Redeeming Qualities in Same-Sex Relationships

[Thorolfr]

Yeah, your life must be so miserable.

As a gay man, my life probably would be miserable if I was Catholic and trying to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But I have a same-sex partner I’ve been with in a committed, monogamous relationship for more than 17 years and we are both active members of a Lutheran church (ELCA) which is welcoming and inclusive for LGBT people like us. So, yeah, my partner and I are quite happy.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Earlier in a post, you mentioned your definition of “homosexual relationship” as being one that includes or is open to sexual activity.

So truly, which is it?

Well, it depends on who I am responding to…
In general, this thread is assuming that a homosexual relationship would include sexual activity. But I was responding to an individual who implied that a gay relationship – even without sex – still would be unacceptable.

If your position is that two homosexuals are able to be what is essentially heterosexual life partners, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think it could be an imprudent and potentially spiritually dangerous decision to live together, but aside from that, so long as it remains chaste, I wouldn’t see anything wrong with that.

I think that this could be a great starting compromise for homosexual persons in the Church. Not a compromise of Truth, in the sense of traditional teaching, but a compromise from the two usual options: either have a gay relationship outside the Church or being celibate and alone.

However, if you hold to your definition given earlier, I cannot agree. I am personally unable to declare love for someone and yet endanger their eternal life, including my own eternal life with them, for the sake of physical temporal pleasure and an intimate connection with them. In simpler terms, I would never allow myself to have sex with someone I love, no matter how much I want to, if doing so meant even *potentially *putting them into a state of mortal sin. In my view, if I truly love them, my desire for their eternal life in Heaven will always trump either of our desires for sex.

Simply saying “mortal sin” does not solve the issue. Read carefully what you just wrote. It ultimately asserts that God will condemn someone to hell simply because they love another person, and this love is not something they can help – in the sense they don’t simply “choose” to be attracted to and fall in love with another person. How little understanding of God’s love we have.

 

[Mark121359]

catholic1seeks,

The above is part of

What’s wrong with a permanent, faithful, stable same-sex sexual relationship?

written by Ed Shaw, Associate Pastor at Emmanuel Bristol Church (under Church of England) in the UK, one of three Christian leaders with same sex attraction, giving witness and counsel to other Christians seeking guidance on a site called livingout.org.

I invite you to read the articles and Q&As at livingout.org, and view the video presentations that address the assertions you repeat and questions you pose worded in different ways to challenge the proscription on lived out homosexuality.

I have to say that if there is any one “obsessed with the gay issue” as you claim in a previous thread you opened, it is you and others like you who are in this forum to simply serve as another pressure group. You will not be convinced no matter what, that on a matter of faith and morals, the Catholic Church is not about to yield to popular or political pressure. It would be easy to join churches that are already gay affirming with more giving in, giving up, on the demand of the crowd pushing to have “same sex relationships accepted, even celebrated.”

You and Thorolfr submit the recurring argument that faithful same sex relationships somehow nullify scriptural teaching on homosexuality. It does not. It is unlikely you can be convinced, considering you opened a thread indicative of the direction you want the Catholic Church to go, “Could the CC ever change its teaching on homosexuality?”
,

This!!!

Peace, Mark

 

[catholic1seeks]

As a gay man, my life probably would be miserable if I was Catholic and trying to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But I have a same-sex partner I’ve been with in a committed, monogamous relationship for more than 17 years and we are both active members of a Lutheran church (ELCA) which is welcoming and inclusive for LGBT people like us. So, yeah, my partner and I are quite happy.

For the sake of this thread, would you mind sharing some good qualities that have come from your relationship?

 

[Rau]

And here’s the rub. You are proposing that a homosexual couple who do not have sex still cannot pursue a relationship. At the end of the day, the Church’s teaching and pastoral goals result in homosexual persons leading extremely lonely lives. Where is their place in the church? They cannot become priests and they cannot have families: They cannot even live with someone they love, EVEN IF they promise not to have sex.

No. He is proposing that a man (say), romantically or sexually attracted to another, other ought to avoid such a relationship given the direction it leads. Your statement that they are not “having sex” is an assumption about the future and at odds with your stated meaning of the term “homosexual relationship”.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This!!!

Peace, Mark

From the article:

We certainly don’t deny that there are real elements of beauty in the relationship of the nice gay couple next door. Their commitment and love are part of God’s common grace to humanity. The happiness your niece is enjoying is a good that God has created for us to enjoy. Her happiness is real.

