Right or wrong: A gay-pride march of homosexuals who avowedly never engage in sexual acts?

[brianwalden]

And on reproduction and procreaton:

Be honest: How many of you guys out there would really want to “populate the earth” if there wasn’t the little “below benefit” on the side?

For starters, look at how many people use gravely immoral means like IVF to have children. They create a new human being with none of the “below benefit” you talk about (unless you’re referring to the way the man’s seed is acquired).

Next look at how many married couples use gravely immoral forms of contraception. Yet most of them choose to have a kid or two. Given that they can already have all the sex they want while using contraception, I think we can reasonably conclude that these couples are motivated by something other than sexual gratification to have kids.

We’re human. We have a natural urge to start families. Today’s society has done everything it possibly can to separate sex from reproduction. Yet even though people have access to “baby-proof” sex (and unborn baby murdering techniques just in case contraception fails) we, on the whole, still also want to have at least one baby. So I would say that many people’s desire to have children is not strictly motived by sexual pleasure.

 

[blessedtoo]

I am not willing to concede equivalence between same-sex attractions and attraction to the opposite sex. One is a disgusting perversion of the sexual appetite whose only end can be hedonistic, the other is a beautiful gift from God meant to assist us in even our platonic relationships. I have stated many times why even non-genital same-sex attraction cannot be considered chaste, at least not under the definition that the Church herself gives in the Catechism.

Yes, you have stated your opinion as a lapsed Catholic many, many times. Threads are full with your opinions on this issue. These personal opinions DO NOT reflect Catholic teaching. Folks with SSA are perfectly capable of living chaste lives in accordance with the Church’s definition of chastity.

 

[Other_Eric]

Yes, you have stated your opinion as a lapsed Catholic many, many times. Threads are full with your opinions on this issue. These personal opinions DO NOT reflect Catholic teaching. Folks with SSA are perfectly capable of living chaste lives in accordance with the Church’s definition of chastity.

Folks with same-sex attraction are perfectly able to cure those attractions so that they may become chaste.

 

[pmoo]

Crazy question! I know.
But I think highly relevant, considering the mixed-messages I often get on these forums. I’m always hearing people say that being gay isn’t wrong so long as you’re chaste, but then others say that to admit and profess your gayness is a sin (even if you remain chaste).

In all seriousness, how am I supposed to make sense of the Church on homosexuality to others when – after nearly a year of trying – I can’t make sense of it myself!

This is the most difficult issue to talk with non-Christians about considering how gay people can be such wonderful citizens (no sarcasm intended at all) and still be “sinful” just because they have the same lustful passions as us straight dudes. Unless one dedicates the time to understand any of the theological/philosophical reasons, it really can’t make sense to anyone (sorry). Does the gay man go to hell because a priest never told him he was doing worng?

And on reproduction and procreaton:

Be honest: How many of you guys out there would really want to “populate the earth” if there wasn’t the little “below benefit” on the side?

I know this goes in fifty directions, but so does my frustration with the issue.:banghead:

I just graduated from RCIA this past April and our teachers said that being homosexual is acceptable to the church as long as one isn’t a practicing homosexual. The understanding is that everyone is supposed to be chaste outside of marriage and since gays cannot marry, they are not supposed to engage in sex just as single straights aren’t supposed to either. Once I heard it explained this way, it made it much easier for to understand.

 

[goofyjim]

I just graduated from RCIA this past April and our teachers said that being homosexual is acceptable to the church as long as one isn’t a practicing homosexual. The understanding is that everyone is supposed to be chaste outside of marriage and since gays cannot marry, they are not supposed to engage in sex just as single straights aren’t supposed to either. Once I heard it explained this way, it made it much easier for to understand.

And they would be correct. Even the Church acknowledges that it does not know the origin of same sex attraction. It holds open the possibility of change for some who want to pursue it but does not hold it as a requirement. I think this goes back to the first council at Jerusalem when it was said to avoid illicit sexual relations. Refraining from the acts and lustful thoughts is living chastity despite what temptations are there. Having the attraction does not imply that one is constantly lusting after his own gender anymore than opposite sex attraction implies one is constantly lusting after the opposite gender.

 

[goofyjim]

Folks with same-sex attraction are perfectly able to cure those attractions so that they may become chaste.

Folks with same sex attraction, despite your opinion, are already chaste if they are not lusting and not in a relationship.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A disorder is nothing to celebrate. It’s a cross to be borne, a burden to be carried, etc. We don’t have “Dry Alocoholics” parades or “Isn’t It Great That We’re Bi-Polar” parades or “I’m Thrilled With My Schizophrenia” celebrations. These people need our prayers, our support, our genuine friendship. They don’t need to have their disorder celebrated.

 

[goofyjim]

A disorder is nothing to celebrate. It’s a cross to be borne, a burden to be carried, etc. We don’t have “Dry Alocoholics” parades or “Isn’t It Great That We’re Bi-Polar” parades or “I’m Thrilled With My Schizophrenia” celebrations. These people need our prayers, our support, our genuine friendship. They don’t need to have their disorder celebrated.

Maybe not Dry Alcoholics but what is wrong with celebrating surviving a mental illness such as bipolar or schizophrenia? Anyway, I don’t want to get too much off topic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe not Dry Alcoholics but what is wrong with celebrating surviving a mental illness such as bipolar or schizophrenia? Anyway, I don’t want to get too much off topic.

