I'm a gay guy. Should I marry a woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh Andy, I do not mean to be uncharitable but how wrong you are in your statements …
 
I know that. Which, is why it is so important that what other literature that is written at least pertains to the historicity that comes to us through it. Augustine’s writings, for instance, are tremendously flawed in that regard. Yet, many in the church often tend to place his Theodocy ahead of scripture. Never mind it isn’t very well resolved in it.
 
Then, if I understand you correctly, you think gay marriage is moral in spite of the Catholic teaching that every sexual act must be unitave and procreative?
 
That’s just the thing: it doesn’t teach just that. The Catechism also teaches at 2332 the following:Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others." To love AND to procreate. The reason for this is that it was understood by its promulagtion in 1991 under Pope John Paul II that sex was also for bonding. Unfortunately, it was also thought by them at the time that being gay was still a psychological disorder. Despite the fact that it had been removed from the DSM (a book containing psychological diagnostics that all psychologists adhere to) twenty years earlier. Sex isn’t just for procreation. But, it is best kept to a narrow focus within a monogamous relationship such as marriage.
 
The author there is gravely flawed in his logic: the whole of the Holiness Code, Lev 17-26 is time conditional. Meaning that for as long as a portion of the code remains prescient to practices of the time it remains applicable. That is why the whole of the code is something to be understood. Not the arbitrary cherry picking they engage in by separating parts of it from the rest. We eat shellfish, we wear mixed fabrics because we no longer have a practical reason for such to be wrong. We don’t commit murder or sleep with our family members because that is still. Being gay, however, in the context of the time in which it was written could be problematic given the other issues surrounding it. Ritual sex, revenge and domination and sex slavery were why that particular passage pertained to it as that is what the surrounding pagans used it for. We don’t do those things anymore. Therefore, that particular passage no longer applies in the same way the part about mixed fabrics doesn’t. It really is sad to see Catholics doing such things as they’re cutting off their fellow man from the life blood of the church by not bothering to understand the whole purpose such things pertained to.
 
Then what else is it?

If every sexual act must be open to life, where do homosexual ones fall?

If homosexual relations are okay, why not mutural masturbation or just solo?

ccc 2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
 
The openness to life comes to us not through the Bible. But, through Augustine and a few others and isn’t at all the whole intention of the gift sex is that God gave to us. The early church fathers such as Tellurian, who predated Augustine by some 250 years, never spoke of masturbation as they simply didn’t consider the matter. It became thought to be anti-stoic by the time Augustine came on in terms of culture as it was thought to be the using of one’s body for sexual gratification by way of thinking about another in terms of sex. We see how the church’s thinking by the 20th century had changed by the entry in the Catechism here that prefaces '69: 2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.“145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure.” That is to say that in a married union, at the time understood by the church to be applicable to just straight couples (which, being a romantic union and not an arranged one per the pre-17th century condition of marriage already blows in the face of the old thinking on the matter) thanks to the men working on the Catechism at the time believing homosexuality to be a disease and not the natural part of the human condition it is, that sex is both unitive (bonding) and procreative. Such is the reason that the standing of the church allows sterile couples to copulate: they need it for bonding. Despite procreation being impossible.
 
Andy_82 said:
the Bible never speaks against the modern concept of homosexuality as being part of a loving, monogamous relationship
Click to expand...
The problem is that Satan comes up with elaborate arguments to rationalize and justify sin. The Bible itself describes certain mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gn 4:10), sodomy (Gn 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (Jas 5:4).

The sins against the Holy Spirit are mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category: despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.

Realize that we go to church and receive the sacraments in order to be transformed, from wretched sinners into to sanctified souls that reflect the holiness of Christ. You don’t go to church to demand that God and His Church change to conform to your specific wretchedness. The Church is a hospital for sinners. Thus God gives us the sacrament of reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist to empower us to do things we could never do on our own through our fallen nature. Sanctifying agrace is supernatural power that helps us live the way God wants us to live, strength to say “No” to sin and to grow in holiness every day. The ONLY thing God wills for you in your life is that you may become holy; that is, to become a saint within your particular circumstances in life, among the people around you and through the weaknesses that you specifically have to overcome. The Christian pilgrimage is an adventure in courage and boldness; not mediocrity and laziness.

Ultimately it is a quest to become simple, little, humble, and to empty one’s self of attachments to worldly things, a total demolition of our old self, so that Christ may live and shine through us. It’s a lifelong process of unmasking and uprooting things from our heart. That’s the reason why the Church canonizes saints, these are men and women from all walks of life who have allowed God to transform them into what God wants to reflect of Himself through them, they are raised as role models to show people what is possible when we emulate Christ. Everyone is called to become a saint within their circumstance. This idea of rationalizing sin and justifying all sorts of perversions, addictions, sexual sins and obsessions, is just Satan trying to deceive people from the way of the cross. We all have an appointment with a funeral director; we don’t want to die addicted to the world and full of un-repented sin, or lived a life dedicated to championing things that lead souls away from God.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Which is the problem here: being gay in itself is not a sin. Nor is it ever defined as such anywhere in scripture or other understood literature per our modern understanding of the matter. Therefore, by rejecting what we merely don’t understand as being sinful we are are committing the sin of discrimination by not loving our neighbor as ourselves.
 
Andy_82 said:
How, may I ask?
Click to expand...
It is all present in the scriptures, and in Church teachings…I will not belabor the point for sake of any arguments.

Sin is sin, to be sorry for sin one has to flee from it, confess it and repent…do everything in ones power to not commit the sin again. Not doing so may lead to a relapse into sin. Or worse they are going to confession and communion and aren’t really sorry for the sin in the first place because they will continue to practice the sin.
Placing oneself in danger of mortal sin by blatantly “doing what I want to do” is heart breaking. I shudder at how many souls have been lost do to this mentality.

IMHO, the problem with condoning a homosexual lifestyle is that it hardens the heart because the sinner is not repentant if they continue to stay in a relationship.

I know it is a tough cross too bear…we all have one.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think anyone here has said that.

Desires to sin are not sinful in and of themselves.
It is only acting upon those desires that is sinful.
 
The problem with your argument is that you’re defining that which isn’t sinful as being so when there’s really no standing for it to be so beyond a misunderstanding of historicity of the texts. Therefore, if a person hasn’t committed a sin beyond an incorrect perception of it as being so, they are not actually sinning. There’s a rapidly growing number of Catholic theologians that fall into supporting homosexuality as being treated as the same as heterosexuality for that reason. There is no reference to it as being sinful as we currently tend to treat it. If anything, as I mention in another comment, the sin being committed here is one of discrimination: by not treating our neighbors as we would ourselves thanks to our being in the wrong, we are the ones committing the sin.
 
Lust is a sin no matter the sexual orientation of the person doing the lusting. So, that also goes for a man looking upon a woman with lust as it does were he looking upon another man in the same way.
 
True. Which, is why the church needs to allow gays to be accepted as married. Or, as the Pope appears to define it, in a civil union in which the relationship is similar in acceptance. Though, I do argue that fornication today isn’t what it meant in the time of Christ as it meant violate a woman’s virginity prior to marriage. Which, led into property and inheritance disputes. Not just that a woman wasn’t a virgin anymore.
 
No…

While I dont think immoral attractions are sinful, I do think that acting on them are sinful.

Homosexual relations are a deliberate misuse and perversion of the sexual act. The penis is made for the deposition of sperm in a vagina, not for pleasure in anal sex. Structure yields function.

Even just purely biologically, homosexual acts are disordered and make no sense. It’s like using a hammer to dig a hole- Those ‘tools’ are not meant to be used in that way
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top