So then, yes, in answer to the thread’s question according to this article, there are good qualities in a homosexual relationship. (And the local church should embrace this when a couple approaches the church.)

But, crucially, the good in something doesn’t make other aspects of it right in God’s sight. All human beings are capable of doing things that are good – if never completely so (2 Kings 12:2; Luke 11:13). But these echoes of our original perfection do not make us right in God’s sight (Romans 3:10-20). Jesus’ death is required for God to declare that so (Romans 3:21-26).

This concept (in red) is readily accepted. Although I do not as of now consider gay sexual activity to be in itself sinful, one can approach this thread with the assumption that gay sexual acts are sinful. The issue is if there are good qualities the Church can learn to embrace, as Christians in homosexual relationships will approach the Church. Everyone’s situation requires its own pastoral answer.

Similarly the many good things we might see or experience in a permanent, faithful, stable same-sex sexual relationship don’t by themselves make the sexual aspect of the relationship legitimate. At its centre is sex outside the permanent, stable, faithful marriage of a man and a woman - something that God has never declared to be right in his sight. The good in the relationship doesn’t, can’t ever make its sexual dimension right to him.

Again, this is accepted for the sake of the thread’s primary question.

And the issue of whether gay sexual acts are in themselves sinful is for another conversation.

 

[Rau]

For the sake of this thread, would you mind sharing some good qualities that have come from your relationship?

What would be the point - this isn’t denied by anyone?

 

[Kurisu35712]

However, if you hold to your definition given earlier, I cannot agree. I am personally unable to declare love for someone and yet endanger their eternal life, including my own eternal life with them, for the sake of physical temporal pleasure and an intimate connection with them. In simpler terms, I would never allow myself to have sex with someone I love, no matter how much I want to, if doing so meant even potentially putting them into a state of mortal sin. In my view, if I truly love them, my desire for their eternal life in Heaven will always trump either of our desires for sex.
Included for reference

No, that is not what it is asserting. That’s how you read it, but that isn’t what it says. For one, God does not condemn us to Hell, we condemn ourselves to it in choosing ourselves or something else over God. Furthermore, we do not sin by loving someone, or even by finding ourselves attracted to them. We sin when we choose to sin. Unless you’re going to posit the argument that a gay person who has sex did so because they can’t help it, and not because they made an active decision to do so, your point is invalid.

We can’t choose who to fall in love with, this much is true. We can’t choose who we are attracted to either. But we are not sinning nor are we punished for either of these things. However, we can choose who we have sex with, and being attracted to someone does not compel us to have sex with them.

 

[catholic1seeks]

What would be the point - this isn’t denied by anyone?

I believe quite a few posts on this thread said that there simply were not good or “redeeming” qualities in homosexual relationships.

 

[catholic1seeks]

No, that is not what it is asserting. That’s how you read it, but that isn’t what it says. For one, God does not condemn us to Hell, we condemn ourselves to it in choosing ourselves or something else over God. Furthermore, we do not sin by loving someone, or even by finding ourselves attracted to them. We sin when we choose to sin. Unless you’re going to posit the argument that a gay person who has sex did so because they can’t help it, and not because they made an active decision to do so, your point is invalid.

We can’t choose who to fall in love with, this much is true. We can’t choose who we are attracted to either. But we are not sinning nor are we punished for either of these things. However, we can choose who we have sex with, and being attracted to someone does not compel us to have sex with them.

Sorry if I misrepresented you. I know God doesn’t send anyone to hell; but he does condemn us their if we so choose.

Sexual expression can be loving someone, though.

We may choose to sin, and that our free choice in the matter is what ultimately fleshes out a sin. But this legalistic understanding of mortal sin – whenever a certain act is committed, supernatural grace flees from the soul, and simply because it is a certain act – ultimatelty sounds like one slips into hellfire because he or she loves someone.

 

[pete_29]

As a gay man, my life probably would be miserable if I was Catholic and trying to live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But I have a same-sex partner I’ve been with in a committed, monogamous relationship for more than 17 years and we are both active members of a Lutheran church (ELCA) which is welcoming and inclusive for LGBT people like us. So, yeah, my partner and I are quite happy.

Then quit complaining.

 

[Rau]

I believe quite a few posts on this thread said that there simply were not good or “redeeming” qualities in homosexual relationships.

