Parents of Gay Children, having "the talk"

[theCrow]

So does anyone here actually have a close friend/family member/daughter/son/sister/brother/mom/dad/ who is Gay?

After researching Catholic teaching, let me know if this would be a good “talk” to
have to a teenage son/daughter who just came out of the closet as a homosexual:

1. from Catholic teaching:

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

---

So should I say to my son or daughter “you are called to chastity.”

Thus you:

1. Can NEVER get married (since marriage is between a man and a woman)
2. NEVER have sex (since Homosexual Sex is a sin and abomination unto God)
3. NEVER masturbate (again, another sin)
4. NEVER adopt a child of your own
5. NEVER become a Priest

But…I accept and love you.



Did I get anything wrong?

I challenge everyone here to look inside their heart and conscience and to see how sad, intolerant and discriminatory this actually is.
And people wonder why there are “Cafeteria” Catholics/“Progressive” Catholics and others leaving the church in droves. If and when I do have children of my own, I promise to love and cherish them, unconditionally, gay or straight, and if they are Gay and want to get married, I’ll be the first to congratulate them and do all in my power to ensure they are guaranteed this right.

---

Our Church, the largest Christian denomination in the United States with an estimated 62 million members, has welcomed celibate gay and lesbian people into its church life but increasingly is becoming more intolerant even of this population.

 

[Vanna_Grace]

You are actually discussing several separate issues here.

1. If I had a son or daughter who was gay…would I still love them? Absolutely. I don’t have to agree with someone’s lifestyle to show them unconditional love. Would I tell them what the church teaches? Of course. Would it be their own decision as to whether to follow this or not? Again, of course, we all have God-given freewill. Would I “congratulate” them in their sin? No…but again, it would have no effect on my love for them.
2. Fighting for legal status of marriage…completely different issue. Obviously, the Catholic church would never condone gay marriage (and shouldn’t be forced to under law) as it goes against the Bible. Now, do I feel that it should be legal due to the fact that not all tax paying people believe as I do? To be honest, probably but I won’t fight for something that goes against God.
3. Intolerance and discrimination…this really bothers me. Just because I don’t believe something is good or ok or whatever, doesn’t mean I’m intolerant. Intolerance would be saying “I hate gay people because of their sin.” I think “most” people in the church do not feel that way…at least NONE that I have ever met. Disagreement does not equal intolerance. Discrimination is another word thrown around far too often. There are basic principles in the Catholic church based on biblical knowledge. We don’t have a right to feel that way, believe that way? We must change to suit whatever, whenever so anyone can feel comfortable and join in? Wouldn’t that be infringing on our right to our beliefs? If the Catholic church is offensive to someone, why would they want to join? Should we water down the principles of our faith to fit everyone? What really would be left? Nothing.

I am not a theological expert. I’m not perfect. I’m just a mother, who would love my children regardless of any choice they make but I wouldn’t condone sin of any kind…neither would I harp on the sin and drive them from me. My beliefs would be presented and then I would pray for them until my last breath. I don’t believe any of that screams intolerance or discrimination.

 

[His_helpmeet]

So does anyone here actually have a close friend/family member/daughter/son/sister/brother/mom/dad/ who is Gay?

After researching Catholic teaching, let me know if this would be a good “talk” to
have to a teenage son/daughter who just came out of the closet as a homosexual:

1. from Catholic teaching:

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

---

So should I say to my son or daughter “you are called to chastity.”

Thus you:

1. Can NEVER get married (since marriage is between a man and a woman)
2. NEVER have sex (since Homosexual Sex is a sin and abomination unto God)
3. NEVER masturbate (again, another sin)
4. NEVER adopt a child of your own
5. NEVER become a Priest

But…I accept and love you.



Did I get anything wrong?

I challenge everyone here to look inside their heart and conscience and to see how sad, intolerant and discriminatory this actually is.
And people wonder why there are “Cafeteria” Catholics/“Progressive” Catholics and others leaving the church in droves. If and when I do have children of my own, I promise to love and cherish them, unconditionally, gay or straight, and if they are Gay and want to get married, I’ll be the first to congratulate them and do all in my power to ensure they are guaranteed this right.

