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

[catholic1seeks]

Now there’s my thread.

However, even going off the assumption of Catholic teaching (which I adhere to), it’s a stretch to see Genesis as having a commentary on heterosexuality vs homosexuality.

 

[theCardinalbird]

People. Can we not just pick up our crosses and follow Jesus? People who experience SSA are not evil. They are made in the image and likeness of God, like all of us, and have a desire for male intimacy, that is often sexualized both by society and oneself (not the fault of oneself always, but hormones most likely).

Can we not agree that those who experience this attraction need guidance to live Christ like lives and experience Christ like love?

I do not agree with gay marriage, but I do agree with men having strong friendships with each other filled with compassion, sensitivity, and joy.

OP, you have many comments on this topic, I pray all goes well and that you make the right choice.

Well the still true point is at the heart of your thread: you can’t be faithful to the teaching of the Church by marrying without saying a full yes, which you admitted you can’t, given all the other laundry list of issues and reservations you’ve given us.

I agree. It needs to be a full yes, or there will be problems.

 

[Thorolfr]

Well the still true point is at the heart of your thread: you can’t be faithful to the teaching of the Church by marrying without saying a full yes, which you admitted you can’t, given all the other laundry list of issues and reservations you’ve given us.

Your position fails a 10th grade test of logic. We can’t help you get out of that iron triangle.

This thread is well past exhausted.

And it seems kind of cruel of God to make someone gay who is Catholic so that they are unable to have a legitimate Catholic marriage. And despite what some people seem to imply here, having a pet or a roommate and lots of non-sexual friendships is not a substitute for the romantic and sexual relationship that someone has with a significant other.

 

[Gab123]

isn’t God in any way responsible for all those who still starve to death because of the inaction of other humans?

No. If you choose to kill your neighbor, that’s not God’s fault. This life is just the beginning, a test as to how you will live your eternity. If you hate your neighbor that’s on you. As for those who suffer and die of starvation, their physical death is a transition and a beginning into eternity and God’s kingdom, read Matt. 25:35-45

 

[Thorolfr]

No. If you choose to kill your neighbor, that’s not God’s fault.

So if I saw my neighbor committing murder and did nothing to prevent it, the fact that someone got murdered is all on my neighbor and not my fault in any way, even though I could have prevented him from committing this murder?

 

[theCardinalbird]

I asked an apologist the question as to why does God allow suffering. This was his response:

In short, you have to appreciate the fact that we are not living in a universe as God intended it to be (the Garden of Eden). Rather, we are living in a fallen, sinful, and damaged universe; and this was caused by the sin of our first parents (Adam and Eve). Because of this, Satan has a certain amount of control over this universe, which is why there is sin, sickness, suffering, and death. The good news is that God is still in ultimate control, even though He has to permit a certain amount of evil and suffering to take place. And so, as St. Augustine puts it: “God does not cause bad things to happen. Rather, He causes bad things not to be the worst things possible.” For example, because of the dominion of Satan over this world, sometimes babies are born deformed with two heads. However, if Satan had his way (if God didn’t stop him or hold him in check), then ALL babies would be born deformed with two heads, or much worse. If Satan had full control, it would literally be hell on earth. But it’s not. God’s goodness is still part of this universe. However, there is also the pollution of satanic evil (sin, sickness, suffering, and death) because our first parents chose to let this in; and God cannot simply make it go away without violating His gift of free will to human beings, which is part of His love for us. So, the answer to your question is that, while God does indeed allow suffering, He does not allow the cruelest suffering. It can get A LOT worse than anything we experience. And the suffering that God does allow is permitted so that good may come from it. This is part of a great mystery of how God operates (i.e. is forced to operate) in this fallen world. We chose sin and to damage God’s perfect creation. God now must work with and through this damaged creation. …because He respects and indulges our choice. It was not His original choice or desire, though. It was ours. And His ultimate reply to it is the mystery of Christ’s Crucifixion. For God doesn’t just help us with our suffering, He Personally shares in it!

 

[Gab123]

And it seems kind of cruel of God to make someone gay who is Catholic so that they are unable to have a legitimate Catholic marriage. And despite what some people seem to imply here, having a pet or a roommate and lots of non-sexual friendships is not a substitute for the romantic and sexual relationship that someone has with a significant other.

