Parents of Gay Children, having "the talk"

[Corki]

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

There are some homosexual people that are called to marriage - but not to marriage with someone of the same sex.

There are some heterosexual people that are not called to marriage or who cannot get married.

If a person is not called to marriage - whether homosexual or heterosexual - he/she is going to have platonic relationships. And there’s nothing wrong with having close friendships that are not sexual in nature. In fact, in my experience, people who are unmarried tend to have more close and dear friends than those who are married.

And as for your original question, “the talk” shouldn’t be a list of “can not” statements. Any parent having “the talk” with a child should be framing it in terms of the gift of sexuality and the gift of marriage, emphasizing the positives and not the prohibitions. It doesn’t turn into a list of NOTs just because a child believes him/herself to be homosexual.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Actually, one of my brothers has SSA. However, he does not lead a homosexual lifestyle. My parents never had to have a “talk” with him with a bunch of don’t do this/don’t do that. We just were raised in the Catholic Church and so he knows God. When he told them during his college years that this was something he had, he basically told them that they had done nothing wrong and that he did not intend to date. He believes and is happy to just have good friendships and enjoy life.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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

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?

I find it interesting that you target this only at me, and not towards the person I was responding to. No, I will not go back on my original statement. I will ALWAYS defend people against inaccurate and damaging myths when I see them perpetuated.

Go ahead, roll your eyes. But I didn’t start this one, so I don’t feel that I deserve a lecture.

 

[RileyG]

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.

God Bless you abundantly!!!

That being said, I know plenty of people with SSA. I love and accept them, but I cannot accept their disordered choices. That’s not love, lying to someone is NOT love. Their soul is immortal- their soul is infinitely more important than a “few minutes of pleasure, or few hours of pleasure” and so forth.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

What makes you think the Church doesn’t have a place for her homosexual sons and daughters?

My frustration is not with God or the Church per se, but with my desire to believe that individuals with SSA are welcome within the Church and my subsequent inability to explain how that is the case.

When I was a child, my parents sat me down and explained the vocations of religious life and married life, the importance of those roles, how they provide meaning and purpose to our lives and to the Church and so on.

In this case, I am sitting someone down and saying that they are perfectly welcome within the Church, except that they should not pursue a religious life or a married life, that not only will they not find a vocation, but that those doors are already slammed shut to them early in their lives.

You see why I’m lost here, right?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

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.

Yes, especially the bolded. I’ve read posts on CAF in which the ministry Courage was thought to be problematic, because wouldn’t putting homosexuals in the same room be a near occasion of sin for them?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yes, especially the bolded. I’ve read posts on CAF in which the ministry Courage was thought to be problematic, because wouldn’t putting homosexuals in the same room be a near occasion of sin for them?

This too. Because living with/growing close to those of the opposite sex might be scandal, while the same with those of the same sex might be a near occasion of sin. So…

 

[SuperLuigi]

=theCrow;12276520]I stopped reading after seeing that.

What is it with folks and not reading posts?

Is it really ever a good idea to respond to someone without reading what they are saying first?

Gay people can NOT be “called” to marriage? Can they really ONLY have platonic relationships their whole lives. sigh

They can only be called to a valid marriage in the Church. Calls for evil do not come from God.

Perhaps that cross is being forced upon them by the intolerant religious right.

This comment insinuates that the “intolerant” religious right has the power to make someone gay?

Golly-gee, Persephone! :whacky:

 

[SuperLuigi]

My frustration is not with God or the Church per se, but with my desire to believe that individuals with SSA are welcome within the Church and my subsequent inability to explain how that is the case.

When I was a child, my parents sat me down and explained the vocations of religious life and married life, the importance of those roles, how they provide meaning and purpose to our lives and to the Church and so on.

In this case, I am sitting someone down and saying that they are perfectly welcome within the Church, except that they should not pursue a religious life or a married life, that not only will they not find a vocation, but that those doors are already slammed shut to them early in their lives.

You see why I’m lost here, right?

Everyone is welcome in the Church.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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?

I haven’t seen those studies, and assuming they exist, I’d look very carefully at their methodology.

“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.

Marriage has historically been about economics, not psychology.

