Parents of Gay Children, having "the talk"

[Jobis]

Sorry if I’m going off-topic, but…I think that Catholics should attend gay pride festivals and hold up placards saying ‘God hates nobody’. The hatred I see sometimes is pretty shocking, and it’s giving a bad name to Christians in general. That doesn’t mean you have to support gay marriage, it just means that you tolerate it and you accept that God loves all of humanity, regardless of what they do. God hates nobody, not even the worst sinners.

Also, I’m pretty confused about the ‘gay people can’t adopt’ rule–what about if the gay person chooses to remain single? Can s/he still adopt a child? Just curious.

Lastly…I hope you treat gay people with the utmost care and love. John 13:34- ‘…As I have loved you, so you must love one another.’ Jesus ate with Zacchaeus even though he could’ve very well continued with his embezzling. Jesus didn’t go Rambo on Judas even though He knew Judas would betray Him. He accepted and loved all of His own. That’s what we should be trying to emulate–to love each other despite their flaws. If you perceive gay marriage to be wrong, then sure–just as long as you don’t perceive the gay person’s existence to be wrong. That would be a sin in itself.

The label of ‘gay’ is entirely unhelpful. People are attracted to and tempted by all sorts of things; it shouldn’t define you as a person. One can hardly be considered ‘gay’ if one doesn’t act upon their impulses, and yet even celibate people choose to identify as such. It strikes me as a mistaken way of thinking. The devil tempts us with all sorts of things; don’t let your personal temptations define you. Do married men call themselves adulterers, despite not giving into temptations to cheat? Of course not.

Sodomy and various forms of masturbation are inherently sinful and disordered; SSA is just something the devil can use to drag one into sin, just as all kinds of libido can be a problem if not checked.

It is the fault of society as a whole that we take marriage so lightly; far removed from its place as a vocation to holy life. Celibacy, too, has gained a poor reputation, despite it being the way of life of Christ Himself, and the Holy Family.

 

[CatholicWhovian]

I have been reading this thread for quite some time and I’m just really annoyed by the arguments the OP has posed. Just some things to clarify and comment on:

If you express yourself through sexual intimacy and “make love” to your partner, you are committing a grave sin. Yet when straight people do it, it’s the most beautiful expression of love there is.

The statement quoted above is vague at best. It assumes the Church allows pre-marital sex between straight couples. It doesn’t obviously.

Sex does not equal love. Society today unfortunately has a vague warped sense of love being equated to sex. A couple can have sex constantly and yet not love each other. The reverse can be true. The OP assumes that sex is the ultimate and most beautiful expression of love. Yes, sex is an expression of love, but it’s not the only, nor the ultimate, expression of love. If it is then if a couple were to express their love to each other everyday in the deepest way possible then they’ll have sex everyday - which is impractical.

You can only have platonic friends.

Ok, this makes me really upset and it’s the reason I feel as passionately as I do. If I’m lucky and blessed enough to get into Heaven, I’d be happy to explain my case to God. Gay people and Straight people ARE THE SAME! Their LOVE is the SAME and they fall in LOVE the SAME way!

Platonic expressions of love can be as deep - heck even deeper - than sex. Different expressions of love do not equate to how intimate the love is between two persons. There are no “levels” of intimacy which correspond to certain expressions of love.

1. I feel that arguments based on “love” made by people like the OP on this subject are shallow and unfounded. It reduces the issue into a matter of sentimentality and anyone who rejects such sentimentality is “an intolerant bigot”, like the entire argument should be based on feelings alone.

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.

That is just bad parenting advice. Saying that kind of thing to your children only diminishes their self-esteem. Heck I know that any good parent - Catholic or not - would never do such a thing to their children if they really do love them. Does the OP even have children?

1. The OP confuses having a cross as something negative or something that’s “imposed”. Everyone has a cross, regardless of whether they’re gay or straight. A cross is a struggle in life. Everyone has struggles. It’s not “imposed” by anyone. Depression is a cross anyone can bear, but it’s not imposed or brainwashed by anyone. You can’t “impose” depression.
2. People like the OP have this perception which says that certain people have rights because of their sexual urges. That’s just as warped as saying sex equals love. The perception places sexual urges in an important position in establishing the rights of a person. Not everything is about sex, nor should anything be sexual. I can say that the world imposes this notion that sex is important because they say it’s a biological need and there are scientific “studies” out there which promote sex. Reducing a person to his basic instincts and needs does not uplift the person’s intrinsic dignity, it reduces him or her into an object.

