Reconciling PFLAG mentality with the catholic church

[weller2]

Politicians who pose as good guys when they promote and encourage deadly behavior, are wolves in sheeps’ clothing. This article explains why:
catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0122.htm

From the linked article:

the vagina is an effective biological barrier against viruses.

This is dangerous disinformation: womenshealth.answers.com/reproductive-health/what-is-a-vaginal-virus

Beware of wolves in sheep clothing, indeed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think it is actually the church and sexuality in general that is the problem for me. Thank you for pointing that out. The problem may be that I was pagan for so long, and they are very clear that sex is just an expression of love. If you start hearing that from early teenage years, it’s very hard to stop believing it. You can reason all you want, but that doesn’t affect what you believe.

This clarifies your position a great deal. So we agree that the only time people should have sex is when they love each other, but we disagree about whether love is enough to justify having sex, all on its own. I think that commitment and compatibility are also necessary.

But I think you probably have a problematic understanding of what sin is. We don’t teach this very well. It’s a pretty big theological secret that Catholics think that everyone who pursues sin is pursuing something that they think is good. To say that something is a “sin” is to say that it appears good, but really – on analysis – doesn’t result in good things.

So it’s not surprising that sex between two lovers appears good to you, whether or not these lovers are married. There is good to be found, for example, when a woman who truly loves another woman has sex with that other woman: emotional and physical intimacy and pleasure result, for example. But the larger question is whether the sexual activity in this relationship tends to bring the two women closer or make them more distant, whether it contributes to their physical and psychological health, and whether their sexual activity tends to make them more loving toward those around them or less loving.

Now to theology: God doesn’t want the good for us; he wants the BEST for us. For a number of reasons that I don’t have time to go into right now, Catholics don’t think that premarital sex or sex between two people of the same sex is the best thing for us. We don’t deny that there are certain goods that are being pursued by those who do these things. But we don’t think their aims line up with the consequences of their actions.

You might be interested to know that the suicide rate among gay people – which is alarmingly high – has not decreased over the last 30-40 years, even though homosexuality has become much more acceptable culturally in those years. How do you explain that statistic? I explain it by saying that the suicide problem arises from guilt within the person, not because of guilt society imposes on them. As a person who has committed sins associated with homosexuality myself, I know this guilt first hand, and I assure you that it is no light burden, and that social acceptance does not suddenly make everything OK.

I can’t internalize the idea that sex is something for special circumstances, and anything outside of those is wrong - so from that perspective, it seems like what we’re saying is that some people are allowed to give all of themselves to the person they fall in love with, and some people aren’t, and that doesn’t feel fair.

Everyone is allowed to, but it’s not good for everyone. Part of the problem is that we don’t have a meaningful notion of deep friendship in our society. David and Jonathan, in the Old Testament, shared “a love that surpasses love for a woman” – but this was not a sexual love. Real intimacy between people of the same sex is possible and desirable! But the sex part isn’t essential.

In fact, since children are so highly impressionable and are the ones I always see affected by this stance (I was the nurse for a high school clinic until recently, and wasn’t always sent physical problems) it feels cruel.

Well, lots of parents of gay kids **are **cruel. The Church does not endorse anyone rejecting anyone else, especially not parents rejecting their kids.

Some of you have said that parents should love their children even if they’re gay, and pray they make the right choices, or that you’re supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner, but is that what happens in practice? The times it doesn’t happen do a horrifying amount of damage, and I’m the kind of person who would quite literally rather die than hurt someone else badly. So this is a big deal to me.

See above. If a parent can’t deal with their child being gay, that parent has a really big problem. Christians haven’t been taught thoroughly enough how to express love to such children – this is something I myself am hoping to help educate people about, since I was once a child in that sort of situation.

 

[miguel]

From the linked article:

This is dangerous disinformation: womenshealth.answers.com/reproductive-health/what-is-a-vaginal-virus

Beware of wolves in sheep clothing, indeed.