---

Our Church, the largest Christian denomination in the United States with an estimated 62 million members, has welcomed celibate gay and lesbian people into its church life but increasingly is becoming more intolerant even of this population.

Not everyone is called to marriage. Marriage is a calling; it’s not a right. Being gay/lesbian is a cross. Nobody died because they did not have sex. It’s perfectly acceptable for gay and lesbian people to have platonic friendships with people of both sexes, so they need not be lonely.

Let’s look at it this way:

I have polycystic ovary syndrome. There’s a possible chance that I will not be able to have children. DH and I have rejected AI and IVF as options. We may be called to adopt. That said, we might not be able to have biological children. That is our cross. (DH married me knowing this was a possibility.) We don’t have a “right” to have children. A “right” implies that someone has an obligation on the other end. If you have a “right” to marry you are implying that someone has an obligation to become your spouse. If you have a “right” to have children someone has an obligation to give them to you.

EVERYONE has a cross of some kind. It’s impossible to escape. But being married is not a guarantee of happiness, nor is it a requirement for happiness. It’s possible for someone with SSA to live a happy, fulfilling, celibate lifestyle.

 

[theCrow]

Not everyone is called to marriage. Marriage is a calling; it’s not a right. Being gay/lesbian is a cross. Nobody died because they did not have sex. It’s perfectly acceptable for gay and lesbian people to have platonic friendships with people of both sexes, so they need not be lonely.

Let’s look at it this way:

I have polycystic ovary syndrome. There’s a possible chance that I will not be able to have children. DH and I have rejected AI and IVF as options. We may be called to adopt. That said, we might not be able to have biological children. That is our cross. (DH married me knowing this was a possibility.) We don’t have a “right” to have children. A “right” implies that someone has an obligation on the other end. If you have a “right” to marry you are implying that someone has an obligation to become your spouse. If you have a “right” to have children someone has an obligation to give them to you.

EVERYONE has a cross of some kind. It’s impossible to escape. But being married is not a guarantee of happiness, nor is it a requirement for happiness. It’s possible for someone with SSA to live a happy, fulfilling, celibate lifestyle.

I stopped reading after seeing that. So are you really saying Gay people can NOT be “called” to marriage? Can they really ONLY have platonic relationships their whole lives. sigh
Perhaps that cross is being forced upon them by the intolerant religious right.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The fact is that the Catholic Church doesn’t really have a place for homosexuals except to suffer alone and silently.

They cannot marry.
They cannot become priests.
They cannot adopt.
They should not live with a same sex roommate. (Near occassion of sin/scandal)
They should not live with an opposite sex roommate. (Scandal)
Look around on these boards and see just how many people even go so far as to say that homosexuals should not even be allowed to work with children!

So basically, they are told: “There is really no way around it, you must be alone. And of course, god would never call someone with your temptations to lead others! Oh no, not that. And please be careful, almost anything you do will look bad to others.”

I don’t know what the church’s solution to this should be, or if they even see a need for one. It doesn’t bother me much though. The gay people who want more will leave the church, and those who can be happy in those circumstances will stay. It’s a personal choice.

 

[RileyG]

sigh…

People with SSA have a heavy cross to carry, but acting out on their disordered desires is NOT going to make the cross any lighter. Yes, that’s exactly how the Church views Same-Sex attraction a disorder because of the original sin of our first parents [Adam and Eve].

I personally see the gay lifestyle as destructive and dangerous, and my conscience cannot tell anyone to live it.

Chasity is perfect happiness, for a long time, The Church has put Chasity actually above marriage because it imitates Christ.

 

[RileyG]

Not everyone is called to marriage. Marriage is a calling; it’s not a right. Being gay/lesbian is a cross. Nobody died because they did not have sex. It’s perfectly acceptable for gay and lesbian people to have platonic friendships with people of both sexes, so they need not be lonely.

Let’s look at it this way:

I have polycystic ovary syndrome. There’s a possible chance that I will not be able to have children. DH and I have rejected AI and IVF as options. We may be called to adopt. That said, we might not be able to have biological children. That is our cross. (DH married me knowing this was a possibility.) We don’t have a “right” to have children. A “right” implies that someone has an obligation on the other end. If you have a “right” to marry you are implying that someone has an obligation to become your spouse. If you have a “right” to have children someone has an obligation to give them to you.