I won’t even delve to Rixx’s arguments - obviously because the user’s banned.

 

[estesbob]

Sorry if I’m going off-topic, but…I think that Catholics should attend gay pride festivals and hold up placards saying ‘God hates nobody’. The hatred I see sometimes is pretty shocking, and it’s giving a bad name to Christians in general. That doesn’t mean you have to support gay marriage, it just means that you tolerate it and you accept that God loves all of humanity, regardless of what they do. God hates nobody, not even the worst sinners.

Also, I’m pretty confused about the ‘gay people can’t adopt’ rule–what about if the gay person chooses to remain single? Can s/he still adopt a child? Just curious.

Lastly…I hope you treat gay people with the utmost care and love. John 13:34- ‘…As I have loved you, so you must love one another.’ Jesus ate with Zacchaeus even though he could’ve very well continued with his embezzling. Jesus didn’t go Rambo on Judas even though He knew Judas would betray Him. He accepted and loved all of His own. That’s what we should be trying to emulate–to love each other despite their flaws. If you perceive gay marriage to be wrong, then sure–just as long as you don’t perceive the gay person’s existence to be wrong. That would be a sin in itself.

Should we also go into strip clubs holding signs saying "God hates nobody? How about at White Supremacy parades? Outside motels that cater to adulterers?

I always wonder why so many want to treat homosexuality as a “special sin” One that has to be approached differently than any other sin lest we offend those who are sinning. So it is OK if I have a talk about chastity with my heterosexual daughters but not my homosexual daughter. And my Church is expected to have special programs to reach out to homosexuals. And we should never even imply that homosexual behavior is sinful-after all “who are we to judge”?

I think the problem is too many Catholics have bought into the culture of death-in their hearts they don’t think homosexual behavior is really a “sin”. They are far more concerned about those who express Church teaching about this sin than they are the sin itself.

 

[theCrow]

Should we also go into strip clubs holding signs saying "God hates nobody? How about at White Supremacy parades? Outside motels that cater to adulterers?

I always wonder why so many want to treat homosexuality as a “special sin” One that has to be approached differently than any other sin lest we offend those who are sinning. So it is OK if I have a talk about chastity with my heterosexual daughters but not my homosexual daughter. And my Church is expected to have special programs to reach out to homosexuals. And we should never even imply that homosexual behavior is sinful-after all “who are we to judge”?

I think the problem is too many Catholics have bought into the culture of death-in their hearts they don’t think homosexual behavior is really a “sin”. They are far more concerned about those who express Church teaching about this sin than they are the sin itself.

Actually, that isn’t the problem at all, in fact it’s the SOLUTION! Why don’t you actually sit down and talk to a Gay person, family, friend, or even stranger and, you know, actually listen to them and ask them what they think. They obviously don’t think their behavior is a sin and they have every right to. Live and let live brother. Give peace a chance.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, that isn’t the problem at all, in fact it’s the SOLUTION! Why don’t you actually sit down and talk to a Gay person, family, friend, or even stranger and, you know, actually listen to them and ask them what they think. They obviously don’t think their behavior is a sin and they have every right to. Live and let live brother. Give peace a chance.

You mean other than my daughter? My Nephew? My clients?

Many sinners don’t believe their behavior is a sin-that’s the problem. But only with homosexuality do we see people telling us that this sin above all other sins must be treated differently?

 

[theCrow]

You mean other than my daughter? My Nephew? My clients?

Many sinners don’t believe their behavior is a sin-that’s the problem. But only with homosexuality do we see people telling us that this sin above all other sins must be treated differently?

The problem is YOU believe their behavior is a sin, they do NOT. So we are at an impass.

 

[estesbob]

The problem is YOU believe their behavior is a sin, they do NOT. So we are at an impass.