I don’t want to put words in the author’s mouth, but I would think what the author meant by “the vagina is an effective biological barrier against viruses” there is also the implication that this is true as long as the woman is not engaging in sexual behavior that exposes herself to STD’s. From your linked article: “The best way to prevent the spread (of viruses) is to maintain good reproductive health by using barrier contraceptives, such as condoms and diaphragms.” Is it really? The best way? Better than pre-marital abstinence? Better than mutually monogamous relations with her husband?

 

[miguel]

I think it is actually the church and sexuality in general that is the problem for me. Thank you for pointing that out. The problem may be that I was pagan for so long, and they are very clear that sex is just an expression of love. If you start hearing that from early teenage years, it’s very hard to stop believing it. You can reason all you want, but that doesn’t affect what you believe. There’s a difference between intellectually knowing someone should be true (such as sex being a sacred act between man and wife to create life) and internalizing it. That’s where I’m running into trouble. I can’t internalize the idea that sex is something for special circumstances, and anything outside of those is wrong - so from that perspective, it seems like what we’re saying is that some people are allowed to give all of themselves to the person they fall in love with, and some people aren’t, and that doesn’t feel fair. In fact, since children are so highly impressionable and are the ones I always see affected by this stance (I was the nurse for a high school clinic until recently, and wasn’t always sent physical problems) it feels cruel.

I know what the Church believes, but there’s a difference between knowing and believing. Knowing is good enough to make decisions for my own life, but I don’t want to affect someone else’s based off something I’m not 100% sure of. The stakes are, in practice, too high. Some of you have said that parents should love their children even if they’re gay, and pray they make the right choices, or that you’re supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner, but is that what happens in practice? The times it doesn’t happen do a horrifying amount of damage, and I’m the kind of person who would quite literally rather die than hurt someone else badly. So this is a big deal to me.

Also - I didn’t go through an RCIA program. I left the church within a year of confirmation, if my memory serves, which it might not. So I had all of my sacraments, went through CCD. I learned all of this stuff - but in ten years you lose a lot of what you’ve learned.

We should also be aware that conversion is a process. For most people, that process is not instantaneous. We pick up our Cross and start to follow our Lord. And little by little, day by day, year by year, our will becomes his will. His will is good. We are sinners. Our will is messed up. But little by little we start to see his goodness and we start to like it. Don’t forget the devil is always tempting us to reject our Cross. This was true even of our Lord. The bad thief tried to get Jesus to take himself off the Cross in today’s Gospel. But God can make good things happen when we persevere. God Bless.

 

[weller2]

I don’t want to put words in the author’s mouth, but I would think what the author meant by “the vagina is an effective biological barrier against viruses” there is also the implication that this is true as long as the woman is not engaging in sexual behavior that exposes herself to STD’s.

This is (supposedly) a medical article, not poetry, so there is nothing to interpret here. If vagina was an effective barrier against viruses, then women would be unable to contract HIV or HPV via vaginal contact. This is demonstrably false.

From your linked article: “The best way to prevent the spread (of viruses) is to maintain good reproductive health by using barrier contraceptives, such as condoms and diaphragms.” Is it really? The best way? Better than pre-marital abstinence? Better than mutually monogamous relations with her husband?

Saying abstinence protects against STDs is the same as saying that avoiding human contact protects you against flu – both statements are false. Abstincence / isolation does not protect against anything – it avoids exposure to pathogens in the first place.

 

[3DOCTORS]

**This clarifies your position a great deal. So we agree that the only time people should have sex is when they love each other, but we disagree about whether love is enough to justify having sex, all on its own. ** I think that commitment and compatibility are also necessary.

But I think you probably have a problematic understanding of what sin is. We don’t teach this very well. It’s a pretty big theological secret that Catholics think that everyone who pursues sin is pursuing something that they think is good. To say that something is a “sin” is to say that it appears good, but really – on analysis – doesn’t result in good things.

So it’s not surprising that sex between two lovers appears good to you, whether or not these lovers are married. There is good to be found, for example, when a woman who truly loves another woman has sex with that other woman: emotional and physical intimacy and pleasure result, for example. But the larger question is whether the sexual activity in this relationship tends to bring the two women closer or make them more distant, whether it contributes to their physical and psychological health, and whether their sexual activity tends to make them more loving toward those around them or less loving.

