Increased severity of lustful thoughts?

[cjcapta]

I know that lustful thoughts are a sin, but if someone had a lustful thought about the same gender because that person looked like the opposite gender, would that increase the gravity of the sin? Even if it was by someone who is definitely straight?

 

[DexUK]

Inasmuch as lust is lust, I don’t suppose there’s any differentiation. The internal effect upon oneself is the same.

If it’s in innocent act - i.e. recognising the attractiveness of another person rather than deliberately dwelling on it, if a person is unaware that the object of their attraction is the same gender as they are, then they can hardly be held culpable because of that.

 

[bingbang]

If you are having sexual thoughts about the same sex you are not “definitely straight.”

 

[havana1]

If you are having sexual thoughts about the same sex you are not “definitely straight.”

Yeah, if this were 1970 or 1980 or whatever and all guys looked like guys, and all girls looked like girls. Check out this recent interview with the guy from Silversun Pickups:

The biggest misconception about our band is: “That I’m a girl. I always used to love the idea of the guy in the crowd waiting to see the girl singer. And then I’d show up with my hair all messed up and my beard and I’m like [in deep man voice], ‘All right, thanks for comin’, everyone,’ and I would think the guy’s mind is blown, or he leaves, or his life is forever changed.”
Source: phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-07-15/music/what-not-to-yell-at-silversun-pickups/

 

[DexUK]

Yeah, if this were 1970 or 1980 or whatever and all guys looked like guys, and all girls looked like girls.

I was there in 1980 (and only just missed 1970 by a few days!) and I can confidently assure you that in and around 1980 there were many many guys who weren’t immediately recognisable as guys!

The 1980s… the decade that fashion really did forget!

 

[cjcapta]

Inasmuch as lust is lust, I don’t suppose there’s any differentiation. The internal effect upon oneself is the same.

If it’s in innocent act - i.e. recognising the attractiveness of another person rather than deliberately dwelling on it, if a person is unaware that the object of their attraction is the same gender as they are, then they can hardly be held culpable because of that.

Does The Catholic Church support this view as well?

 

[DexUK]

I don’t think the church differentiates between lust of a heterosexual or homosexual nature. It’s lust. Plain and simple.

If you lust over a member of the same gender then you’re homosexual or bisexual. If you carry out actions related to that lust (fornication, masturbation, etc), then these are in and of themselves sins. But they’d be the same sins if they were related to a person of the opposite gender.

Either way, if it’s a deliberate act on your part then it goes on the list for your next confession.

Of course it’s possible that you can see a person of either gender and recognise beauty when you see it. There’s nothing amiss in identifying a person as being cute or handsome or whatever criteria you use for determining attractiveness. You can’t deny your own eyes, after all. If what you see leads you to a conclusion about a person’s gender which happens to be wrong, that’s not a sin. It’s what you do with that knowledge that’s important.

 

[cjcapta]

Here’s another situation: What if a person is trying to take the opposite gender’s perspective to see if a member of the the first person’s gender (or even themselves) is sexually attractive? Would that be lust, more severe lust, no sin at all, or even pride or vanity if the person was trying to perceive how sexually attractive he or she is to the opposite gender?

 

[Inwe86]

Wow, some of you are quick to label others as “homosexual” or “bisexual”

This could be quite detrimental to a person who actually isn’t, but is only going through a period of confusion.