Redeeming Qualities in Same-Sex Relationships

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Until you resolve this, the rest of the discussion is on precarious - or at best shifting - ground.
Click to expand...
Not really. The thread was phrased to allow for an understanding of homosexual relationships to include acts that are considered sinful.
 
pete_29 said:
The Catholic Church says they are. All you are trying to do is justify your actions in your own mind.
Click to expand...
You do not know what my actions are, so you cannot say that.

And my perspective on Church authority and the understanding of homosexuality has been expressed on other current threads. But for this thread, my view of the sinfulness of homosexual sexual activity is not primarily important.
 
catholic1seeks said:
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…

Other responders said that there may be good qualities, but these would come out of the invidual persons and not the relationship itself.
Click to expand...
That people in a gay relationship are capable of doing good is not remarkable. Those same people are surely capable of doing good not in such s relationship. People do good, not relationships.
But I am glad you think that gay relationships can be good.
Click to expand...
Those are not my words or thoughts - descending to that level will do your credibility no good.
 
Kurisu35712 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Putting something above God is the fundamental definition of sin. I do not think loving God and loving another person in a (romantic/sexual) homosexual relationship are in competition, though, just as a heterosexual relationship and one’s relationship with God are necessarily in competition. (Either of these can be, of course).

I am bit unsure of what you are referring to in that second paragraph. Either homosexual acts are in themselves sinful or not; if they are, they would be sinful for both parties involved – not just the beloved person.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Not really. The thread was phrased to allow for an understanding of homosexual relationships to include acts that are considered sinful.
Click to expand...
IMHO, your disposition and reasoning rest entirely on the conviction that marriage is not the only proper venue for sexual relations.
 
Rau said:
That people in a gay relationship are capable of doing good is not remarkable. Those same people are surely capable of doing good not in such s relationship. People do good, not relationships.
Click to expand...
In that case, we are back to the beginning. Are there good aspects in a homosexual relationship?
 
Rau said:
IMHO, your disposition and reasoning rest entirely on the conviction that marriage is not the only proper venue for sexual relations.
Click to expand...
But the thread and question at hand correspond to the reality that gay couples, may approach the church.
 
catholic1seeks said:
I am bit unsure of what you are referring to in that second paragraph. Either homosexual acts are in themselves sinful or not; if they are, they would be sinful for both parties involved – not just the beloved person.
Click to expand...
So each person, in advancing their relationship toward sexual acts, places the other at greater and greater peril. And so we ask, “is that a loving thing to do”?
 
Rau said:
So each person, in advancing their relationship toward sexual acts, places the other at greater and greater peril. And so we ask, “is that a loving thing to do”?
Click to expand...
If homosexual acts are in themselves sinful and the couple knew this, then of course it would not be loving to engage in those acts.
 
catholic1seeks said:
But the thread and question at hand correspond to the reality that gay couples, may approach the church.
Click to expand...
All persons of good will may approach the Church. The expectation of good will may create a difficulty for persons who proclaim, openly, a right to sin.
 
catholic1seeks said:
You do not know what my actions are, so you cannot say that.

And my perspective on Church authority and the understanding of homosexuality has been expressed on other current threads. But for this thread, my view of the sinfulness of homosexual sexual activity is not primarily important.
Click to expand...
I can take a pretty well educated guess. You are the one that brought up that you didn’t think homosexual sexual activity wasn’t sinful. The Catholic Church say it is. Accept it or not, but don’t expect the Church to change it’s teaching for your convenience.
 
catholic1seeks said:
For the sake of this thread, would you mind sharing some good qualities that have come from your relationship?
Click to expand...
People in homosexual relationships can have good qualities but they don’t come form their relationship.If you really love someone why would you engage in activities or enter a relationship the puts their immortal soul in danger?
 
catholic1seeks said:
This makes no sense. A relationship is not an action. It’s not a thought or word. It simply comprises multiple aspects. As wrong as those situations you submitted may be immoral, it is only quickhand speech to refer to a relationship as “wrong.”
Click to expand...
A relationship is created by actions. You don’t just wake up one day and find yourself in a relationship. The actions that a person engages in that lead to the relationship forming and continuing are not moral in the situations we are discussing. The relationship couldn’t exist without the actions.

You are correct that it’s a shorthand but so was your original question. 🙂
Explain to me, using Church documents or teachings, how a **homosexual relationship **in itself is committing a mortal sin. What does that even mean?
Click to expand...
Here’s the shorthand.
Two gay people love each other and **decide to be committed **to one another. Is that grave matter? What is?
Click to expand...
Here are the actions contained in the “shorthand”.
 
Kurisu35712 said:
. . . .

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.
Click to expand...
I would just add the following: To the extent that “falling in love” is seen as an involuntary emotion, it may be said that one does not choose who to fall in love with, or to whom one is attracted. But emotions are temporary and impermanent. We may choose to encourage them or to discourage them, or to ignore them. (Marriage vows, on the other hand, promise lifelong fidelity, permanence, and openness to life. One can only make a lifelong commitment based on an act of the will. If that commitment is kept, the appropriate emotions will usually follow.) Ordinarily, basing life decisions on fleeting emotions is a mistake.
 
catholic1seeks said:
My thread/question assumes that churches regard homosexual sexual activity as sinful. But thereby saying that there are no redeeming qualities in a (romantic) homosexual relationship does *not *seem like a very Catholic answer to me. I have always understood the Catholic faith to be a faith that looks for what is good, true, and beautiful in everything. I cannot accept that this same faith would simply say there are no good or redeeming qualities in committed gay relationship.

There are and will be homosexual persons in relationships who want to find a place in the Catholic Church. They may not be everything that the Church wants from them, but I think churches will learn to see aspects that are truly good in these relationships.
​
Click to expand...
There is nothing good about homosexual relationships that isn’t also true of straight relationships. They may contain some of the qualities of heterosexual relationships, but they add nothing.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Explain to me, using Church documents or teachings, how a homosexual relationship in itself is committing a mortal sin. What does that even mean? Two gay people love each other and decide to be committed to one another. Is that grave matter? What is?
Click to expand...
Really quite simple to understand…

A CELIBATE homosexual relationship would not be a mortal sin.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Really quite simple to understand…

A CELIBATE homosexual relationship would not be a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
While the term “relationship” is very broad, I suppose your point is that “relationship” itself implies nothing immoral. [And let’s just sidestep the question of what “homosexual relationship” implies.] And even experiencing a twinge of attraction is not sinful. But when the attraction is powerful and draws one towards sexual acts, and is indulged despite, and indeed on account of, that fact, then the choice to pursue the relationship becomes questionable at best.

I was going to suggest “chaste” as a better word than celibate, and perhaps you’d agree. But it occurs to me that the OP would deem a committed same sex sexual relationship as potentially being chaste, and thus her agreement to use “chaste” would add to confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top