It is not a matter of opinion-it is a fact. Those who believe homosexual behavior is not a sin are simply wrong and for any of us to affirm their sin is a sin in itself

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You mean other than my daughter? My Nephew? My clients?

Many sinners don’t believe their behavior is a sin-that’s the problem. But only with homosexuality do we see people telling us that this sin above all other sins must be treated differently?

That’s not true at all, Bob. People say that masturbation, pornography, and fornication – or even adultery if your spouse isn’t sexually available – aren’t sins, and people say that stealing online music or watching vulgar/violent movies aren’t sins. Homosexuality isn’t the only sin that people deny being a sin.

In fact, I imagine all of us sometimes mentally deny that our actions are sins. We ask the question, “Did God really say you can’t eat from ANY of the trees of the garden?” – thereby distorting God’s command and attempting to justify our own transgression.

 

[estesbob]

That’s not true at all, Bob. People say that masturbation, pornography, and fornication – or even adultery if your spouse isn’t sexually available – aren’t sins, and people say that stealing online music or watching vulgar/violent movies aren’t sins. Homosexuality isn’t the only sin that people deny being a sin.

In fact, I imagine all of us sometimes mentally deny that our actions are sins. We ask the question, “Did God really say you can’t eat from ANY of the trees of the garden?” – thereby distorting God’s command and attempting to justify our own transgression.

I didnt say that people didn’t consider other sinful actions not to be sinful sins. I pointed out that we are constantly asked to treat the sin of homosexual behavior differently. Read this thread-see how many people say we should not talk to our homosexual children about chastity .

 

[theCrow]

Question 1 - In your opinion, does God regard homosexuality as a sin?
Question 2 - In your opinion, do the Scriptures object to homosexuality?

---

Sister Mary Ann Ford (Roman Catholic – member of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for 39 years, holds masters degree in mathematics and in pastoral ministry, has taught in mathematics and religious instruction in high schools and later colleges, chaplain of the Detroit chapter of Dignity for the past 15 years):

Q1: Two truths are especially relevant in thinking this through. First we have a theological point. God, the one who has made all of creation, loves and cherishes all creatures without exception. Second, modern psychology shows us that homosexual orientation is set by age five or six. Most psychologists agree that it is not a matter of choice, whether orientation is inborn as some think or acquired very early as other say. How then could an all-loving God possibly violate Divine nature and regard homosexuals as “sinners”?

Q2: Contemporary Biblical scholars are indicating that the idea of homosexual orientation was unknown to the writers of the Sacred Scripture. Certainly they had no knowledge of the Kinsey research which established the existence of a continuum along which all of us are somewhere between the end points of totally heterosexual through bisexuality to exclusively homosexual. Many of the oft-quoted “condemnatory passages” may assume that heterosexuals are acting out of their violation of their “nature”.
There also is question as to whether words which appear in our English texts refer in some cases in the original languages not to homosexuals but male prostitutes which were used in pagan worship. Certainly, nowhere does the Bible legislate on the matter of loving sexual activity between consenting adults in committed relationships.

---

Rev Dr William R Stayton (Baptist – minister, certified sexologist, associate professor of psychiatric and human behaviour, servant on faculty of LaSalle University’s graduate department of religious studies, holder of master of divinity from Andover Newtown Theological School and a Th.D. in psychology from Boston university):

Q1: Absolutely not! There is nothing in the Bible or in my own theology that would lead me to believe that God regards homosexuality as sin. God is interested in our relationships with ourselves, others, the things in our lives, and with God (Matthew 23:36-40). There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual or straight.

Q2: There is nothing in the Bible regarding homosexual orientation. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with sexual orientation. It does speak out probably against gang rape, male prostitution for religious purposes, and pederasty (sex between an adult and youth). I lead bible study programs on this subject and am convinced that the Bible does not address the issue of a person’s sexual orientation.

---

Rev Dr George R Edwards, PhD (Presbyterian – professor emeritus of new testament theology at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, holds masters in divinity from LPTS and a PhD from Duke University, taught new testament theology studies at LPTS from 1958-1985, member of Society of Biblical Literature):

Q1: God does not regard homosexuality as a sin any more than heterosexuality. Sin is lack of respect for God; it is a lack of love or respect for other persons. Whether gay or straight, therefore, one may sin against God or others. But God forgives us when we sin and strengthens us in resisting sin. We are led by God’s forgiving love to become more respectful and loving toward God and towards others, even those we don’t “like”.

