracted to one another though. But if by committed you mean take care of one another on a higher non- sexual level, as long as you are truly celibate in all ways, there is no church rule on who can live in your house w/ you. (Unless Obama changes that too!)

 

[mbc22488]

Can you answer this question for me:

What is the purpose of being a “committed couple?”

A homosexual would enter a committed relationship for the same reason that a heterosexual person would. Do heterosexuals only enter relationships with the intent of having sex? A committed couple loves each other and takes care of each other. They share things with each other. They are best friends. Just like a husband and wife live together in a loving and committed relationship, homosexuals should be able to do the same, albeit without the sex.

 

[1ke]

A homosexual would enter a committed relationship for the same reason that a heterosexual person would. Do heterosexuals only enter relationships with the intent of having sex?

From the Church’s point of view regarding our sexuality, yes this is the purpose of marriage. Couples should not enter into perpetual “committed relationships” without marriage.

A committed couple loves each other and takes care of each other. They share things with each other. They are best friends. Just like a husband and wife live together in a loving and committed relationship, homosexuals should be able to do the same, albeit without the sex.

No. A same-sex couple cannot be “just like a husband and wife.” And, living in such a relationship would indeed be against the Church’s teaching, even if such a couple is not having a sexual relationship.

I suggest you contact Courage to discuss ways in which those with same sex attraction can support one another in a way that does conform to Church teaching.

 

[JohnDamian]

Tackling this problem from a number of angles;

CCC 2359; “by the support of disinterested friendship”.

CCC 2357 “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

From this; people who are homosexual should only partake in disinterested friendship; there should be no romantic relationship; sexual or otherwise.

In the same way as it would be imprudent for a heterosexual man and woman to cohabit; it is imprudent for homosexuals to do so; this is compounded by the fact that homosexuals will in leiu of their statistical minority; never be forced to co-habit with another homosexual man - any such an arrangement would be intentional; and to intentionally create a scenario such as this would be sinful.

If homosexuals must cohabit temporarily then they must live apart in seperate rooms; as the catechism advises “disinterested friendship” - not living together in a “committed relationship”. The Catechism is quite clear on this.

 

[Julia1996]

Whether it is sinful or not depends on your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:24-27.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The question remains, what is considered a homosexual offender? Is it just a person who has sex with a person of their own gender? Or will lusting after a person of their own gender suffice?

Romans 1:24-27 (New International Version)

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Depending on your interpretation of these verses, you might consider that the “perversion” that brought about “due penalty” was the “lust for one another”. Or you might consider that the “perversion” only applies to the “indecent acts”.

I am not really in a position to judge other people. But I do feel that homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to Gods design for marriage. In Genesis 2:24, it is written that "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. " This does not provide for homosexuality.

Of course, just because I think homosexuality is wrong does not mean that you need to agree with me, it is your decision.

 

[Apollos]

People will assume that two homosexuals living together are living together for certain reasons–not really your fault.

For a while people assumed that my roommate and I were gay boyfriends. Can’t really blame them though, the way things are these days.

 

[musicality]

For a while people assumed that my roommate and I were gay boyfriends. Can’t really blame them though, the way things are these days.

I completely hear you. When I found out that my roommate is gay, I was worried that people might think the same. Thankfully, I don’t think that they do… it would make it a little bit awkward asking a girl on a date if she thought that I wasn’t straight

 

[DebChris]

I would say not to put yourself in a position of temptation.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with a platonic relationship. When I see two people living together, I always presume innocence.
I enjoyed reading Lonesome Dove. Regardless of sexuality, members of the same gender can develop a very close relationship. It will take me a while to find the scripture passage that praises how one partner helps the other.
I have watched a number of old movies in which men sharing an apartment, each with his own bedroom, verbally express their love for one another. The overemphasis on sexuality over the past few years tends to have connotations not evident in these older movies.

 

[Seatuck]

There is more to an intimate relationship than sex. There are levels of intimacy. Any level of intimacy beyond friendship belongs to marriage. So there are problems with living in a “committed relationship” without the sex. Intimate connections in a relationship belong to marriage. Two people of the same sex cannot be married .They cannot morally be a couple even with out the sex. They can be very good friends if they can achieve that. I imagine it would take some spiritual direction and counseling.

And yes there are problems with the near occasion of sin as well as scandal as has been mentioned.

 

[MariaTS]

First of all, to everyone who says any level of intimacy beyond friendship belongs to marriage, I ask this simple question: who are you to say what determines if a level of intimacy is beyond friendship or not?

