Redeeming Qualities in Same-Sex Relationships

[catholic1seeks]

I’m using my phone, but on a softer note, people keep referring to me as a she on here when I would hope my profile pic suggests otherwise…

 

[Mongo]

Really quite simple to understand…

A CELIBATE homosexual relationship would not be a mortal sin.

What is a celebate homosexual relationship? I would never describe my relationships with my friends, whether they are men or women, as celebate heterosexual relationships. Qualifying a relationship by saying it is homosexual or heterosexual makes it a sexual relationship. It may be the case that I have a girlfriend whom I haven’t had sex with, but I call it a sexual relationship. The only way that works is if the intent is to eventually have sex. If there is no intention to have sex it isn’t sexual, and therefore not heterosexual or homosexual.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

The term “chaste” has always meant to me…remaining true to one person. I have known people who entered religious life taking vows of “poverty, chastity and obedience” rather than " P. celebacy and O. " The reason being that, marriage would then be possible IF the person decided to leave religious life.

It is true… “relationship”… is very broad. But I am pretty sure what the OP means by homosexual relationship. Otherwise he would be talking about two good friends rooming together.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What is a celebate homosexual relationship? I would never describe my relationships with my friends, whether they are men or women, as celebate heterosexual relationships. Qualifying a relationship by saying it is homosexual or heterosexual makes it a sexual relationship. It may be the case that I have a girlfriend whom I haven’t had sex with, but I call it a sexual relationship. The only way that works is if the intent is to eventually have sex. If there is no intention to have sex it isn’t sexual, and therefore not heterosexual or homosexual.

A celibate homosexual relationship is actually an oxymoron. There can be no such thing. I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt by trying to portray homosexuals living together without participating in homosexual behavior.

In other words, homosexuals who do not participate in homosexual behavior are not really homosexual…are they?

 

[Rau]

I’m using my phone, but on a softer note, people keep referring to me as a she on here when I would hope my profile pic suggests otherwise…

It’s a pretty grainy old picture - sorry but I can’t clearly discern man or woman from it! I can see short hair, but that is hardly conclusive of anything. I’ve used she, since you changed avatar, but maybe before also. The avatar was too unclear to alter my already made assumption. [Your prior avatar was used by a woman I’ve often communicated with here - perhaps that influenced me?]

 

[Rau]

The term “chaste” has always meant to me…remaining true to one person. I have known people who entered religious life taking vows of “poverty, chastity and obedience” rather than " P. celebacy and O. " The reason being that, marriage would then be possible IF the person decided to leave religious life.

It is true… “relationship”… is very broad. But I am pretty sure what the OP means by homosexual relationship. Otherwise he would be talking about two good friends rooming together.

A single person is also called to chastity. It is a broad term and adjusts to one’s situation in life.

Yes, I know what he intends too. I had to put that aside to make the point I did in my post.

 

[Mongo]

A celibate homosexual relationship is actually an oxymoron. There can be no such thing. I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt by trying to portray homosexuals living together without participating in homosexual behavior.

In other words, homosexuals who do not participate in homosexual behavior are not really homosexual…are they?

They may be homosexual in as much as it describes their own desires, but their relationships can’t be described as homosexual.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

Here’s the shorthand.

Here are the actions contained in the “shorthand”.

Of course I do not object to writing “shorthand,” but the issue for me was that it was misleading: Saying that a homosexual (romantic) relationship is sinful/immoral when the that really means certain acts within the relationship are sinful is misleading. This is so because, at one point in the discussion, someone had called the relationship itself inherently sinful.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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?

People who are in gay relationships do not approach it this way; obviouslt they do not think they are putting anyone’s soul in danger.

 

[catholic1seeks]

A celibate homosexual relationship is actually an oxymoron. There can be no such thing. I was giving the OP the benefit of the doubt by trying to portray homosexuals living together without participating in homosexual behavior.

In other words, homosexuals who do not participate in homosexual behavior are not really homosexual…are they?

Contrary to there being “no such thing,” I think this could be a very real thing. In fact, I think it could be a way for churches to approach homosexual couples. We are in a situation where gay persons can now get married; this battle for gay marriage was often promoted because gay couples did not have special protections and rights while living together (for example, the hospital visitation rights, etc.) So perhaps a homosexual couple could approach civil marriage for these protections, with the desire to live together so as to not be lonely, but also come to the conviction that they should not have sex. This is at least one possible approach I see, instead of simply saying gay Christians need to remain celibate – and leaving it that.

 

[Rau]

…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…

Thinking about sexual acts as acts or expressions of love…does the observation that a man, engaged in this very particular act or expression of love, emits his gametes (the part of him through which he is able to participate with God in the creation of new life) not seem suggestive of the proper context in which to express love in this way?

And consequently, is it not suggestive of the proper context in which to pursue Eros?