Q2: The Scriptures are very important because they teach us God’s love for all, gay or straight. But the Scriptures are old, thousands of years old, written even before the word “homosexual” existed. Same sex acts involving the genitals – we call these “homogenital” – seem in Scripture to be thought of as a result of idol worship. See, for example, Romans 1:18-27. Nor do the Scriptures seem to understand what we mean today by “sexual orientation”. Sexual acts which are injurious, disrespectful, or unloving toward the other person are wrong. So I believe that the Scriptures approve of homosexuality and even homogenital acts that are kind, generous, loving, and respectful of the other person, just as in the case of heterosexuality or heterogenital acts.

---

 

[estesbob]

Question 1 - In your opinion, does God regard homosexuality as a sin?
Question 2 - In your opinion, do the Scriptures object to homosexuality?

---

Sister Mary Ann Ford (Roman Catholic – member of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for 39 years, holds masters degree in mathematics and in pastoral ministry, has taught in mathematics and religious instruction in high schools and later colleges, chaplain of the Detroit chapter of Dignity for the past 15 years):

Q1: Two truths are especially relevant in thinking this through. First we have a theological point. God, the one who has made all of creation, loves and cherishes all creatures without exception. Second, modern psychology shows us that homosexual orientation is set by age five or six. Most psychologists agree that it is not a matter of choice, whether orientation is inborn as some think or acquired very early as other say. How then could an all-loving God possibly violate Divine nature and regard homosexuals as “sinners”?

Q2: Contemporary Biblical scholars are indicating that the idea of homosexual orientation was unknown to the writers of the Sacred Scripture. Certainly they had no knowledge of the Kinsey research which established the existence of a continuum along which all of us are somewhere between the end points of totally heterosexual through bisexuality to exclusively homosexual. Many of the oft-quoted “condemnatory passages” may assume that heterosexuals are acting out of their violation of their “nature”.
There also is question as to whether words which appear in our English texts refer in some cases in the original languages not to homosexuals but male prostitutes which were used in pagan worship. Certainly, nowhere does the Bible legislate on the matter of loving sexual activity between consenting adults in committed relationships.

---

Rev Dr William R Stayton (Baptist – minister, certified sexologist, associate professor of psychiatric and human behaviour, servant on faculty of LaSalle University’s graduate department of religious studies, holder of master of divinity from Andover Newtown Theological School and a Th.D. in psychology from Boston university):

Q1: Absolutely not! There is nothing in the Bible or in my own theology that would lead me to believe that God regards homosexuality as sin. God is interested in our relationships with ourselves, others, the things in our lives, and with God (Matthew 23:36-40). There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual or straight.

Q2: There is nothing in the Bible regarding homosexual orientation. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with sexual orientation. It does speak out probably against gang rape, male prostitution for religious purposes, and pederasty (sex between an adult and youth). I lead bible study programs on this subject and am convinced that the Bible does not address the issue of a person’s sexual orientation.

---

Rev Dr George R Edwards, PhD (Presbyterian – professor emeritus of new testament theology at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, holds masters in divinity from LPTS and a PhD from Duke University, taught new testament theology studies at LPTS from 1958-1985, member of Society of Biblical Literature):

Q1: God does not regard homosexuality as a sin any more than heterosexuality. Sin is lack of respect for God; it is a lack of love or respect for other persons. Whether gay or straight, therefore, one may sin against God or others. But God forgives us when we sin and strengthens us in resisting sin. We are led by God’s forgiving love to become more respectful and loving toward God and towards others, even those we don’t “like”.

Q2: The Scriptures are very important because they teach us God’s love for all, gay or straight. But the Scriptures are old, thousands of years old, written even before the word “homosexual” existed. Same sex acts involving the genitals – we call these “homogenital” – seem in Scripture to be thought of as a result of idol worship. See, for example, Romans 1:18-27. Nor do the Scriptures seem to understand what we mean today by “sexual orientation”. Sexual acts which are injurious, disrespectful, or unloving toward the other person are wrong. So I believe that the Scriptures approve of homosexuality and even homogenital acts that are kind, generous, loving, and respectful of the other person, just as in the case of heterosexuality or heterogenital acts.