 

[Scottgun]

Glad to see the testimony from someone with same-sex attraction determined to live in accordance with the truth. Here is another who goes by “Joe K.” and usually comments at Ed Feser’s blog:

In my experience, the hardest part about being homosexual is not getting turned on by hot guys (though that can be pretty frustrating sometimes). It’s being pressured by the entire world to “be myself,” “live my life,” etc. You hear constant rhetoric about how “oppressed” people are who can’t have sex with whom they please, how people who don’t are just “living a lie.”

You’d think most pressure comes from the gay community, and a certain amount of it kind of does, but it’s actually mostly from the straight community. They gay community always reacts kind of “hurt” (like Leah points out here) when you discuss sexual ethics or say I refuse to live that way, etc. It’s like your not doing what they’re doing is the strongest judgment of them that exists. And in a Certain way it is, but it’s not; I don’t talk with gay people that much, and I pretty much stay out of the debates not on the internet. What I find a little interesting is that there’s this certain level on insecurity and guilt about it. I think, in some ways, homosexuals recognize that it’s Not impossible to not live the life they’re living. I think that’s usually the way their lives are justified to themselves: “I can’t Live, it’s Impossible, without this outlet; I Cannot Be Wrong if the alternative is death.”

The worst, by far, are heterosexuals, who are all about gay rights, though. This may be because they are the majority, but in a certain way I think it’s deeper than that. I think their defending of homosexuals is driven by a couple things. One, it comes from this weird perverted notion that you always have to protect the weak and “not judge” No Matter What. It’s derived, I think, from Christian notions of love, but it has to turned into this terrible monster known as modern liberalism. It’s actually become the case that defending the weak is more important than identifying the truth. This whole idea is rampant, and it’s pretty much suffocating to any real discussion on moral issues. “Don’t judge! What makes your life any better! You’re just filled with hate!” etc. etc. etc. Everyone has to be equal, no matter the stakes, no matter what. If you imply Anything to the contrary, you’re basically Hitler who wants to kill all gay people. And while this push is definitely from the gay community (it’s how they gain their power), it’s most strong (and most despicable) from straight people. It’s despicable because they don’t know what they’re doing. They just bandwagon on someone else’s slave morality to the degradation of everything around them. And worst of all, they’re Zealous about it. They get mad, scary mad about it.

The second reason heterosexuals provide so much pressure against moral living is similar to the reason gay people do. A person who espouses Any sexual ethics (literally at all), is assaulting their own lifestyle. Because, let’s face it, heterosexuals are just as bad, or worse, about sexual purity than homosexuals. I basically know no people who don’t cohabitate. I basically know no people who haven’t sought relationships Just For The Sex. A friend of mine was asking which girl he should date. He explained their strengths and weaknesses to me. I told him to date the one he thinks he could marry. He laughed, looked at me like I was crazy, and then the conversation got awkward. That’s really the only sentence I said to him; I didn’t push anything, I wasn’t being preachy about it; I honestly thought that was the best, most rational advice. But it wasn’t even on his radar. And he’s a pretty decent person too. No, any talk about sexual ethics is an assault on almost All people. And that’s not cool. It’s way too hard to live your life moral with respect to sex. It’s also way too philosophical. With other things you can see external results more quickly and more clearly. Stealing has clear effects, as does lying. But having sex with your girlfriend? What’s wrong with that.

Beyond all this, the problem I personally face the most is not having any real outlet for myself. I don’t mean sexual outlet. I mean, societal outlet. Gay people have communities, but I don’t have any interest in those communities. They’re built around a weird lie. And as I’ve noted, straight people are even worse. So I end up sitting on the internet a lot. And this is what bugs me about the whole thing the most. There’s no real place for people like me. The closest is church stuff, but I don’t really like church stuff. I don’t like church “communities.” I like bowing before the presence of Christ, I don’t really like bowling awkwardly with dorky church people who would probably be just as sinful as the secular people I’m avoiding if they were just a little cooler. (I know there are cool people who attend churches; I’m just speaking generally.) And it’s actually a little hard to break into the super conservative groups (the genuine ones, not the goofy Republicany ones). They tend to, even if they respect my life choices, think it’s just a little weird that I find men sexually attractive. At the very least, it’s not something to talk about. But the inevitable question always comes up if you don’t say anything: “Hey, man, why aren’t you married?”

