See, (romantic) relationships are not all about sex, and this subject is being frames as if the homosexual relationship is primarily a sexual one.
No they aren’t and I even brought that point up in my first post. No real relationship is
entirely about sex. But if you’re going to call a relationship a romantic one or a homosexual one, sex is implied as a regular occurrence. If sex is
not a part of the relationship, it is by nature platonic and is
not based on some level of sexual attraction. I cannot think of a romantic relationship in existence that is not based on at least a slight amount of sexual attraction between two people. They wouldn’t call it romantic otherwise.
Regardless, sexual activity is included, but how that makes the entire relationship **inherently **sinful is beyond me. Maybe we are not using “inherently” in the same sense.
It isn’t the sexual activity that makes the relationship inherently sinful, and I stated as much. The reason it is inherently sinful is because it is based on disordered sexual attraction that tends the two individuals towards immoral sexual activity. I’ll put it in clearer terms. At least some level of the relationship is based on lust, carnal desire, sexual attraction, or whatever words you want to use, towards each other. If you’re saying a relationship is a romantic homosexual relationship, sexual activity is heavily implied. If those thoughts are present, yet the couple remains chaste, it is *not *sinful, although it is a very serious source of temptation for the two individuals, hence the term “disinterested friendship” used by the Catechism.
I think of it the way the Church uses it in her magisterial documents, whereby a sin is in and of itself sinful, regardless of the circumstances. Perhaps you mean it slightly different, as if the homosexual relationship is bound to be sinful as it contains sinful acts, or something. Once again, I have to bring in the example of the contracepting married couple. They are performing illicit, intrinsically (inherently) evil sexual acts that disorder the purpose of sex in traditional Catholic understanding. SO is their entire relationship inherently sinful?
The contracepting couple’s relationship is
not inherently sinful because the sexual nature of their relationship is not inherently disordered. With or without contraception, the married couple’s genitalia are sexually complimentary and are biologically able to produce children. The disordered nature of their using contraception is from the attitude of thwarting their sexual complimentarity with the intention of preventing reproduction. But their relationship is not disordered on a biological nature. Two men or two women in a sexual relationship cannot have the potential to produce children.
And are there absolutely no good qualities that come forth from this relationship? I would say that there are good qualities. Genuine self-sacrifice, mutual love and encouragement, joy and happiness, commitment, genuine friendship, etc. are all things that can exist. And I say that such things as well as others would exist in a gay relationship. We therefore need not only focus on the sin when homosexual persons come to our churches, but we need to figure out how they are able to be embraced where they are in their lives.
Can objectively good things come from this relationship? I honestly think they can. The sense of companionship, mutual self-sacrifice, and genuine friendship found in any close relationship are, in my opinion, good qualities. But I do not think that those qualities allow us to extend the idea that the relationship as a whole is good. Despite all of those things, if the couple is having sex immorally, they are actively endangering each others’ souls. Is the temporary pleasure granted by sexual activity truly worth a potential eternity of separation and despair?