---

They are wrong.

 

[PaulGH]

Actually, that isn’t the problem at all, in fact it’s the SOLUTION! Why don’t you actually sit down and talk to a Gay person, family, friend, or even stranger and, you know, actually listen to them and ask them what they think. They obviously don’t think their behavior is a sin and they have every right to. Live and let live brother. Give peace a chance.

I see this argument often. It usually goes something like this:

“If only you would get to know some gay people, you wouldn’t oppose homosexuality (or same-sex ‘marriage’).”

But I don’t really understand this argument. I have known gay people. For example, I used to have gay next-door neighboors and lesbian next-door neighbors. They were great neighbors, I liked them, and my wife and I occasionally interacted with them socially. But that doesn’t change my view on what is right or wrong, or on what marriage means and why it is important to society.

 

[Jobis]

Question 1 - In your opinion, does God regard homosexuality as a sin?
Question 2 - In your opinion, do the Scriptures object to homosexuality?

---

Sister Mary Ann Ford (Roman Catholic – member of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for 39 years, holds masters degree in mathematics and in pastoral ministry, has taught in mathematics and religious instruction in high schools and later colleges, chaplain of the Detroit chapter of Dignity for the past 15 years):

Q1: Two truths are especially relevant in thinking this through. First we have a theological point. God, the one who has made all of creation, loves and cherishes all creatures without exception. Second, modern psychology shows us that homosexual orientation is set by age five or six. Most psychologists agree that it is not a matter of choice, whether orientation is inborn as some think or acquired very early as other say. How then could an all-loving God possibly violate Divine nature and regard homosexuals as “sinners”?

Q2: Contemporary Biblical scholars are indicating that the idea of homosexual orientation was unknown to the writers of the Sacred Scripture. Certainly they had no knowledge of the Kinsey research which established the existence of a continuum along which all of us are somewhere between the end points of totally heterosexual through bisexuality to exclusively homosexual. Many of the oft-quoted “condemnatory passages” may assume that heterosexuals are acting out of their violation of their “nature”.
There also is question as to whether words which appear in our English texts refer in some cases in the original languages not to homosexuals but male prostitutes which were used in pagan worship. Certainly, nowhere does the Bible legislate on the matter of loving sexual activity between consenting adults in committed relationships.

---

Rev Dr William R Stayton (Baptist – minister, certified sexologist, associate professor of psychiatric and human behaviour, servant on faculty of LaSalle University’s graduate department of religious studies, holder of master of divinity from Andover Newtown Theological School and a Th.D. in psychology from Boston university):

Q1: Absolutely not! There is nothing in the Bible or in my own theology that would lead me to believe that God regards homosexuality as sin. God is interested in our relationships with ourselves, others, the things in our lives, and with God (Matthew 23:36-40). There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual or straight.

Q2: There is nothing in the Bible regarding homosexual orientation. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with sexual orientation. It does speak out probably against gang rape, male prostitution for religious purposes, and pederasty (sex between an adult and youth). I lead bible study programs on this subject and am convinced that the Bible does not address the issue of a person’s sexual orientation.

---

Rev Dr George R Edwards, PhD (Presbyterian – professor emeritus of new testament theology at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, holds masters in divinity from LPTS and a PhD from Duke University, taught new testament theology studies at LPTS from 1958-1985, member of Society of Biblical Literature):

Q1: God does not regard homosexuality as a sin any more than heterosexuality. Sin is lack of respect for God; it is a lack of love or respect for other persons. Whether gay or straight, therefore, one may sin against God or others. But God forgives us when we sin and strengthens us in resisting sin. We are led by God’s forgiving love to become more respectful and loving toward God and towards others, even those we don’t “like”.

