Question for those who believe Homosexuality is a choice

[mcrow]

Sounds like the Church says “we love you, but want you to be something other than you are…” I don’t think a person’s entire identity is their sexuality, but on the other hand: a vocation to being a priest that one has a specific call to and that celibacy is a unique vocation, that even some priests and religious have difficulty with.

Well if we agree that sexuality isn’t the whole of a person, then it’s not reasonable to say that the church wants something different than they** are**. They are not homosexuals, they are people with SSA. That’s how the church sees them.

Whether or not people struggle with it or not makes no difference. As we know, God would not place a burden on someone without knowing they would struggle with it. The point is, that we are supposed struggle with these type of things for whatever God’s purpose for it might be. Because a relatively small number of priests struggle with celibacy and fail (sex abuse is an entirely different thing) it does not invalidate celebacy.

Now, (hypothetical scenario) suppose someone has realized they are homosexual, and in their younger days had a period of experimentation and unfortunately contracted HIV. If that person sincerely repents and intends to be chaste, does that mean that they are still forced to be alone as they age? If that person gets ill, and if, as often happens, their “family” rejects them, are they really not permitted to have a close (but non-sexual) relationship that might provide them with needed love, care and emotional support? I am NOT saying that I support “gay marriage” but rather: can’t we maybe, just maybe recognize that same-sex attraction might be more than just genital expression?

First, I would argue that all people should be permitted emotional support. The problem is where is the line drawn? At what point does it become a sin? I think it would be very challenging for the person with a SSA to be in close contact with their “partner” while trying to be chaste, particularly under the above circumstances. I don’t really have a clear answer to this but it would seem like a poor choice to me.

When someone asked someone who is homosexual and has been in a committed relationship for 13 years: What do you do in bed? The answer was “Sleep.” Might that not be true and the same answer that a heterosexual married couple for 13 years would give?

If this is an arguement against the thought that homosexuals only amount to their sexuality and the notion that gays are all about the sex and not the emotions involved, I agree with you. I wouldn’t suggest there isn’t more to the attraction than sex, but that still does not make it right. People are emotional beings, we love our pets and we love people that would hurt us. We are very capable of having misguided and wrong emotional connections to lesser things than other humans, no matter their sex.

 

[followingtheway]

Also, here’s from the Catechism:

The Catechism says that?

Woooahhhhh

 

[Neil_LA]

It is difficult for the homosexual (person) to remain chaste in his environment, and he may slip into sin for a variety of reasons, including loneliness and compulsive tendencies and the pull of homosexual companions. But, generally, he is responsible for his actions, and the worst thing a confessor can say is that the homosexual (person) is not responsible for his actions. The priest…should show the person that he can live chastely in the world by means of a plan of life, which will include personal meditative prayer, spiritual reading, reception of the sacraments, and some specific work of charity in the world. Two other elements which should be stressed are regular access to spiritual direction and the formation of a stable friendship with at least one person. One of the greatest difficulties for the homosexual person is the formation of such a friendship.

From: National Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pastoral Research and Practices, “Principles to Guide Confessors in Questions of Homosexuality” (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1973), nos. 8-10

To me this document implies that a homosexual person can enter into a chaste, platonic, non genital-expressive relationship with another homosexual person. While we cannot, in any way, call such a relationship “marriage;” we also cannot deny that such relationships can (and do) exist and can (and are) beneficial to the persons involved.

 

[buffalo]

Redeeming the Rainbow - A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda

 

[BlsdBGd]

What exactly is the problem? Does anyone believe it is possible today for singles to live as celibates and remain normal? Singles who choose to obey Gds laws, make wise choices to refrain from sexual activity. It is faith and Gd’s grace that make celibacy EASY, a wise choice, one which brings freedom. Why is it difficult for people who are sexually active to figure this out? Stop focussing on sexual orientation and focus on obeying Gd’s laws. Then submit to Gds will, ask for His grace to obey, accept the cross and be healed from all forms of sexual sin. If those who struggle with sexual temptation ask Gd, they will be healed. Ask and you shall receive. Then forget the label. Stop seeking human approval and seek only Gds approval.

 

[Neil_LA]

It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358). They, as is true of every human being, need to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously. This includes friendship, which is a way of loving and is essential to healthy human development. It is one of the richest possible human experiences. Friendship can and does thrive outside of genital sexual involvement.

From: “Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers” NCCB Committee on Marriage and Family, 1997.
usccb.org/laity/always.shtml

The above also implies that homosexual persons can and should enter into chaste relationships.

 

[Neil_LA]

Stop focusing on sexual orientation… Then forget the label. Stop seeking human approval and seek only Gds approval.