All that said, I’ve never been happier with my life for what it’s worth, and I really appreciate your praise. And I hope I’ve made it clear that I’m not bitter because I don’t get to have sex. The only thing I’m bitter about, if I am really bitter at all, is the way the world has no place for anyone who doesn’t have an interest in what the world has become. The way you it is definitely correct: the bread the devil offers is just the post-modern western world. There’s that Fiona Apple lyric, “hunger hurts, but starving works,” that might be appropriate here.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I haven’t seen those studies, and assuming they exist, I’d look very carefully at their methodology.

Marriage has historically been about economics, not psychology.

I’m not talking about marriage. At all. I was refuting some of the earlier, inaccurate assertions about mental health.

You can look up the studies, I can’t post links because I’m on my phone. Not all of them show it, but many of the more recent ones do. Usually, the divorce rates aren’t higher if the couple moves in together with plans to marry. The explanations I’ve read say it’s partly a numbers game (so many more people doing it), and the younger generation seems more committed to not repeating their parents mistakes (divorce).

In my mind though, it doesn’t matter. If it’s wrong, then it should be considered wrong even if it guarantees absolutely no divorce. Likewise, I don’t believe it’s wrong, nor did I put much stock in the numbers. They’re just numbers, and I knew my husband (then boyfriend) and myself.

 

[St_Francis]

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.”

Actually, the rule was always that those with solely homosexual attractions would not be admitted to the priesthood. Then for some reason many entered the priesthood against the rule.

Now the rule has been modified so that 3 years of celibacy must occur first (before entering seminary, iirc)

What I’m saying is that priesthood is not “where we can put homosexuals” or something like that

 

[St_Francis]

My frustration is not with God or the Church per se, but with my desire to believe that individuals with SSA are welcome within the Church and my subsequent inability to explain how that is the case.

When I was a child, my parents sat me down and explained the vocations of religious life and married life, the importance of those roles, how they provide meaning and purpose to our lives and to the Church and so on.

In this case, I am sitting someone down and saying that they are perfectly welcome within the Church, except that they should not pursue a religious life or a married life, that not only will they not find a vocation, but that those doors are already slammed shut to them early in their lives.

You see why I’m lost here, right?

The problem is that your parents explained two states of life without clarifying that there are other states of life. So you see only one or the other.

We are all called to holiness. Some are called to the religious life (vocations), others are not. However, what is really the most important thing for Catholics is that we are called to grow in holiness and to live a holy life.

Our greatest happiness is to be found in our relationship with God and our interwoven growth in holiness, so the fact that we cannot do this or cannot do that is really in the end inconsequential.

Would one throw away the Hope diamond for a 25¢ ring from a machine? Someone who is brought up Catholic should not need this “talk,” because they should already understand that their greatest happiness is with God, and to do something displeasing to Him would take that greatest happiness away.

Many people throughout time have lived and survived being neither nun/priest nor spouse. People do not marry for various reasons: the state of their health (many handicapped people, for example, realize they will probably never marry), the nature of their work, their temperament, *and that is ok. *It’s just that in our society, we have this humongous focus on sex as the end-all and be-all–with a Catholic addition of the religious life.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You can look up the studies, I can’t post links because I’m on my phone. Not all of them show it, but many of the more recent ones do. Usually, the divorce rates aren’t higher if the couple moves in together with plans to marry. The explanations I’ve read say it’s partly a numbers game (so many more people doing it), and the younger generation seems more committed to not repeating their parents mistakes (divorce).

At some point, I’ll probably come across them. I’m sure I don’t have to tell a fellow academic how important proper sampling is.

I would say off the top of my head though that comparing it the current general divorce rate is perhaps setting the bar pretty low.

In my mind though, it doesn’t matter. If it’s wrong, then it should be considered wrong even if it guarantees absolutely no divorce. Likewise, I don’t believe it’s wrong, nor did I put much stock in the numbers. They’re just numbers, and I knew my husband (then boyfriend) and myself.

I would agree that consistency is important in moral teaching, otherwise people will get frustrated and confused----and understandably so.