Q2: The Scriptures are very important because they teach us God’s love for all, gay or straight. But the Scriptures are old, thousands of years old, written even before the word “homosexual” existed. Same sex acts involving the genitals – we call these “homogenital” – seem in Scripture to be thought of as a result of idol worship. See, for example, Romans 1:18-27. Nor do the Scriptures seem to understand what we mean today by “sexual orientation”. Sexual acts which are injurious, disrespectful, or unloving toward the other person are wrong. So I believe that the Scriptures approve of homosexuality and even homogenital acts that are kind, generous, loving, and respectful of the other person, just as in the case of heterosexuality or heterogenital acts.

---

Homosexual acts are condemned in the same way that fornication, contraception and masturbation are condemned; they take sexual activity and remove it from its procreative context within marriage. Two men can’t physiologically have sex; they are just mutually masturbating. You’d have to argue for masturbation and other forms of sexual impurity (all of which are in violation of the sanctity of marriage) if you were to propose that homosexual acts are not sinful.

Sexual acts are not loving where they deny God’s intended purpose for them; the uniting of a married man and woman and the procreation of children. Instead they defy His will and glorify pleasure for its own sake. It is not necessary to have sex to express your love for another person, or to bring two people together. Do prostitutes experience loving emotional links to all their clients? Did the virgin Mary not really love Joseph? Ridiculous questions, aren’t they?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Wow, theCrow. This is just littered with errors. There are MUCH better defenses for homosexual activity than this. Let me just list some errors in what you quoted.

Second, modern psychology shows us that homosexual orientation is set by age five or six.

False.

Most psychologists agree that it is not a matter of choice, whether orientation is inborn as some think or acquired very early as other say. How then could an all-loving God possibly violate Divine nature and regard homosexuals as “sinners”?

Catholics don’t teach that it is a choice, nor do we teach that being homosexual is a sin.

Certainly they had no knowledge of the Kinsey research which established the existence of a continuum along which all of us are somewhere between the end points of totally heterosexual through bisexuality to exclusively homosexual.

Ancient literature is full of discussions about people being either exclusively attracted to one sex, or attracted to both sexes. This was not unknown to them.

There also is question as to whether words which appear in our English texts refer in some cases in the original languages not to homosexuals but male prostitutes which were used in pagan worship. Certainly, nowhere does the Bible legislate on the matter of loving sexual activity between consenting adults in committed relationships.

“Arsenokoitai” means “men who lie with men”. There is no reason to believe it exclusively applies to prostitutes, especially in the light of Leviticus.

There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual or straight.

Then God must allow adultery and fornication too, not to mention adult incest.

I lead bible study programs on this subject and am convinced that the Bible does not address the issue of a person’s sexual orientation.

This business of orientation is a red herring. One might say that my “orientation” is bisexual. That does not determine or justify any sexual actions with people of the same sex.

 

[Gwendolen]

I see this argument often. It usually goes something like this:

“If only you would get to know some gay people, you wouldn’t oppose homosexuality (or same-sex ‘marriage’).”

But I don’t really understand this argument. I have known gay people. For example, I used to have gay next-door neighboors and lesbian next-door neighbors. They were great neighbors, I liked them, and my wife and I occasionally interacted with them socially. But that doesn’t change my view on what is right or wrong, or on what marriage means and why it is important to society.

Not exactly. Get to know some gay people that have actually tried to live by what the Catholic Church teaches (that gay persons are called to forced life long celibacy) and see where it has taken them, if they have been successful, and why some (or many) of them have been unable to live up to this ideal that they did NOT chose, and how trying to please God and not fall in love with a member of the same gender has injured their psyche. Walk with them in their pain. If you do not agree that they should be allowed to marry, at least try to understand the magnitude of the sacrifice that has been asked of them, and develop true compassion for their plight. Don’t worry about being forced to change your beliefs, just for a second try to understand why they may not feel able to change theirs.

 

[Rau]

Not exactly. Get to know some gay people that have actually tried to live by what the Catholic Church teaches (that gay persons are called to forced life long celibacy) and see where it has taken them, if they have been successful, and why some (or many) of them have been unable to live up to this ideal that they did NOT chose, and how trying to please God and not fall in love with a member of the same gender has injured their psyche. Walk with them in their pain. If you do not agree that they should be allowed to marry, at least try to understand the magnitude of the sacrifice that has been asked of them, and develop true compassion for their plight. Don’t worry about being forced to change your beliefs, just for a second try to understand why they may not feel able to change theirs.