Do people ask heterosexual people to stop labeling themselves as such? Why would anyone not want to have human acceptance, love and approval? Aren’t human beings meant to have relationships with each other? Isn’t the family the proof of this? If a person reveals oneself to be homosexual, and their family rejects them, is this person not permitted to form accepting and supportive friendships? Or are you saying that one should become an anchorite? Not everyone has that charism.

 

[TommyWommy]

Sounds like the Church says “we love you, but want you to be something other than you are…”

Actually, the Church wants all of us to be something other than what we are. We are all SINNERS, yet we are called to be SAINTS! Not easy, is it?

Each individual needs to prayerfully discern what may be an obstacle to his/her own sainthood. For some, it just might happen to be SSA. What is it for you or for me?

Let’s all pray about it. I know I need to.

 

[Neil_LA]

Educationally, homosexuality cannot and ought not to be skirted or ignored. The topic ‘must be faced in all objectivity by the pupil and educator when the case presents itself.’ … First and foremost, we support modeling and teaching respect for every human person, regardless of sexual orientation. Second, a parent or teacher must also present clearly and delicately the unambiguous moral norms of the Christian tradition regarding homosexual genital activity, appropriately geared to the age level and maturity of the learner. Finally, parents and other educators must remain open to the possibility that a particular person, whether adolescent or adult, may be struggling to accept his or her own orientation. The distinction between being homosexual and doing homosexual genital actions, while not always clear and convincing, is a helpful and important one when dealing with the complex issue of homosexuality, particularly in the education and pastoral arena

.

From: National Council of Catholic Bishops, “Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning” (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1991), p.56

 

[mcrow]

Neil, those documents in no way mention whether it is OK or not for that friend to be their gay partner.

I’m not saying that two gay people cannot be non-sexually involved friends. A straight guy and straught girl can be friends, so two gay men could do it, I think.

I think issue is the relationship. If you are trying not to be tempted into gay relations, then being around someone you have previously had relations with and have a strong emotional connection to could be a very bad idea. That’s all I’m saying and that’s not covered in the articles you posted.

 

[Debora123]

The Catechism says that?

Woooahhhhh

Yup!

One would be surprised, considering the number of people around here who still claim that people actually wake up one day and CHOOSE to be attracted to members of the same sex.

 

[Neil_LA]

Neil, those documents in no way mention whether it is OK or not for that friend to be their gay partner.

I’m not saying that two gay people cannot be non-sexually involved friends. A straight guy and straught girl can be friends, so two gay men could do it, I think.

I think issue is the relationship. If you are trying not to be tempted into gay relations, then being around someone you have previously had relations with and have a strong emotional connection to could be a very bad idea. That’s all I’m saying and that’s not covered in the articles you posted.

You are conflating homosexual relationships and homosexual genital expression. It is possible for two homosexual men to be in a non genitally expressive partnership. Why do many heterosexual people find that difficult to believe?

While I would not call it marriage, I would call it a committed partnership. There doesn’t have to be genital contact. Why would there need to be? What is preventing the two homosexual people from having an understanding and clarity of what the boundaries in their relationship are?

The suggestion that all committed same-sex partnerships must include sexual expression implies that homosexual people don’t have the maturity or responsibility to enter into agreements and understandings about the nature of their relationships. That continues the notion that homosexual people are somehow emotionally or developmentally stunted.

Unfortunately, many Catholic people, especially those with little or no direct involvement with actual homosexual persons, are woefully ignorant of reality of the lives of homosexual Catholics.

 

[exnihilo]

Ok thank you. But being more direct: What right do heterosexual people have to make decisions regarding homosexuality? Homosexuals don’t make decisions regarding heterosexuality.

It wouldn’t be a very good standard to say that those who dont engage in a sexual practice cant have any opinion on it or even condemn it. If that is your rule then no sexual practice, no matter how deviant, could be condemned. Hopefully we aren’t to that point yet, but we are certainly on our way. Anyway, we could just as easily say what right do non-adulterers have to make decisions regarding adultery?

 

[exnihilo]

One would be surprised, considering the number of people around here who still claim that people actually wake up one day and CHOOSE to be attracted to members of the same sex.

It is a complex issue but what of the homosexual sex in prisons and other times when men are confined? It would seem that some people are at least situational homosexuals. This seems to be simply ignored in most discussions.

 

[mcrow]

You are conflating homosexual relationships and homosexual genital expression. It is possible for two homosexual men to be in a non genitally expressive partnership. Why do many heterosexual people find that difficult to believe?

Re-read my post please, you totally glossed over the part where I said that I think two gay people could have a non-sexual relationship.

While I would not call it marriage, I would call it a committed partnership. There doesn’t have to be genital contact. Why would there need to be? What is preventing the two homosexual people from having an understanding and clarity of what the boundaries in their relationship are?

