Homosexuals living together

[Other_Eric]

Hi Kevin!

I’m afraid your attempt to clarify things has left me even more confused. You can’t logically both say that the homosexual is not subject to a mental disorder and that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder. It’s like saying that blue is not a color but that the sky is colored blue. The two statements contradict each other at a rather fundamental level. If homosexuality is a mental disorder, then the homosexual must be subject to it by definition.

It seems to me that you have two choices:You can argue, as you have, that homosexuality is a mental disorder that deprives its subject of emotional stability and clarity of thought. You could even go further, as you have done also, by saying that homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia and pederasty. You could point out, as Dr. Charles Soccarides does, that the homosexual is particularly susceptible to the behavioral characteristics of Jeffery Dahmer. Surely you must realize, however, once you have argued thus, that it becomes difficult to say why society should not take more pro-active measures to protect itself, its political structure, and its culture. At a metaphysical level it would seem that the disorder, by its compulsive nature, renders the homosexual completely unable to resist any temptation that he may be subject to. The homosexual has, in effect, been deprived of his God-given free will. In other situations this would remove culpability for the sins committed under this condition, but I think you know better than that. The homosexual is doomed and irrevocably lost to sin.

Or . . .

You could argue simply that yes, the homosexual is subject to a disordered temptation, as are we all. You could say that the homosexual’s condition may very likely be the result of some psychological conditioning. What you could not do is adopt some universal rule that ignores past behavior, makes unwarranted and uncharitable assumptions about future behavior and lumps the person subject to same-sex attraction but living a chaste existence into the same category as a Dahmer.

Now, I’m sure it is likely that you believe I have still misunderstood you. Perhaps it would help if you simply defined your terms. What does it mean to lack emotional stability and clarity of thought? Why would this render the chaste homosexual unfit for the priesthood but fit for society? What restrictions, if any, should be put on the civilian homosexual’s activities in society, why, and how are they to be enforced?

 

[asquared]

marineboy:

question: can two gay men live together but not engage in any sexaul activity except for hugin kissing(cheek) but nothing more than that??? like to hear your opinions

men can live together in all kinds of situations, whatever their sexual orientation happens to be, without incurring any kind of sin. the army, college dorms, sharing apartment or house, rectory, seminary, all kinds of life situations bring men into close living quarters. ordinary displays of affection and friendship are cultural, and do always have sexual significance or implication (except perhaps in the eye of the beholder).

If you are really asking, is it possible for two gay men (or women) to have a platonic relationship which has no sexual expression and , theoretically yes, it is possible, whether or not it is likely is another question. the same question applies to an unmarried man and woman sharing living quarters, or having a close platonic friendship that does not involve sexual feeling or expression. yes, it is theoretically possible, Whether or not it is likely, or whether such an arrangement provides an atmosphere conducive to maintaining morally correct behavior is another matter.

in any case, the proper response of a Christian who becomes aware of any persons conducting their lives in a manner which might be construed as providing the opportunity or likelihood of immoral behavior, is to place the most charitable construction on the circumstance. one assume’s that everyone you come in contact with is living a moral life, regardless of outward evidence, until they force you to acknowledge and ask acceptance or tolerance of immorality. Not until then does the Chrisitian, react, respond or make a judgement.

 

[Church_Militant]

tuopaolo:

Church Militant, the paragraph you quoted is from the 1st edition of the Catechism. The current, 2nd edition of the Catechism reads differently:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

It’s important to make sure which edition it is that you are quoting. The edition at the Vatican website btw is the 1st edition. The edition at Christus Rex is terrible because it is neither the 1st nor the 2nd edition but a mix of the two.

Here is a list of all the changes that were made from the 1st to the 2nd edition:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm

That was straight off the Vatican website…

 

[seeker63]

One point that should be made is that a homosexual man is not attracted to every other man in the world, just as a heterosexual man isn’t attracted to every woman in the world. There are many men a gay man would be repelled by or not regard as his “type.”