Second, you may believe that all Catholics must believe everything in the Catechism however the Catechism said for about four hundred years that the earth was flat, evolution did not exist, and the universe was created in exactly seven 24-hour days despite scientific and historic fact saying the exact opposite until She (the Catholic Church) realized that She was wrong and removed such statements of complete and utter ignorance from the Catechism. I highly doubt that most Catholics denied evolution less than a century ago. Just because you quote the Catechism and claim it as the absolute truth does not make it so.

Third, the New International Version of the Bible is intrinsically inaccurate on so many levels and it is written at a seventh grade level. Quoting versions of the Bible that twist the true meaning of the Bible and replace words with unrelated words will get you nowhere.

 

[4chan_Troll]

 

[Julia1996]

First of all, to everyone who says any level of intimacy beyond friendship belongs to marriage, I ask this simple question: who are you to say what determines if a level of intimacy is beyond friendship or not?

Second, you may believe that all Catholics must believe everything in the Catechism however the Catechism said for about four hundred years that the earth was flat, evolution did not exist, and the universe was created in exactly seven 24-hour days despite scientific and historic fact saying the exact opposite until She (the Catholic Church) realized that She was wrong and removed such statements of complete and utter ignorance from the Catechism. I highly doubt that most Catholics denied evolution less than a century ago. Just because you quote the Catechism and claim it as the absolute truth does not make it so.
If people do not believe what is said in the Catechism, then what exactly are they supposed to believe? The Holy Bible says that the world was created in 7 days. Since science seems to have proven that the world was not created in seven 24 hour days, then does that mean that the days were not 24 hours?
Third, the New International Version of the Bible is intrinsically inaccurate on so many levels and it is written at a seventh grade level. Quoting versions of the Bible that twist the true meaning of the Bible and replace words with unrelated words will get you nowhere.
The purpose of the NIV Bible, and the reason why it is written at “a seventh grade level” is so that it is easily understood, not to try and twist the meaning of the Bible. I have the NIV Bible and a few other versions (King James, NRSV, Geneva) and the NIV isn’t too far off the mark. Since I don’t read Hebrew and Greek, I will have to rely on the translations, none of which are perfectly accurate. If the NIV has unrelated words, then why does it generally agree with the other versions of the Bible, are all the other versions also intrinsically inaccurate?

 

[musicality]

First of all, to everyone who says any level of intimacy beyond friendship belongs to marriage, I ask this simple question: who are you to say what determines if a level of intimacy is beyond friendship or not?

I don’t think anyone did specify. There are different types of friendships and different cultures that call for specific levels of intimacy. There are some obvious lines that people should not cross before marriage (ie sexual behaviors), and there are other lines that people may cross depending on cultural behaviors and norms (yes, the Church does define certain teachings based on cultural norms).

 

[Newbie2]

First of all, to everyone who says any level of intimacy beyond friendship belongs to marriage, I ask this simple question: who are you to say what determines if a level of intimacy is beyond friendship or not?

Second, you may believe that all Catholics must believe everything in the Catechism however the Catechism said for about four hundred years that the earth was flat, evolution did not exist, and the universe was created in exactly seven 24-hour days despite scientific and historic fact saying the exact opposite until She (the Catholic Church) realized that She was wrong and removed such statements of complete and utter ignorance from the Catechism. I highly doubt that most Catholics denied evolution less than a century ago. Just because you quote the Catechism and claim it as the absolute truth does not make it so.

Third, the New International Version of the Bible is intrinsically inaccurate on so many levels and it is written at a seventh grade level. Quoting versions of the Bible that twist the true meaning of the Bible and replace words with unrelated words will get you nowhere.

You have a reference for this?

 

[1ke]

First of all, to everyone who says any level of intimacy beyond friendship belongs to marriage, I ask this simple question: who are you to say what determines if a level of intimacy is beyond friendship or not?

The Church speaks with Christ’s authority on faith and morals.

Second, you may believe that all Catholics must believe everything in the Catechism however the Catechism said for about four hundred years that the earth was flat, evolution did not exist, and the universe was created in exactly seven 24-hour days despite scientific and historic fact saying the exact opposite

Please provide documentation for your absurd statements.

Just because you quote the Catechism and claim it as the absolute truth does not make it so.

The Church’s teaching on faith and morals are, however, absolute truth.

Third, the New International Version of the Bible is intrinsically inaccurate on so many levels and it is written at a seventh grade level. Quoting versions of the Bible that twist the true meaning of the Bible and replace words with unrelated words will get you nowhere.

As our friend who quoted the NIV is not Catholic, I would not expect her to use an authorized Catholic version of the bible. Insulting her is uncalled for, however.