In a perfect world two people who are attracted to each other (as in your example) could have a non-sexual relationship. It would be hard for two straight people who are attracted to each other to be chaste and living together, the same goes for gays. Sraight or not, two people who are in a relationship shouldn’t be living together unless married.

The suggestion that all committed same-sex partnerships must include sexual expression implies that homosexual people don’t have the maturity or responsibility to enter into agreements and understandings about the nature of their relationships. That continues the notion that homosexual people are somehow emotionally or developmentally stunted.

Hopefully you didn’t dislocate something reaching for that one.

Unfortunately, many Catholic people, especially those with little or no direct involvement with actual homosexual persons, are woefully ignorant of reality of the lives of homosexual Catholics.

Funny thing is that my mother is a lesbian and I have a cousin who is a lesbian so I’m probably more “in the know” than most Catholics.

 

[Neil_LA]

It wouldn’t be a very good standard to say that those who dont engage in a sexual practice cant have any opinion on it or even condemn it. If that is your rule then no sexual practice, no matter how deviant, could be condemned. Hopefully we aren’t to that point yet, but we are certainly on our way. Anyway, we could just as easily say what right do non-adulterers have to make decisions regarding adultery?

Again, the confusion between homosexual relationships and homosexual sex. The two aren’t the same thing. I believe that the quotations given above from the US bishops clarify that.

Could someone please clarify for me what the source of the confusion is? Maybe heterosexual people can’t imagine a man and a woman being in a partnership that is non-sexual? That could be true. Maybe heterosexual men can’t imagine being in a relationship with a woman and not having a sexual agenda? Highly probable.

Maybe heterosexual people should focus on trying to preserve their own marriages and bringing a halt to adultery, contraception and divorce?

 

[Neil_LA]

How can we discuss these issues with respect, understanding and compassion?
I apologize for any offence I have caused and will now disengage.
I should have known better than try to engage on an impersonal forum such as this. I think these issues are best discussed in the context of friendships and knowing each other as people.
I do think that homosexual people get tired of feeling like they are being talked down to and not treated as human beings.
However, I do believe it is a mistake for homosexual people to try to label their relationships as “marriage.” This does a disservice to both heterosexual people and homosexual people. It is very clear that the nature of the relationships are different.

 

[mcrow]

Again, the confusion between homosexual relationships and homosexual sex. The two aren’t the same thing. I believe that the quotations given above from the US bishops clarify that.

Could someone please clarify for me what the source of the confusion is? Maybe heterosexual people can’t imagine a man and a woman being in a partnership that is non-sexual? That could be true. Maybe heterosexual men can’t imagine being in a relationship with a woman and not having a sexual agenda? Highly probable.

Maybe heterosexual people should focus on trying to preserve their own marriages and bringing a halt to adultery, contraception and divorce?

This thing about relationships and sex is mostly in your own mind. If you read this thread multiple people have stated that there is a difference between SSA and having gay sex, me included more than once.

I think most of us are simply saying that gay or straight, it’s hard for two people who are attracted to each other to stay chaste. Not impossible, it happens to Christians who wait until they are married all the time. However, where a straight couple can become married and then have sex without sin, the gay couple cannot. So, for a straight couple it is probably easier given they know some day the can add sex to their relationship, while for gays it would be a lifetime thing unless they become attracted to the opposite sex.

Can to gay people have a loving no sexual relationship? Sure. Christians do this all of the time, I think gays could do it to but then straights know that sex can eventially be a part of their relationships. I would really love to see an example of of two Catholics with SSA who live together, are attracted to each other and are in a relationship and not having sex but I’ve not heard of it happening.

Not saying it hasn’t happened but I have not heard of it.

 

[sw85]

Yup!

One would be surprised, considering the number of people around here who still claim that people actually wake up one day and CHOOSE to be attracted to members of the same sex.

Most of the confusion surrounding the issue stems, I think, from the inconsistency of gay rights advocates, who will alternately claim that sexual orientation is biologically determined or else an arbitrary social construct, depending on which argument is most advantageous for them to advance at the time.

It doesn’t matter either way, of course – a disordered act is a disordered act, whether one wills the impulse that precedes it or not.

 

[Debora123]

It is a complex issue but what of the homosexual sex in prisons and other times when men are confined? It would seem that some people are at least situational homosexuals. This seems to be simply ignored in most discussions.

I believe their homosexuality (If it is TRUE homosexuality) is developed over time while being in a depressing environment such as a prison, isolated from the rest of the world, isolated from their loved ones, and with only members of the same sex around.

We also have to keep in mind that most long term prisoners are people who have… “issues,” if you will. The “nutties” of the world.

I’ll stick to the church’s teaching that a person doesn’t just wake up one day and make the conscious choice to be attracted to someone of the same sex.