EVERYONE has a cross of some kind. It’s impossible to escape. But being married is not a guarantee of happiness, nor is it a requirement for happiness. It’s possible for someone with SSA to live a happy, fulfilling, celibate lifestyle.

Amen. Well said.

Sex and marriage are NOT rights imho, period.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The fact is that the Catholic Church doesn’t really have a place for homosexuals except to suffer alone and silently.

I don’t want to view it that way, but I do. I would like nothing better than for there to be more of an answer to this question.

To say to someone that they are closed from married or religious life and offer no alternative, and to say all of this while they are a teenager for example, and then to speak of them as if they are accepted within a community in which they cannot choose a vocation of any kind… this, to me, is problematic.

I mean, I can completely deny that homosexual sex/marriage is acceptable (as I do) and still have problems and confusion with the place of SSA individuals within the community. It bothers me that people suggest that you can only have some confusion about this issue if you are a gay sex advocate.
his helpmeet:

I have polycystic ovary syndrome. There’s a possible chance that I will not be able to have children. DH and I have rejected AI and IVF as options. We may be called to adopt. That said, we might not be able to have biological children. That is our cross. (DH married me knowing this was a possibility.) We don’t have a “right” to have children. A “right” implies that someone has an obligation on the other end. If you have a “right” to marry you are implying that someone has an obligation to become your spouse. If you have a “right” to have children someone has an obligation to give them to you.

Never mind the question of “rights” for a minute and just look at the situation. If the person wants to be faithful but is also told that there is no vocation open to them, then what expectation ought we to have that they will remain faithful? IMO, it’s kinda like hiring someone for a job and then telling them that the job has no responsibilities, no pay and no benefits. That is not welcoming or encouraging. And I will stress that at least IMO there is a big difference between welcoming/encouraging homosexual behavior and welcoming/encouraging a faithful individual with SSA.

 

[PietroPaolo]

So does anyone here actually have a close friend/family member/daughter/son/sister/brother/mom/dad/ who is Gay?

After researching Catholic teaching, let me know if this would be a good “talk” to
have to a teenage son/daughter who just came out of the closet as a homosexual:

1. from Catholic teaching:

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

---

So should I say to my son or daughter “you are called to chastity.”

Thus you:

1. Can NEVER get married (since marriage is between a man and a woman)
2. NEVER have sex (since Homosexual Sex is a sin and abomination unto God)
3. NEVER masturbate (again, another sin)
4. NEVER adopt a child of your own
5. NEVER become a Priest

But…I accept and love you.



Did I get anything wrong?

I challenge everyone here to look inside their heart and conscience and to see how sad, intolerant and discriminatory this actually is.
And people wonder why there are “Cafeteria” Catholics/“Progressive” Catholics and others leaving the church in droves. If and when I do have children of my own, I promise to love and cherish them, unconditionally, gay or straight, and if they are Gay and want to get married, I’ll be the first to congratulate them and do all in my power to ensure they are guaranteed this right.

---

Our Church, the largest Christian denomination in the United States with an estimated 62 million members, has welcomed celibate gay and lesbian people into its church life but increasingly is becoming more intolerant even of this population.

First, ‘yes’ I have a gay cousin (my closest male cousin growing up, in fact) and I had a ‘gay’ roommate in college, but I wasn’t all that close to him. I have another cousin who is a convicted murderer. Doesn’t repent of the murder of his girlfriend and the two men he found her with either.

Now, I love both these men. I grew up with up. I care deeply for them. Do I then conclude that my imprisoned cousin ought to be released? He is serving a life sentence (actually 3 of them) and will likely:

1. Can NEVER get married (since marriage is between a man and a woman)
2. NEVER have sex (since Homosexual Sex is a sin and abomination unto God)
3. NEVER masturbate (again, another sin)
4. NEVER adopt a child of your own
5. NEVER become a Priest

Do I, because I happen to know someone who is afflicted with the struggles of living the rest of his life (he’s only in his twenties) in a maximum security prison throw over my reason and, simply for sentiment, declare murder is not wrong and that he ought to be released to probably kill again? No.

Do I love my gay cousin? Absolutely. Does that mean I throw over reason and declare everything he wants to do to be fine just because he wants to do it? Of course not.