I don’t think divorce is the driving reason behind the teaching.

It’s wrong for a couple of reasons that I can think of.

One is that it really increases the excuse to have pre-marital sex. Believe it or not, some people actually believe two people in a romantic relationship can live together and not have sex. uch: :doh2: Who are they kidding?

The other is that it is the sin of scandal. Scandal is kind of a forgotten sin among Catholics, but it presents a false union of man and woman who have not essentially promised to be faithful to each other before God.

I’m sure others on here could elaborate on that better than I can, but scandal is a sin and it does need to be confessed.

Thanks for the response, BlueEyedLady. I appreciate the rational discourse and I like it when you’ve got your thinking cap on.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

First, one pet peeve of mine is the misuse of psychological studies and medical studies. The Devil can quote the Bible for his purpose and people opposed to a certain position can quote certain studies for their purpose. This seems to be an issue when it comes to arguing about gay marriage. Really please stop. I think that opponents of gay marriage would win more respect if they weren’t judging the mental health, relationship stability, or parenting skills of their opponents.

Second, I agree with the original poster. The Catholic Church is lousy when it comes to catering to people who don’t fit into a specific box - religious or married at the age of 22 with at least five kids. I was taught that there were two vocations in school - marriage or religious life- and if you didn’t fit in one you were seen as a crazy outcast. Outside parish ministries meant to marry you off, there is nothing for a single person within the Church. The only “approved” ministry for gay people is Courage, which treats gay people as if they were alcoholics. I know gay Catholics and none of them like that program because it is seen as very much “praying the gay away.” I’ve expressed my view on parishes and parish schools in other threads because I think that it is important for practicing Catholics to understand the real reason that people leave the Church… I would say the best word to describe most parishes are “toxic.” This applies to everyone, but is hardest for those who don’t fit in the vocation box. Ever been to a Mass alone? Well, I regularly go to Mass alone and it is the hardest thing that I do every week. I feel like I must have people staring at me because I’m not with a family. Catholic parishes tend not to be warm and welcoming places so it is hard to attend Mass without a family.

Third, family is really important to people. There really is no sense of community anymore. I’m thirty-two, single, and an only child. The only family that I really have are my parents. If I don’t get married, there is a good chance that I will end up as the lady who dies alone in her apartment. The catch is that I can obviously marry. A gay person cannot. The Church is essentially asking gay people to forgo the support system of a family and isn’t providing them with any additional support. People need more than God to get through the bad times in their lives; they need other people following God’s commandments to love one’s neighbors. The Church essentially insists that gay people give up on family to be true to God, but is lousy at the part of loving one’s neighbors.

 

[His_helpmeet]

At some point, I’ll probably come across them. I’m sure I don’t have to tell a fellow academic how important proper sampling is.

I would say off the top of my head though that comparing it the current general divorce rate is perhaps setting the bar pretty low.

I would agree that consistency is important in moral teaching, otherwise people will get frustrated and confused----and understandably so.

I don’t think divorce is the driving reason behind the teaching.

It’s wrong for a couple of reasons that I can think of.

One is that it really increases the excuse to have pre-marital sex. Believe it or not, some people actually believe two people in a romantic relationship can live together and not have sex. uch: :doh2: Who are they kidding?

The other is that it is the sin of scandal. Scandal is kind of a forgotten sin among Catholics, but it presents a false union of man and woman who have not essentially promised to be faithful to each other before God.

I’m sure others on here could elaborate on that better than I can, but scandal is a sin and it does need to be confessed.

Thanks for the response, BlueEyedLady. I appreciate the rational discourse and I like it when you’ve got your thinking cap on.

Not only that, but the question becomes, why are you actually getting married? What’s different about your relationship after you’re married? Why did you have to “move in together” to learn about this person? Realistically, I know there are things that come up after you move in together. (I’ve been married for 3 years and DH and I did not live together prior.) But if you really, truly, love someone, and if that person really, truly, loves you back, there are very, very few things that are completely insurmountable. Some things, such as finances, who takes responsibility for cooking/cleaning/laundry/yard work/vehicle maintenance, etc., can even be discussed in advance BEFORE you move in together so that both of you are on the same page.