Now to theology: God doesn’t want the good for us; he wants the BEST for us. For a number of reasons that I don’t have time to go into right now, Catholics don’t think that premarital sex or sex between two people of the same sex is the best thing for us. We don’t deny that there are certain goods that are being pursued by those who do these things. But we don’t think their aims line up with the consequences of their actions.

You might be interested to know that the suicide rate among gay people – which is alarmingly high – has not decreased over the last 30-40 years, even though homosexuality has become much more acceptable culturally in those years. How do you explain that statistic? I explain it by saying that the suicide problem arises from guilt within the person, not because of guilt society imposes on them. As a person who has committed sins associated with homosexuality myself, I know this guilt first hand, and I assure you that it is no light burden, and that social acceptance does not suddenly make everything OK.

Everyone is allowed to, but it’s not good for everyone. Part of the problem is that we don’t have a meaningful notion of deep friendship in our society. David and Jonathan, in the Old Testament, shared “a love that surpasses love for a woman” – but this was not a sexual love. Real intimacy between people of the same sex is possible and desirable! But the sex part isn’t essential.

Well, lots of parents of gay kids **are **cruel. The Church does not endorse anyone rejecting anyone else, especially not parents rejecting their kids.

See above. If a parent can’t deal with their child being gay, that parent has a really big problem. Christians haven’t been taught thoroughly enough how to express love to such children – this is something I myself am hoping to help educate people about, since I was once a child in that sort of situation.

I echo these sentiments, particularly the ones bolded.

thepocketmouse, it’s up to you - pray and study what the Catholic Church has to offer - and ask yourself, might God be calling me to be one of those who can build the bridge between Church teaching and the pagan world? Because the world is pagan with a small “p” and then there are Pagans with a capital “P.”

You took a journey out of Pagan with a capital P - but the Church’s teachings and the fear that they might cause emotional pain to people, particularly if they aren’t well presented, is a stumbling block. Might it be overcome or worked around rather than stopping you in your tracks?

Have you ever done any reading on the Divine Mercy, any conversion stories, checked out that Courage website, and once again, would you be willing to have a conversation with a priest about all of this? There is only so far that conversing online with mostly laypeople will get you - I think talking with a priest could help - and surely it couldn’t be too intimidating if you already are as aware as you are of the pros and cons on each side.

 

[miguel]

This is (supposedly) a medical article, not poetry, so there is nothing to interpret here. If vagina was an effective barrier against viruses, then women would be unable to contract HIV or HPV via vaginal contact. This is demonstrably false.

Saying abstinence protects against STDs is the same as saying that avoiding human contact protects you against flu – both statements are false. Abstincence / isolation does not protect against anything – it avoids exposure to pathogens in the first place.

I think you took one sentence from the article I posted completely out of context. And read into it a meaning I strongly doubt the author intended, certainly not a meaning I took from it. You are perfectly free to do that. But please don’t impose your take on me. I also don’t get your last comments. If abstinence from immoral sexual behavior avoids exposure to pathogens, does it not also protect? Some diseases are only transmitted by sexual contact…hence the term sexually transmitted diseases. Sexual contact is a type of human contact, yes…the type that opens the door to STDs. Other forms of human contact are different than sexual contact, are they not? So how can you say they’re the same?

 

[weller2]

This clarifies your position a great deal. So we agree that the only time people should have sex is when they love each other, but we disagree about whether love is enough to justify having sex, all on its own. I think that commitment and compatibility are also necessary.

Therefore, by your own criterion, a homosexual couple which has love, commitment and compatibility doesn’t sin by having sex… Oh wait. They do sin, because Catholicism views homosexual act as an intrinsic evil, and so no circumstancs can make it good. This is precisely what the OP cannot understand: how can an expression of love be intrinsically evil?

But I think you probably have a problematic understanding of what sin is. We don’t teach this very well. It’s a pretty big theological secret that Catholics think that everyone who pursues sin is pursuing something that they think is good. To say that something is a “sin” is to say that it appears good, but really – on analysis – doesn’t result in good things.