Your line of thinking, if genuine, mistakes sentimentality for reason and leads you astray. It is also a classic example of an *argumentum ad misericordiam/I] - an appeal to pity.

And before you erroneously conclude that my post somehow is equating in all ways homosexuality with murder, I’m not. I’m simply showing how loving someone doesn’t mean we have to approve of their behaviors, even when not approving of them means the person might not be able to do everything they’d like to.

God bless.*

 

[His_helpmeet]

I stopped reading after seeing that. So are you really saying Gay people can NOT be “called” to marriage? Can they really ONLY have platonic relationships their whole lives. sigh
Perhaps that cross is being forced upon them by the intolerant religious right.

Gay and lesbian relationships are contrary to natural law. That’s a fact that not even God can change.

Some people are asexual. Others are demisexual (they only have strong sexual feelings when they are with specific people). What would you say to a person who was demisexual and attracted to his/her parent or sibling? That person would not be called to marriage either. What about a person who is polyamorous and wants to marry 2 or more spouses? Or a person who is sexually attracted to animals?

Again, you are assuming that a person who does not marry, by definition, can never be truly happy and/or that marriage is somehow a “guarantee” of happiness. It’s estimated that 35-50% of lesbians have been in an abusive relationship of some kind. It’s also suspected that the reason the depression and suicide rates are higher in the LGBT community is due to the fact that their relationships do not last long, on average. Consequently it would seem that these people are physically and mentally healthier, on average, when they are NOT in a same-sex relationship.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Again, you are assuming that a person who does not marry, by definition, can never be truly happy and/or that marriage is somehow a “guarantee” of happiness. It’s estimated that 35-50% of lesbians have been in an abusive relationship of some kind. It’s also suspected that the reason the depression and suicide rates are higher in the LGBT community is due to the fact that their relationships do not last long, on average. Consequently it would seem that these people are physically and mentally healthier, on average, when they are NOT in a same-sex relationship.

Erm…actually, study after study has found that the higher rates of depression and suicide correspond strongly to the level of acceptance that person has in their life. If a person feels alone, isolated, hated, feels like they cannot tell their family/has told their family and been ostracized, etc they are more likely to be depressed.

apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

The link above refutes some of the old assumptions about mental health and homosexuality. They don’t have nearly the problems that you think they do.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I don’t want to view it that way, but I do. I would like nothing better than for there to be more of an answer to this question.

To say to someone that they are closed from married or religious life and offer no alternative, and to say all of this while they are a teenager for example, and then to speak of them as if they are accepted within a community in which they cannot choose a vocation of any kind… this, to me, is problematic.

I mean, I can completely deny that homosexual sex/marriage is acceptable (as I do) and still have problems and confusion with the place of SSA individuals within the community. It bothers me that people suggest that you can only have some confusion about this issue if you are a gay sex advocate.

Never mind the question of “rights” for a minute and just look at the situation. If the person wants to be faithful but is also told that there is no vocation open to them, then what expectation ought we to have that they will remain faithful? IMO, it’s kinda like hiring someone for a job and then telling them that the job has no responsibilities, no pay and no benefits. That is not welcoming or encouraging. And I will stress that at least IMO there is a big difference between welcoming/encouraging homosexual behavior and welcoming/encouraging a faithful individual with SSA.

What makes you think the Church doesn’t have a place for her homosexual sons and daughters? Very few Catholics are either ordained or in religious life. The vast majority (we’re looking at 99%) are laymen. Catholics who struggle with SSA are freely admitted to the Sacraments, including the Eucharist (what better “benefit” is there in the Catholic life?), can become saints (which we all are called to), are called to attend Mass, to have Catholic friends, etc, etc. Obviously, they are not free to advocate for their chosen sin to be normalized, but is that really any different than any of us? We are all sinners. We are all called to not do things we want to do. None of us are allowed to advocate for the Church to change to better suit us, we are all called to change to better mirror Christ. People with SSA may even marry someone of the opposite sex in the Church (there is no requirement to be “turned on” by your spouse to marry them).

 

[PietroPaolo]

Erm…actually, study after study has found that the higher rates of depression and suicide correspond strongly to the level of acceptance that person has in their life. If a person feels alone, isolated, hated, feels like they cannot tell their family/has told their family and been ostracized, etc they are more likely to be depressed.

apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

The link above refutes some of the old assumptions about mental health and homosexuality. They don’t have nearly the problems that you think they do.