There seems to be an assumption in your post that holding or expressing the Catholic view on same sex acts and “gay marriage” is often accompanied by a lack of compassion for those experiencing homosexuality. There is no connection between those two things.

The second point to make, is that the rightness or wrongness of a moral position is not a function of the degree of unhappiness someone is experiencing. It cannot follow that “if we only understood how unhappy a gay person is, we would see the ‘wrongness’ of the Church’s opposition to homosexual acts”. I readily concur that many of us would benefit from a more direct understanding of the lot others face in life, and that understanding can lead use to relate to the suffering of others, and help them, better, but morality itself cannot be that flexible.

 

[PaulGH]

Not exactly. Get to know some gay people that have actually tried to live by what the Catholic Church teaches (that gay persons are called to forced life long celibacy) and see where it has taken them, if they have been successful, and why some (or many) of them have been unable to live up to this ideal that they did NOT chose, and how trying to please God and not fall in love with a member of the same gender has injured their psyche. Walk with them in their pain. If you do not agree that they should be allowed to marry, at least try to understand the magnitude of the sacrifice that has been asked of them, and develop true compassion for their plight. Don’t worry about being forced to change your beliefs, just for a second try to understand why they may not feel able to change theirs.

If you are saying, “See first-hand how difficult it is for these people to live by what the Catholic Church teaches, and then maybe you will change your mind about that teaching,” then I still don’t agree. I don’t see how the fact that a teaching is difficult necessarily means that it is wrong. But if you are only saying that I and others should be compassionate towards people who are struggling with this issue, then I completely agree.

Look, I have no doubt that it is extremely difficult for most people with same-sex attraction to live by Catholic teaching. I know that there are many who are living chastely according to Catholic teaching. But for every one who is doing that, there are surely more who are not.

I have had some pretty major struggles myself with living a chaste life, especially before I got married. And I imagine that the same is true for most Catholics (and others who don’t buy into the sexual revolution), especially in today’s world. Were my struggles on the same level as the struggles of someone with same-sex attraction? I don’t know. I tend to think probably not. Nevertheless, chastity is a struggle for most people, in one way or another, at least at some time in their life. But I don’t agree with the idea of re-writing the rules around chastity, just because the rules seem too difficult.

And I do understand that some people who disagree with me will not change their beliefs with regard to homosexuality, and I understand why these beliefs could be especially hard to change for some people who have same-sex attraction. I respect their right to disagree with me.

 

[Gwendolen]

If you are saying, “See first-hand how difficult it is for these people to live by what the Catholic Church teaches, and then maybe you will change your mind about that teaching,” then I still don’t agree. I don’t see how the fact that a teaching is difficult necessarily means that it is wrong. But if you are only saying that I and others should be compassionate towards people who are struggling with this issue, then I completely agree.

Look, I have no doubt that it is extremely difficult for most people with same-sex attraction to live by Catholic teaching. I know that there are many who are living chastely according to Catholic teaching. But for every one who is doing that, there are surely more who are not.

I have had some pretty major struggles myself with living a chaste life, especially before I got married. And I imagine that the same is true for most Catholics (and others who don’t buy into the sexual revolution), especially in today’s world. Were my struggles on the same level as the struggles of someone with same-sex attraction? I don’t know. I tend to think probably not. Nevertheless, chastity is a struggle for most people, in one way or another, at least at some time in their life. But I don’t agree with the idea of re-writing the rules around chastity, just because the rules seem too difficult.

And I do understand that some people who disagree with me will not change their beliefs with regard to homosexuality, and I understand why these beliefs could be especially hard to change for some people who have same-sex attraction. I respect their right to disagree with me.

I guess I’m not asking you to “re-write the rules because it is hard”. Yes, of course we ALL struggle with the Biblical call to chastity at some point, but that is not the same as forced life long celibacy. From my life experience, it seems like forcing someone to life long celibacy is having consequences of a shattered sense of self that really has little to do not getting physical pleasure from sex. It does make me question…

I liked your closing paragraph. My take away is I do not believe we should force others to follow our beliefs (by legally opposing same gender marriage.)