The problem with the gay lifestyle, is that what started as a temptation, grew into an addiction and a way of life; much like someone who can’t live without cigarettes or heroin. Maybe instead of obsessing over a man’s body and his sexual organs, you begin to look at human beings as persons whom you can have natural and good relations with. A man’s seed was not meant to be trapped in plastic balloons destined for trash cans or flushed down toilets. It’s a matter of good over evil. Something is said to be good when it fulfills the purpose for which it was made. Likewise, evil is to take something good and to use it for something other than its purpose…

 

[catholic1seeks]

So do tell Ed,

What’s your aim here? Do you think any of your comments are helpful to me?

Even if you claim to speak for the truth as you often say you do, you definitely aren’t sharing that “Truth” in a sensitive or charitable way.

Even now, again, you insult my intelligence. Do you think that’s the way to go?

I’ve had plenty of charitable views, from plenty of perspectives — from people like @Thorolfr who see no real issue with gay marriage and relationships, to people like @Lara who are traditional Catholics but want to learn from my own experience (and adapt accordingly), to plenty on here who are ADAMANET that I should NOT enter a marriage with a woman (and yet say so very kindly and charitably) to others who, after reading me in context, understand where I’m coming from and are attempting to help me in this possible option.

There are plenty of views throughout this thread, and yet it seems you are one of the few who constantly prove unhelpful. And it’s not merely because I don’t agree with your conclusions, it’s because you’re just plain… mean?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Maybe instead of obsessing over a man’s body and his sexual organs, you begin to look at human beings as persons whom you can have natural and good relations with.

What an awful accusation against someone you hardly know.

 

[meltzerboy2]

In my view, that would be a sin of omission on your part. You ARE, in part, responsible albeit not as much as the person who commits the crime. We must all do our part according to the legal contract we have with G-d. Surely G-d has done and is doing His share of the work.

 

[Briwerr]

The heterosexual lifestyle is simply the biological norm.

Homosexuality however is a sub-culture, defined by sexuality. Therefore it is easier to delineate.

Put simply, a homosexual goes to a “gay bar” but a heterosexual goes to a bar.

 

[Edward_H]

And the evidence that someone is gay, or bisexual, or fluid, or transgender, or questioning, or a transexual, or queer, is…what? Self reports.

Self reports based on the current state of their attractions.

We know that atttractions strenghten, diminish, tune, refine in every other area of human behavior.

We know from about 75 years of Behavioral Psychology with perhaps 200K scientific experiments that “reinforcement” happens, all manner of types of behavior can be shifted and nudged.

This is not arguable.

We also know that the sexual sense is HIGHLY pleasing and reinforcing.

So I think reasonable people can reject the idea that self reports of “attractions” should be the primary evidence of one’s natural orientation.

 

[Vonsalza]

@catholic1seeks As long as you guys were open about it and felt the same way, I’d see nothing wrong with it.

I kinda think that relationship explains a lot of the marriages of highly visible folks of yesteryear who had SSA and didn’t want to express it for reasons of conviction.

You’re consenting adults and as long as everyone’s on the same page, I don’t see the issue. While still “man and woman”, you’re really more “person and person”.

How you find that might be an issue, but the internet does amazing things in connecting folks who wouldn’t otherwise find one another…

 

[Thorolfr]

I asked an apologist the question as to why does God allow suffering. This was his response:

In short, you have to appreciate the fact that we are not living in a universe as God intended it to be (the Garden of Eden). Rather, we are living in a fallen, sinful, and damaged universe; and this was caused by the sin of our first parents (Adam and Eve). Because of this, Satan has a certain amount of control over this universe, which is why there is sin, sickness, suffering, and death. The good news is that God is still in ultimate control, even though He has to permit a certain amount of evil and suffering to take place. And so, as St. Augustine puts it: “God does not cause bad things to happen. Rather, He causes bad things not to be the worst things possible.” For example, because of the dominion of Satan over this world, sometimes babies are born deformed with two heads. However, if Satan had his way (if God didn’t stop him or hold him in check), then ALL babies would be born deformed with two heads, or much worse. If Satan had full control, it would literally be hell on earth. But it’s not. God’s goodness is still part of this universe. However, there is also the pollution of satanic evil (sin, sickness, suffering, and death) because our first parents chose to let this in; and God cannot simply make it go away without violating His gift of free will to human beings, which is part of His love for us. So, the answer to your question is that, while God does indeed allow suffering, He does not allow the cruelest suffering. It can get A LOT worse than anything we experience. And the suffering that God does allow is permitted so that good may come from it. This is part of a great mystery of how God operates (i.e. is forced to operate) in this fallen world. We chose sin and to damage God’s perfect creation. God now must work with and through this damaged creation. …because He respects and indulges our choice. It was not His original choice or desire, though. It was ours. And His ultimate reply to it is the mystery of Christ’s Crucifixion. For God doesn’t just help us with our suffering, He Personally shares in it!