That’s another red herring. Would you advocate for rape to be accepted by the Church (and not punished by society) b/c it would make rapists less depressed and suicidal? What matters is whether or not the act in question is immoral, not whether the people who want to do the immoral act would be less depressed if we all pretended the act in question isn’t immoral.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I don’t want to view it that way, but I do. I would like nothing better than for there to be more of an answer to this question.

To say to someone that they are closed from married or religious life and offer no alternative, and to say all of this while they are a teenager for example, and then to speak of them as if they are accepted within a community in which they cannot choose a vocation of any kind… this, to me, is problematic.

I mean, I can completely deny that homosexual sex/marriage is acceptable (as I do) and still have problems and confusion with the place of SSA individuals within the community. It bothers me that people suggest that you can only have some confusion about this issue if you are a gay sex advocate.

Never mind the question of “rights” for a minute and just look at the situation. If the person wants to be faithful but is also told that there is no vocation open to them, then what expectation ought we to have that they will remain faithful? IMO, it’s kinda like hiring someone for a job and then telling them that the job has no responsibilities, no pay and no benefits. That is not welcoming or encouraging. And I will stress that at least IMO there is a big difference between welcoming/encouraging homosexual behavior and welcoming/encouraging a faithful individual with SSA.

To me, it flies in the face of “respecting their intrinsic human dignity” or whatever the wording is. If your vocation is written on your heart, if it is something to be discerned, if it really is a lifelong calling, then telling someone: “You are attracted to X, so regardless of your thoughts, feelings, attitudes, actions, beliefs, or anything else that might be relevant in determining whether or not you’d make a good priest-it isn’t an option. Sure, any other sinner can be one. But not you. Not even if you never act on your attractions” strikes me as cruel and dehumanizing at best. And totally contradictory to how people should be treated.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That’s another red herring. Would you advocate for rape to be accepted by the Church (and not punished by society) b/c it would make rapists less depressed and suicidal? What matters is whether or not the act in question is immoral, not whether the people who want to do the immoral act would be less depressed if we all pretended the act in question isn’t immoral.

Actually, I was responding to her red herring. If homosexuality is morally wrong, then why rely on arguments about mental health? If it’s wrong, then she should be able to defend it based on morality.

Determining morality based on consequences is dangerous. It used to be that studies consistently showed that people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. Now, because of how many people live together and the difference in attitudes between the millennials and the previous generation, that has changed. Is living together now correct? If she’s going to say “Gay marriage is wrong and here’s my uncited psychological proof”, then she needs to be ready to continue to defend the position when science disagrees with her.

And regardless of the morality of homosexuality, perpetuating myths about the mental health of a group of people is irresponsible, and I will always call someone out on it.

 

[Christianus_Dei]

Sigh.

I’m Catholic. I’m also what you’d call “Gay.” Been dealing with homosexuality for quite a while now.

That makes me someone who supposedly has the most right to say this on the board(because apparently experience dictates truth or some nonsense like that).

I am not denied sex by the church. She would never do that to me, she would never tell me I am not allowed to have a romance because I have romantic feelings for my own gender. Those feelings, however, point me towards a relationship based on sexual attraction that can never be fulfilled. I can’t have sex with another man, not because I’m not allowed, but because it isn’t physically possible.

In the same way I couldn’t pour water down my ears or pump it through my anus and call it drinking, I cannot bring my genitals to another mans mouth or anus and call it sex. It defies the nature of my body.

It is not possible to be unified in marriage with someone if there is no possibility of my having sex with them. Marriage is a unification of body and soul, and not only am I incapable of unifying my body to that of another man, these physical attributes point toward spiritual attributes that render me incapable of spiritual unification of the same sort.

I am my soul.
I am my body.

If one or both are incapable of being one with another person, I am incapable of the same.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Actually, I was responding to her red herring. If homosexuality is morally wrong, then why rely on arguments about mental health? If it’s wrong, then she should be able to defend it based on morality.