Redeeming is in quotes now ? So an adulterous relationship may have “redeeming” qualities? Does that mean something? Does it change the character of adultery or how it should be viewed? Or does it simply make the obvious point that a person may do good in all circumstances?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Redeeming is in quotes now ? So an adulterous relationship may have “redeeming” qualities? Does that mean something? Does it change the character of adultery or how it should be viewed? Or does it simply make the obvious point that a person may do good in all circumstances?

Midway throught the thread, someone said the word “redeeming” was not a good word choice, and I agreed, because it implies the good aspects would somehow cancel out any bad (sinful) ones. Despite this word choice, I did not mean it in that sense. I simply meant good qualities.

 

[Rau]

Sorry if I misrepresented you. I know God doesn’t send anyone to hell; but he does condemn us their if we so choose.

Sexual expression can be loving someone, though.

We may choose to sin, and that our free choice in the matter is what ultimately fleshes out a sin. But this legalistic understanding of mortal sin – whenever a certain act is committed, supernatural grace flees from the soul, and simply because it is a certain act – ultimatelty sounds like one slips into hellfire because he or she loves someone.

Is everything that is clearly defined “legalistic”? Or only if it proves inconvenient too? What is your non-legalistic view of serious sin?

Do you now assert that there can be no sin when love is in the air?

 

[Rau]

Midway throught the thread, someone said the word “redeeming” was not a good word choice, and I agreed, because it implies the good aspects would somehow cancel out any bad (sinful) ones. Despite this word choice, I did not mean it in that sense. I simply meant good qualities.

That has been answered thoroughly - see my earlier responses. The answer is so unremarkable that I fail to see that it leads anywhere.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Is everything that is clearly defined “legalistic”? Or only if it proves inconvenient too? What is your mom-legalistic view of serious sin?

Do you now assert that there can be no sin when love is in the air?

To answer the last Q first. No, I just find it a bit odd that an individual could go to hell simply for an act that is an expression of mutual love.

Some acts are in themselves wrong, but I am not so sure if homosexual sexual acts (or any nonprocreative sexual acts) are in themselves sinful.

 

[catholic1seeks]

That has been answered thoroughly - see my earlier responses. The answer is so unremarkable that I fail to see that it leads anywhere.

If we are able to say that there are very good aspects that result from gay relationships, then that a good first step. The next would be for churches and pastors to accept these good aspects and determine pastoral solutions when incorporating homosexual coupless in their churches. That is the need for those churches that will continue to say homosexuality is wrong.

And not everyone here said good comes out of these relationships. If I can recall, Estebob was one of the persons of this persuasion.

Other responders said that there may be good qualities, but these would come out of the invidual persons and not the relationship itself.

But I am glad you think that gay relationships can be good.

 

[Rau]

To answer the last Q first. No, I just find it a bit odd that an individual could go to hell simply for an act that is an expression of mutual love.

Then by no, you mean yes? Sexual acts cannot be equated to an act of love.

Some acts are in themselves wrong, but I am not so sure if homosexual sexual acts (or any nonprocreative sexual acts) are in themselves sinful.

Until you resolve this, the rest of the discussion is on precarious - or at best shifting - ground.

 

[pete_29]

To answer the last Q first. No, I just find it a bit odd that an individual could go to hell simply for an act that is an expression of mutual love.

Some acts are in themselves wrong, but I am not so sure if homosexual sexual acts (or any nonprocreative sexual acts) are in themselves sinful.

The Catholic Church says they are. All you are trying to do is justify your actions in your own mind.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Sorry if I misrepresented you. I know God doesn’t send anyone to hell; but he does condemn us their if we so choose.

Again, we choose it ourselves, and God does not force mercy upon us. If you know God doesn’t send anyone to Hell, He doesn’t condemn us to it, though that’s a topic for another thread, and one I’ve participated in several times. Regardless, no hard feelings.

Sexual expression can be loving someone, though.

Then allow me to ask you the following. If sexual expression, as you phrase it, has a possibility of causing us to choose an eternity without God (and by extension, an eternity without the company of our loved ones) as it may cause us to put sex above God, or to put another person above God, is that still a form of love? You seem to think it doesn’t cause that, and at worst is spiritually neutral if not good.

However, if sex could potentially cause the loved one to choose an eternity in Hell over Heaven, would you still call it love? I don’t care if you accept the proposition. But hypothetically speaking, if sex with your loved one can result in their choosing Hell, does your choosing to go through with it still allow it to be called an expression of love?

Feel free to expand on the above points however you wish, although if you choose to answer that last question, I’d prefer an answer with those guidelines assumed to be fact. I’m trying to at least get across an understanding of my own view of things.