When all boiled down, you want the acts to be good and proper because you desire them.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’m using my phone, but on a softer note, people keep referring to me as a she on here when I would hope my profile pic suggests otherwise…

You certainly look like a “he” to me from your picture, so I was wondering why people kept calling you “she”.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So I do not think everyone on this thread is in agreement; at least not approaching the question the same way. I see a few views:

A homosexual relationship is just as good as a heterosexual relationship, not excluding sexual activity.

A homosexual relationship is potentially just as good as a heterosexual relationship, exlcuding gay sexual acts, which are inherently sinful.

:shrug:A homosexual relationship is sinful in some aspects, as it is ordered to intrinsically evil sexual activity, but it also contains goods that would come forth from a straight relationship, such as love, self-sacrifice, and committment.

A homosexual relationship is in itself sinful and has no good qualities; however, good qualities would still be manifest in the individual persons.

A homosexual relationship is in itself sinful, so nothing good came come out of – either from the relationship or from the persons involved.

 

[Rau]

Contrary to there being “no such thing,” I think this could be a very real thing. In fact, I think it could be a way for churches to approach homosexual couples. We are in a situation where gay persons can now get married; this battle for gay marriage was often promoted because gay couples did not have special protections and rights while living together (for example, the hospital visitation rights, etc.) So perhaps a homosexual couple could approach civil marriage for these protections, with the desire to live together so as to not be lonely, but also come to the conviction that they should not have sex. This is at least one possible approach I see, instead of simply saying gay Christians need to remain celibate – and leaving it that.

There is no conflict in those two positions.

It would be easy to provide the legal framework you propose without changing the meaning of marriage. Such propositions have been rejected (by SSM advocates) because they retain the idea that marriage is a special relationship - requiring one man and one woman.

 

[Mongo]

Of course I do not object to writing “shorthand,” but the issue for me was that it was misleading: Saying that a homosexual (romantic) relationship is sinful/immoral when the that really means certain acts within the relationship are sinful is misleading. This is so because, at one point in the discussion, someone had called the relationship itself inherently sinful.

But now you have separated the sexual from the relationship and when you speak of good qualities you are no longer speaking of a homosexual relationship but simply of a friendship. Friendships have many good qualities.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Contrary to there being “no such thing,” I think this could be a very real thing. In fact, I think it could be a way for churches to approach homosexual couples. We are in a situation where gay persons can now get married; this battle for gay marriage was often promoted because gay couples did not have special protections and rights while living together (for example, the hospital visitation rights, etc.) So perhaps a homosexual couple could approach civil marriage for these protections, with the desire to live together so as to not be lonely, but also come to the conviction that they should not have sex. This is at least one possible approach I see, instead of simply saying gay Christians need to remain celibate – and leaving it that.

A celibate gay is not gay. He is just a celibate person. Marriage within the Church requires consummation. When that happens people are not celibate anymore. So we are back to… sorry this approach won’t work either.

 

[catholic1seeks]

A celibate gay is not gay. He is just a celibate person. Marriage within the Church requires consummation. When that happens people are not celibate anymore. So we are back to… sorry this approach won’t work either.

A person is married as soon as he/she says “I do.”

Comsummation is not required. Look at Mary and Joseph.

The point I was making earlier was that a gay couple could be IN LOVE* but decide not to have sex. After all, several heterosexual couples’ sex lives often end up dwindling.

 

[Mongo]

Contrary to there being “no such thing,” I think this could be a very real thing. In fact, I think it could be a way for churches to approach homosexual couples. We are in a situation where gay persons can now get married; this battle for gay marriage was often promoted because gay couples did not have special protections and rights while living together (for example, the hospital visitation rights, etc.) So perhaps a homosexual couple could approach civil marriage for these protections, with the desire to live together so as to not be lonely, but also come to the conviction that they should not have sex. This is at least one possible approach I see, instead of simply saying gay Christians need to remain celibate – and leaving it that.

I think it was promoted because the elites in society don’t like the concept of the family, so they used the grievances of homosexuals to undercut the family. But that is probably a discussion for another thread.

Gay people can definitely have friends, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to visit sick friends in the hospital.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But now you have separated the sexual from the relationship and when you speak of good qualities you are no longer speaking of a homosexual relationship but simply of a friendship. Friendships have many good qualities.

I conceive of love/romance as being more than a specific sexual act; don’t you? I conceive that a homosexual couple could have much more than a friendship – they could desire to be so committed to each other’s needs and want to live together – yet still decide not to have sex. Like hetero couples in their elderly years.

 

[Thorolfr]

A celibate gay is not gay. He is just a celibate person.

The word “gay” just means a “homosexual person” or someone who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and even the church refers to celibate persons with same-sex attraction as “homosexual persons”. See, for example, the “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” which was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html