Let us consider a similar example: ice cream. Eating ice cream is not a natural act, as ice cream is not found in nature. Further, ice cream is not beneficial to the body (quite the contrary in fact). There is precisely one reason for eating ice cream, and it is pleasure. Therefore, in terms of natural law, eating ice cream (in any amount) constitutes an abuse of digestive facility, in pretty much the same way homosexuality, masturbation, or recreational sex constitutes abuse of sexual facility. So, eating ice cream should be always sinful, right? By your own words, eating ice cream appears good, but really – on analysis – doesn’t result in good things.

But wait, eating ice cream is not sinful! The closest you can get to sinning by eating ice cream is gluttony, but this sin, by definition, requires excessive consumption of ice cream. If you consume ice cream in moderation, you do not sin.

Why, then, is sex treated differently? Why a homosexual couple which possesses quantities you have yourself listed as “justifying” sex still commits sin?

And understanding that requires going all the way back to Augustine of Hippo, original sin, and the theological reasons for the Catholic - Orthodox split.

 

[weller2]

I think you took one sentence from the article I posted completely out of context. And read into it a meaning I strongly doubt the author intended, certainly not a meaning I took from it.

The whole argument of the article is that depositing sperm in rectum is harmful, while depositing it in vagina is not. The “impenetrable vagina” claim serves to strengthen this claim – except that it is dangerously wrong, as many HIV-positive women may attest.

Now I grant that there is some truth to the statement that anal sex is more risky, but I am suspicious of someone who can make blunders like the one above. That makes me wonder what else in this piece is wrong.

If abstinence from immoral sexual behavior avoids exposure to pathogens, does it not also protect? Some diseases are only transmitted by sexual contact…

You are attempting to construct a false dichotomy between abstinence and barrier methods.

Yes, abstinence is an excellent idea. The problem is that practising abstinence requires strong will. If one’s will succumbs to desire – and this will usually happen sooner or later – then condom should be the next line of defense.

 

[miguel]

The whole argument of the article is that depositing sperm in rectum is harmful, while depositing it in vagina is not. The “impenetrable vagina” claim serves to strengthen this claim – except that it is dangerously wrong, as many HIV-positive women may attest.

Now I grant that there is some truth to the statement that anal sex is more risky, but I am suspicious of someone who can make blunders like the one above. That makes me wonder what else in this piece is wrong.

I’m glad you read the article at least. The article didn’t say the vagina is immune to sexually transmitted viruses. That was your distortion of the author’s position. “A straw man…is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.”

You are attempting to construct a false dichotomy between abstinence and barrier methods.

Yes, abstinence is an excellent idea. The problem is that practising abstinence requires strong will. If one’s will succumbs to desire – and this will usually happen sooner or later – then condom should be the next line of defense.

The article you linked claimed that barrier methods are the best way to protect against sexually transmitted viruses. IMO, that was disinformation. I’m not constructing any false dichotomy. Abstinence carries less risk than barrier methods. Condoms fail. And the consequence of failure is high. They give a false deadly sense of security. But statistically, they are equivalent to playing Russian roulette. By placing them as the next line of defense, you seem to be distancing yourself from the “best” line of defense taken by your article. That’s good. I also agree that we are all sinners. Sinners sin. Jesus said “Without me you can do nothing.” St Paul said “I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me.” We can’t beat sin on our own. You also seem to recognize that. God Bless.

 

[weller2]

I’m glad you read the article at least. The article didn’t say the vagina is immune to sexually transmitted viruses.

Of course it did:

*Heterosexual intercourse is biologically completely distinct from male homosexual intercourse, and the consequences of these acts are similarly divergent. Furthermore, the vagina is an effective biological barrier against viruses. By contrast, the distal colon and rectum, which are designed to absorb water and nutrients in the final stages of the digestive process, possess a rich lymphatic network within the rectal mucosa (the lining of the rectum). *

This implies that e.g. HIV cannot be transmitted through vaginal intercourse, only through anal one – which is demonstrably false.