It would be interesting to see what the break-up rates of common-law couples are compared to the divorce rates. I wonder if, perhaps, the divorce rate of couples who live together has gone down simply because people are having more relationships where they live together without being married. Technically, if they separate, it’s similar to a divorce - but because there are no legal proceedings involved (in many cases) they can be more difficult to track.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

When I was a teenager, I realized I had a strong and insistent attraction to men. This attraction has never subsided.

I am now … married.
And I have sex with my wife regularly.
I have five children of my own.

If my mother had told me, when I was 12, that I could never do those things, she would have been saying something false. There’s nothing “earth-shattering” about having sex with a man that necessitates my rearranging my whole world in order to accommodate it. If I wanted to have sex with men bad enough, I would do it. But I want God more, so I don’t.

I’m not worried about sinning and being rejected by God or the Church. I just don’t see what I will gain from gay sex or from “marrying” another man. Can you tell me what wonderful thing I can get from a man that I can’t get from either Jesus or from my wife? Then maybe I’ll go back and tell my 15-year-old self to ditch this whole Catholic “thang”, buy some stylish white t-shirts and pick up other guys.

It may be fun to stay at the YMCA, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

 

[PaulGH]

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

Not that I know of.

But wait. You say below that gay people cannot marry or have sex. So how could someone possibly have a mom or a 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:

I disagree with your premise that parents should have only one big talk with their kids about Catholic sexual teaching. I think this subject should be taught over time, not just once. But no, if I had a teenager who “came out of the closet,” I would not use the approach that you have outlined below.

1. Can NEVER get married (since marriage is between a man and a woman)

Some people with same-sex attraction do get married. Sometimes it works out wonderfully, and sometimes it is a disaster. But then, isn’t that true of marriages in general?

Certainly it is much less likely that a person with same-sex attraction will find a person of the opposite sex whom they want to marry, and it is also true that the person’s same-sex attraction could present a challenge within the marriage. But no, I wouldn’t say that a person with same-sex attraction can **never **be married.

1. NEVER have sex (since Homosexual Sex is a sin and abomination unto God)

If they get married, they can have sex, the same as anyone else.

1. NEVER masturbate (again, another sin)

Yes, but this has nothing to do with homosexuality.

1. NEVER adopt a child of your own

Just like the marriage question (#1 above), there certainly could be situations where a person with same-sex attraction could legitimately adopt a child, though those situations would probably be rare. But since most people don’t adopt children anyway, is it really a huge burden if a particular person cannot adopt?

1. NEVER become a Priest

Again, this is not necessarily true. It is possible for a man with same-sex attraction to become a priest, though same-sex attraction can be a reason for not accepting a man as a candidate for the priesthood.

But…I accept and love you.

Of course all parents should accept and love their children! This is a good thing to say. I see no reason to include “but” though.

I challenge everyone here to look inside their heart and conscience and to see how sad, intolerant and discriminatory this actually is.

Why do you think that Catholic teaching on homosexuality is sad, intolerant, and discriminatory?

And people wonder why there are “Cafeteria” Catholics/“Progressive” Catholics and others leaving the church in droves.

It’s not too hard to figure out that the sexual revolution is enticing to many people. It certainly was enticing to me when I was younger.

If and when I do have children of my own, I promise to love and cherish them, unconditionally, gay or straight,

Excellent! Same here.

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.

Again, excellent! Same here. As mentioned above, many same-sex attracted people will not find a person of the opposite sex that they want to marry, but some do. And if I had a same-sex attracted son who found a woman he wanted to marry, I would completely support him (unless of course there was some specific reason for concern – but that would be true for any of my children’s marriage plans).

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.

I don’t know if it’s true that the Catholic Church is becoming **less **tolerant of celibate people with same-sex attraction. But I agree that we can and should do a much better job of welcoming such people.

I think the most important point here that we agree on is that we should always love our children, no matter their sexual orientation, their behavior, or anything else. Love doesn’t mean approving everything they do, but yes we absolutely should always love them. And teens or young adults who are dealing with same-sex attraction need lots of love and support from their parents.

 

[PaulGH]

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 - an appeal to pity.

Exactly.

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!

Well said.