So, if a parent had a child, just like God is our parent and we are His children, and this child wanted to go and put his hand on a hot stove, he should be allowed to do this because every child should have free will, something that is given to him out of the parent’s love for him. And if this child burns his hand, that was his choice, not the parent’s choice even though the parent could have prevented the child from burning his hand. And if a child burns his hand, something good will come out of his suffering. And if a child wants to run out into the street and gets run over, the parent should “respect and indulge” the child’s choice to run into the street because allowing him to exercise his free will is a gift.

I’m sure that parents could use these kinds of argument when Child Protective Services comes to visit them.

 

[Gab123]

So if I saw my neighbor committing murder and did nothing to prevent it, the fact that someone got murdered is all on my neighbor and not my fault in any way, even though I could have prevented him from committing this murder?

Free will means doing what we ought to do; so if you are in a position of doing something to help neighbor and do not, then there is culpability on your part. God is the author of life, and the physical death of the body is not the end of a person’s existence; thus He permits murderers to murder, but not with impunity.

 

[Edward_H]

Getting close to the truth should always be our greatest desire, because God is the source of all truth.

Attractions, desires, proclivities, inclinations, preferences come and go…they don’t necessarily lead us to the truth.

And common experience tells us that our feelings often lie. And following lies, serving them, obeying them, leads us to worse problems.

So playing pretend, assauging people, telling them that their feelings…their self reports of interior sensations is the truth is an act of great uncharity to them.

The truth is knowable, it’s stable, it comes from God.

 

[Gab123]

And if a child wants to run out into the street and gets run over, the parent should “respect and indulge” the child’s choice

A child doesn’t know the dangers while a parent does, thus God puts children under the care and responsibility of parents. You as an adult know the difference between right and wrong, so the responsibility is now yours not your parents.

 

[Briwerr]

Well that’s an interesting example and I’m happy to be corrected.

However, this is only one example. For the hypothesis to be convincing we would need to see this over and over again in societies.

At any rate, I’m not sure how relevant this is:

M.A. Czaplicka in “Shamanism in Sibera” states that such cases are “rare” and notes that Bogoraz thinks that, “they cohabit modo Socratis, though they are sometimes said to have mistresses in secret and to produce children by them”.

She also notes that, “Bogoraz himself was best acquainted with a ‘soft man’ called Tiluwgi, who, however, would not allow himself to be inspected fully. His human husband described him as a normal male person. In spite of this, his habits were those of a woman.” Later on she says that she has heard of cases among the Chukchee where women “transformed” into men, although they have not been observed.

Are we therefore dealing with homosexuality, transgenderism, or transvestism? It isn’t clear.

Czaplicka concludes:

“On the contrary, when reading the detailed description of the transformed shamans in Bogoraz and Jochelson, we see that in nearly every case these shamans are at first normal people and only later, by inspiration of spirits, have to change their sex. As described in previous pages, some of them have secretly, along with an official husband of the same sex, normal sexual relations with a person of the other sex, and we may even assume that some of them actually became sexless, although in certain cases the outward show required by religious considerations may cover abnormal passions.”

Furthermore, in the end notes, she states that “if it [shamanistic sexual transformation] were only due to sexual perversions it would probably be rather on the increase during the present period of colonization, when we know that all sorts of diseases and every kind of sexual licence have increased among the Siberian natives.”

So, to conclude: it’s isn’t clear that this is homosexuality as we are talking about; there is no evidence of any “gay parenting” here; and it is a solitary example. The hypothesis thus remains unproven.

 

[Edward_H]

It’s a biological norm, more strong than it’s a biological norm that a human has two functioning eyes.

And it’s even more than a biological norm that the complementarity of a man and woman is unique.

It’s elegant. It fits. It solves problems!

 

[Gab123]

What an awful accusation against someone you hardly know.

I didn’t mean to accuse anyone personally, just an observation about human sexuality. A person can love a person without having sexual intercourse with that person’s body. And the more one obsesses and fantasizes about sex with their body the more that temptation becomes a reality…