 

[miguel]

Of course it did:

Heterosexual intercourse is biologically completely distinct from male homosexual intercourse, and the consequences of these acts are similarly divergent. Furthermore, the vagina is an effective biological barrier against viruses. By contrast, the distal colon and rectum, which are designed to absorb water and nutrients in the final stages of the digestive process, possess a rich lymphatic network within the rectal mucosa (the lining of the rectum).

This implies that e.g. HIV cannot be transmitted through vaginal intercourse, only through anal one – which is demonstrably false.

That was your inference. Why don’t you write to the author to see if that was his intention. I highly doubt it. God Bless.

 

[SMGS127]

That was your inference. Why don’t you write to the author to see if that was his intention. I highly doubt it. God Bless.

I actually agree with him. That’s a horrifying statement to include, and completely factually inaccurate. If you’re writing an article comparing STIs between vaginal and anal sex, and you say that the vaginal barrier somehow “repels viruses,” you are referring to STIs, and you SHOULD be discredited, regardless of the merit of the rest of your post. It’s like people who believe that pregnancy can’t occur from rape. People who have no idea what they’re talking about are the biggest danger to the pro-life and anti-contraception crowds. They make the rest of us look extremely stupid, and they make our position on moral issues look like it’s based on the same stupidity.

 

[miguel]

I actually agree with him. That’s a horrifying statement to include, and completely factually inaccurate. If you’re writing an article comparing STIs between vaginal and anal sex, and you say that the vaginal barrier somehow “repels viruses,” you are referring to STIs, and you SHOULD be discredited, regardless of the merit of the rest of your post. It’s like people who believe that pregnancy can’t occur from rape. People who have no idea what they’re talking about are the biggest danger to the pro-life and anti-contraception crowds. They make the rest of us look extremely stupid, and they make our position on moral issues look like it’s based on the same stupidity.

Did you read the article? The article wasn’t about vaginal STD’s. The main focus was God’s amazing design. How semen is an immuno-suppressant that disables the female immune system to allow the sperm to get to the egg, while putting semen in the rectum is well documented to be dangerous. And this is known to medical science, but tragically, too many people die for lack of this knowledge.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Therefore, by your own criterion, a homosexual couple which has love, commitment and compatibility doesn’t sin by having sex…

A man can be compatible with another man in many ways. Sexual compatibility is not one of them.

Oh wait. They do sin, because Catholicism views homosexual act as an intrinsic evil, and so no circumstancs can make it good. This is precisely what the OP cannot understand: how can an expression of love be intrinsically evil?

Some people express their love for another person by killing themselves. Even if such an action is motivated by love, it’s not good. Some people express their love for another person by damaging actions of jealousy; these are not good actions.

The fact that an action is motivated by love tells us nothing about whether the action is good or not.

Let us consider a similar example: ice cream. Eating ice cream is not a natural act, as ice cream is not found in nature. Further, ice cream is not beneficial to the body (quite the contrary in fact). There is precisely one reason for eating ice cream, and it is pleasure. Therefore, in terms of natural law, eating ice cream (in any amount) constitutes an abuse of digestive facility, in pretty much the same way homosexuality, masturbation, or recreational sex constitutes abuse of sexual facility. So, eating ice cream should be always sinful, right? By your own words, eating ice cream *appears *good, but really – on analysis – doesn’t result in good things.

False. It results in good things: enjoyment, camaraderie, nourishment, and so on. And I acknowledge that same-sex sexual activity results in pleasure, too – and pleasure is a good thing. But the pleasure is swamped by the other consequences of the action.

Please note: I’m not interested in debating the issue at length. If you would like to write a thesis on how wrong I am, feel free. Personally, I don’t think people’s hearts are changed on this issue through internet debates.

But wait, eating ice cream is not sinful! The closest you can get to sinning by eating ice cream is gluttony, but this sin, by definition, requires excessive consumption of ice cream. If you consume ice cream in moderation, you do not sin.

As a side note, I might mention that adultery is another action that people take because they love another person, and that produces pleasure, and that could be taken without anticipating any pain resulting from it. Are you willing to say that adultery is no less wrong than eating ice cream, too?