Determining morality based on consequences is dangerous. It used to be that studies consistently showed that people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. Now, because of how many people live together and the difference in attitudes between the millennials and the previous generation, that has changed. Is living together now correct? If she’s going to say “Gay marriage is wrong and here’s my uncited psychological proof”, then she needs to be ready to continue to defend the position when science disagrees with her.

Hence the word** “another”** in my reply to your post. The whole argument from mental health, as you rightly point out here, is inconsequential.

And regardless of the morality of homosexuality, perpetuating myths about the mental health of a group of people is irresponsible, and I will always call someone out on it.

Didn’t we just agree that “myths about mental health” and “the morality of homosexuality” have nothing to do with each other? Is this my turn to roll my eyes?

 

[PietroPaolo]

Sigh.

I’m Catholic. I’m also what you’d call “Gay.” Been dealing with homosexuality for quite a while now.

That makes me someone who supposedly has the most right to say this on the board(because apparently experience dictates truth or some nonsense like that).

I am not denied sex by the church. She would never do that to me, she would never tell me I am not allowed to have a romance because I have romantic feelings for my own gender. Those feelings, however, point me towards a relationship based on sexual attraction that can never be fulfilled. I can’t have sex with another man, not because I’m not allowed, but because it isn’t physically possible.

In the same way I couldn’t pour water down my ears or pump it through my anus and call it drinking, I cannot bring my genitals to another mans mouth or anus and call it sex. It defies the nature of my body.

It is not possible to be unified in marriage with someone if there is no possibility of my having sex with them. Marriage is a unification of body and soul, and not only am I incapable of unifying my body to that of another man, these physical attributes point toward spiritual attributes that render me incapable of spiritual unification of the same sort.

I am my soul.
I am my body.

If one or both are incapable of being one with another person, I am incapable of the same.

:clapping:

 

[spiderweb]

Thus you:

1. Can NEVER get married (since marriage is between a man and a woman)
2. NEVER have sex (since Homosexual Sex is a sin and abomination unto God)
3. NEVER masturbate (again, another sin)
4. NEVER adopt a child of your own
5. NEVER become a Priest
6. Many homosexual people are indeed married to people of the opposite sex. And most of them truly do love their spouse, even if they don’t feel physically sexually attracted to them.
7. See the above. Even though they are homosexuals, they still got married and do have sex.
8. Masturbation is not dependent on ones sexual attraction, therefore is irrelevant to your topic.
9. Not a church teaching at all.
10. The call to priesthood involves a life of celibacy. If a homosexual lives a celibate life, there is no problem.

Interestingly you use two contradictory statements to say the Catholic Church is wrong. On the one hand (in my own words) “How dare the church say that homosexual people can never have sex”, yet on the other hand “How dare the church not allow homosexuals to live a celibate life within the priesthood.”

I can’t think of who said it but it goes something like this. “If the Church gets accused of being too far one way and too far in the opposite direction: then you can be sure that it is precisely where it needs to be.”

 

[GEddie]

Not everyone is called to marriage. Marriage is a calling; it’s not a right. Being gay/lesbian is a cross. Nobody died because they did not have sex. It’s perfectly acceptable for gay and lesbian people to have platonic friendships with people of both sexes, so they need not be lonely.

Let’s look at it this way:

I have polycystic ovary syndrome. There’s a possible chance that I will not be able to have children. DH and I have rejected AI and IVF as options. We may be called to adopt. That said, we might not be able to have biological children. That is our cross. (DH married me knowing this was a possibility.) We don’t have a “right” to have children. A “right” implies that someone has an obligation on the other end. If you have a “right” to marry you are implying that someone has an obligation to become your spouse. If you have a “right” to have children someone has an obligation to give them to you.

EVERYONE has a cross of some kind. It’s impossible to escape. But being married is not a guarantee of happiness, nor is it a requirement for happiness. It’s possible for someone with SSA to live a happy, fulfilling, celibate lifestyle.

But let’s take it one step further:

There is no right to “have sex.” Simply, this is because if you have the right to have sex, then someone has an obligation to provide it to you!

For that matter, God never in Scripture or elsewhere promises everybody a spouse or sexual “happiness.”

Human beings of all proclivities end up living without sex at some point in their lives. The lack of a moral OK to engage in gay sex, is a penance for those having that desire. It is not an injustice.

ICXC NIKA.