 

[PaulGH]

I guess I’m not asking you to “re-write the rules because it is hard”. Yes, of course we ALL struggle with the Biblical call to chastity at some point, but that is not the same as forced life long celibacy. From my life experience, it seems like forcing someone to life long celibacy is having consequences of a shattered sense of self that really has little to do not getting physical pleasure from sex. It does make me question…

I would respond with a couple of points:

(1) I think I understand what you are saying, but I just want to point out that people with same-sex attraction are not literally being forced into life-long celibacy. Neither the church nor the state is forcibly coercing people to remain celibate.

(2) There are some heterosexual people who very much want to marry and have physical intimacy with a member of the opposite sex, but for whatever reason they cannot find a suitable partner. In some cases, a person goes through his or her whole life without ever finding someone to marry. Do you see these people as being forced into life-long celibacy? Are you concerned that they too will suffer a shattered sense of self, because marriage and intimacy have been denied to them, through no choice of theirs?

If you answer yes to either of those questions, then what do you think should be done to help these people? In other words, if you think that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is the solution for gay people, then what is the solution for straight people who just can’t find a mate?

I liked your closing paragraph. My take away is I do not believe we should force others to follow our beliefs (by legally opposing same gender marriage.)

And that is really what the disagreement always comes down to – namely what does it really mean for the government to remove the opposite-gender requirement for marriage?

One point of view says that removing the opposite-gender requirement for marriage means giving equality to gays and lesbians, and removing a “ban” on them being married. This view says that two men or two women were not allowed to be married before, but if the law changes, then they will be allowed to marry.

I have never completely understood this view, because I don’t believe that the state has that much power, such that a valid marriage cannot exist unless the state says so. For example, even if my wife and I found out that there had been some mistake with our marriage license, and that the state does not consider us legally married, we would not all of a sudden think that our marriage had been dissolved, or that it had never existed. We would be as sure as ever that we are truly married. So if a same-sex union can truly be a marriage, then I don’t understand why some seem to think that these unions can be marriages only if the state says so. Why give so much power to the state? (In other words, I would think that the argument would be “why won’t the state recognize our marriages?” rather than “why won’t the state allow us to marry?”)

As I see it, if a state removes the opposite-gender requirement for marriage in the law, they are not allowing something that was banned before (because private marriage ceremonies between same-sex couples are not banned). As I see it, they are instead giving a public stamp of approval to same-sex romantic unions. And there is a bit of a difference between allowing something and approving of something.

But even beyond that, I look at marriage law as being primarily about promoting the interests of children. If there were no such thing as sexual reproduction – if we all were immortal, and no children were ever born – then I don’t see why there would be a need for the state to be involved in marriage. (And maybe marriage wouldn’t even exist at all.) And since I think that every child deserves to be raised by his biological mother and father to the extent that this is possible (though of course it isn’t always possible), I think that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting the type of stable romantic relationship that gives children the best chance of being raised by their mother and their father. Likewise, I think that the state has an interest in not promoting types of romantic relationships that by their very nature cannot provide for children to be raised by their mother and father. (Please note that I did not say “banning,” I said “not promoting.”)

But again, others see it differently. Both sides feel strongly about this. I take it that you feel strongly about this because you want to stand up for the rights of gay people, and I respect you and commend you for wanting to stand up for their rights. I feel strongly about it because I want to stand up for the rights of children, which I think means defending a normative definition of the family as one man and one woman, committed to each other for life, raising any children that come from their union.

 

[GEddie]

shattered sense of self that really has little to do not getting physical pleasure from sex.

Sexual behavior and yearnings are only a part of who we are.

Not getting sexual happiness is indeed a penance, and for some maybe even a cross; but if it leads to a “shattered sense of self,” that self image was IMNAAHO misperceived in the first place. Such self perceptions should be corrected, where possible, not reinforced.

And, BTW, whatever the civil state may decide to do about marriage has zero to do with the Church, as we all know. There may be a gay First Couple in Washington, and yet the Holy Church’s stance on marriage will be the same as it has always been.

Those who seek sanctification over romantic happiness should heed the Church rather than the state.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.