 

[Nacho45]

This is (supposedly) a medical article, not poetry, so there is nothing to interpret here. If vagina was an effective barrier against viruses, then women would be unable to contract HIV or HPV via vaginal contact. This is demonstrably false.

Saying abstinence protects against STDs is the same as saying that avoiding human contact protects you against flu – both statements are false. Abstincence / isolation does not protect against anything – it avoids exposure to pathogens in the first place.

Are you saying abstinence is not an effective preventive method against STD’s?

 

[Nacho45]

Of course it did:

Heterosexual intercourse is biologically completely distinct from male homosexual intercourse, and the consequences of these acts are similarly divergent. Furthermore, the vagina is an effective biological barrier against viruses. By contrast, the distal colon and rectum, which are designed to absorb water and nutrients in the final stages of the digestive process, possess a rich lymphatic network within the rectal mucosa (the lining of the rectum).

This implies that e.g. HIV cannot be transmitted through vaginal intercourse, only through anal one – which is demonstrably false.

I fail to see that implication. “Immune to sexually transmitted viruses” and “an effective biological barrier against viruses” is not the same thing.

 

[miguel]

I fail to see that implication. “Immune to sexually transmitted viruses” and “an effective biological barrier against viruses” is not the same thing.

Thanks Nacho. For some reason, I’m having a craving for hot dogs and baseball.

 

[miguel]

I grew up in the eighties right next to one of the largest homosexual communities in the USA. In high school I forged a lasting friendship with a homosexual. After high school, I left the Church and had my own share of sexual sins. It was of course my own sins which I had the hardest time reconciling with Church teaching. Even after I had returned to the Church I struggled with my own concupiscence and even priests who told me in the confessional that I had not sinned, in contrast to the Catechism. I was accustomed to enjoying pornography and even worse, the surreptitious corruption inherent in big Hollywood productions and mainstream television.

So it was a lonely time of self-teaching when I reached out to learn what the Church teaches about sexual morality. After I learned “what” was prohibited then I learned “why” it was prohibited. And these whys began to make perfect sense to me. Catholicism is a logical faith that is built on a solid foundation of God’s law. Once we are able to form a picture of God’s plan for the world we can know why things are the way they are. Furthermore, we need to understand God’s plan for ourselves and why we seek true happiness in eternal life, rather than fleeting pleasure between the sheets.

There are extremists on both sides. There are people who hate homosexuals and say they will burn in Hell and commit crimes and persecution against them. There are people who campaign for their acceptance who rail against persecution but go further and demand to be part of the mainstream in society. The correct view is not extremism but love. True, merciful love in which we accept people based on the intrinsic human dignity of the person but stand firm against their sins.

There comes a time in everyone’s life when they must discern the difference between dreams and reality. The dreams of a life of conjugal love can sometimes not be realized. Some Catholics have been wounded by divorce and the subsequent denial of an anullment. Some are unsuitable for marriage and pass that age without success. Some are called to be priests or religious. It is a heavy burden on homosexuals to be called to perpetual chastity but it is not a death sentence. The true death sentence is to reject God’s law and live as if He did not exist.

Blessed John Paul the Great spoke of a practical atheism that occurs when people go to church but they do not live a life of faith. In some ways this is worse than real atheism because it is hypocritical. When we receive the sacraments we are always called by God to challenge ourselves with beliefs and teachings we find hard. We have received grace to understand and live these beliefs. Nobody ever said they would all be agreeable to us. Jesus lost many followers in John 6 because He proposed a belief that was repulsive to the Jews. Yet He gained an everlasting kingdom through His sacrifice on the Cross. If we remember His sorrowful Passion then we will be willing to make ourselves a living sacrifice of praise.

Very beautiful post. God Bless.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

One of the major moral conflict that I’m having is that a lot of my friends are gay. I, personally, can be attracted to anyone regardless of gender, but am dating a man. I’ve seen how beautiful love between two people of the same gender can be, and my heart cannot accept that this might be wrong.

When two people each will the good of the other for the sake of the other, that is not romance, but the virtue of Charity. That love, regardless of its context, is beautiful, and insofar as only the amount of Charity present is considered, the love of a man for his wife is no less beautiful than the love of a man for his husband. It must be remembered, however, that that charity is not synonymous with the sinful actions taken by the persons in question. Insofar as the people are committing sinful acts, they are committing sinful acts. Those sinful acts are not beautiful, even though the sincere expression of Charity is.

Acknowledging this, you must not let your emotions cloud your judgement. The sinfulness of their sex is not reduced by the beauty of their willingness to help each other. That the acts are sinful has been assured by scripture and the Church, and that they are disordered is evident upon a proper examination of nature, if one is conducted with the purposes of sex and marriage in mind.

I understand what the bible says, but OT uses the same terms in some places to describe things that we as Catholics have no problem with, like shellfish, and approves things we now vehemently reject, such as taking slaves from neighboring countries and killing people who commit adultery.

Romans 1 also condemns homosexuality. He outlawed homosexuality because it is sinful, and Israel was to be an example of a holy nation. As for why he didn’t, then, also reject slavery, my best guess is that there existed some strong utilitarian benefit to doing so, much like Thomas Aquinas argued with divorce. If I were in his position, I could see myself giving Israelites an incentive to buy slaves from the foreign nations and take them to a place where they can, at the very least, be significantly better off.

Can I be Catholic and be accepting of homosexuality,

What do you mean? If what you have in mind as the alternative to accepting homosexuals as people is being hateful or judgmental towards them, refusing to associate for no good reason etc, than you can only ever be consistent with Catholic teaching by accepting homosexuality.

If on the other hand, you mean to ask if you can deny Catholic teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, than no, no you cannot. You can no more be Catholic while denying those teachings than you can while denying the trinity.

It bothers me because I can’t do it. I can’t take that stance that what homosexual people do is wrong.

The part where they care about each other, or the part where they live in relationships which lead them to sin, or the part where they commit the sin of sodomy? Those aren’t the same thing.

If you cannot reject your emotions for the sake of the faith, you need to work on that.

I can’t take the side against gay marriage.

Than get to a place where you can. Get to a place where your emotions/ill-informed conscience are in line by controlling your emotions and educating your conscience.

That mindset hurts people. It kills people. Despair over not being able to marry the person they love has caused so many suicides.

First off, may I ask for a source? I’d like to see something that could give an idea of how prevalent that kind of thing really is.

Second, this despair comes from two things combined, their thinking that they need such a marriage and them being unable to get it. The Church can help teach them that they do not need it. Of course, they must accept the help of the Church, so it is not a perfect solution.
There is no easy answer to that problem. In the end, it’s just a matter of the simple fact that gay relations are sinful, and the harm and scandal done by promoting them is a grave harm.

I can’t look at the anti-homosexuality crowd and see a group of people protecting the sanctity of marriage. I’ve seen things from the other side. All I can see is the children whose parents reject them and make them homeless (do you know just how common that is?), the teenagers bullied until they eventually give up and kill themselves,

The Church firmly agrees that such things are intolerable. If you are under the impression that the Church condones such horrid things, you are mistaken.

the people who live in shame because if they’re barred from loving another, they’re losing a huge part of their lives, all because they can’t love someone of the opposite sex. It’s cruel, and I can’t do it.

There are plenty of non-romantic sources of and outlets for love. The lack of Romantic love is a loss, but it is not unbearable, and you, as a Catholic, are to be there for any that struggle to help them bear their crosses. Let us not forget that the ultimate love, the love of God, is still available to them.

Does that mean I can’t be Catholic? I hate that thought, because even though I’m a fairly recent convert, I’ve come to love the Church and Jesus. Has anyone else been through this? How did you come to terms with it? How did you find peace?

If you cannot accept the Church’s teaching, you cannot be Catholic. I think, though, that you are absorbed in misconceptions on this issue. I recommend reading some Catholic sources, official ones mind you, on this issue. Embrace not the agenda of the gay rights activist, but the Charity of the Church, and of God, for all persons. I think you will find the love of God is greater than that of any human, of any sex.