The point is, we don’t celebrate the disorder.

 

[goofyjim]

The point is, we don’t celebrate the disorder.

We shouldn’t celebrate disorders that are inclinations to sin. Bipolar and schizophrenia don’t fall under that category so they can be celebrated.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We shouldn’t celebrate disorders that are inclinations to sin. Bipolar and schizophrenia don’t fall under that category so they can be celebrated.

Go ask them how many of them want to march in the parade!

 

[brianwalden]

Crazy question! I know.
But I think highly relevant, considering the mixed-messages I often get on these forums. I’m always hearing people say that being gay isn’t wrong so long as you’re chaste, but then others say that to admit and profess your gayness is a sin (even if you remain chaste).

I think you’ve got mixed messages going on here. Gay refers to a specific lifestyle which professes homosexuality to be a good thing. A gay pride parade of chaste homosexuals would still be promoting the gay lifestyle. If on the otherhand a group of chaste people suffering from SSA wanted to have a parade, not to honor homosexuality, but to show others with the disorder that it can be resisted, I think that would be ok. In fact I would be a big supporter of something like that. I also fear that such a parade would be heavily protested by the gay community.

This is the most difficult issue to talk with non-Christians about considering how gay people can be such wonderful citizens (no sarcasm intended at all) and still be “sinful” just because they have the same lustful passions as us straight dudes.

It’s easy, lots of people who are model citizens are sinners. Just think of all the all-american married couples who use contraception. Think of all the Catholics who don’t go to mass every Sunday and never go to confession and still receive communion when they do go to mass. Think of the sins you and I commit. Most people are not bad people, but all people are sinners.

 

[Riley259]

Homosexual orientation is disordered, meaning it’s existence is not ordered with nature to the good of mankind. It cannot provide the physical, spiritual, psychological and biological complimentarity that heterosexuality does. It can not procreate, hence it completely thwarts the inherent drive to perpetuate the human species. It requires the misuse of the human anatomy in ways that cause harm to the body. It does not fulfill the two basic insticts of human sexual interaction - unity and procreativity. HOWEVER, same sex attraction, in itself, is not a sin. The sin is in the behavior alone. Men and women who believe they have a homosexual orientation yet live a chaste existence are in complete confomity with Church teaching, whether they identify themselves as “gay”. “SSA”, “homosexual”, or whatever word du jour is being used. Courage, the Catholic group that ministers to SSA individuals, suggests that certain words that are more closely associated with an active homosexual lifestyle (gay, queer, etc) should be avoided but there is no official teaching on how a chaste homosexual should identify themselves.

You might try reading the Catechism. I also found this book helpful:
amazon.com/Truth-About-Homosexuality-Cry-Faithful/dp/0898705835/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7097656-1600603?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183434664&sr=8-1

Debating with non-Christians can be difficult. I don’t bother as I think we have our hands full just trying to help other Catholics understand. You could provide stats on the mortality rate, the disease factor, the anatomical component, etc. A great and helpful book on the issue of same sex marriage is:
amazon.com/Future-Marriage-David-Blankenhorn/dp/1594030812/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7097656-1600603?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183434962&sr=1-1

For Christians, and Catholics in particular, it’s pretty simple. Our God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed us to cooperate and participate with Him in bringing new souls to live here with us on earth until it is time to return home to Him. He provided us with a guide book and a manual on how to do this. We get married to someone of the opposite sex, we engage in baby making activity, always mindful of the privilidge we have in assisting God in the creation of more human souls. We stay married to our spouse for our whole lives to provide those new souls with the love, security and faith they need to go out into world and become saints. When we stray too far from the guide book and ignore what the manual says, we get into big trouble. And that goes for all sinners, not just one particular group.

I’m not a guy so I’ll pass on that one!

Excellent answer and great recommendations and links. I’ll be sure to check out those books by Harvey and Blankenhorn.

 

[CatholicMC]

Does the gay man go to hell because a priest never told him he was doing worng?

Deep inside, people have an inert knowledge of right and wrong. Sin is against natural law. Ignorance is not an excuse in a case like this, IMO.

 

[AndyF]

Laurence of PA:

There are base rules(if that’s the word) in the case of sin. Newadvent.org/Sin has a good write up on the basic idea.

“In every sinful act two things two things must be considered , the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas I-II:72:1).”

So if a person* knows* by being told that it is a sin, he needs to work at getting rid of the temptation and staying clear of occasions. All this means that he can’t be content with his state and be seen has striving for perfection. So it is a matter of conscience as to what level one is accepting.

AndyF

 

[Exalt]

So if a person* knows* by being told that it is a sin, he needs to work at getting rid of the temptation and staying clear of occasions. All this means that he can’t be content with his state and be seen has striving for perfection. So it is a matter of conscience as to what level one is accepting.

So what happens if someone grew up in a Catholic home - and happens to be homosexual - and, though he or she has been told all his or her life that being openly gay is a grave sin, acts on it anyway, rejecting that teaching. What happens to that person? What are the consequences?

 

[brotherjoe]

So what happens if someone grew up in a Catholic home - and happens to be homosexual - and, though he or she has been told all his or her life that being openly gay is a grave sin, acts on it anyway, rejecting that teaching. What happens to that person? What are the consequences?

I’m assuming you are asking about eternal consequenses. As I understand it, all sin comes before God and only he will judge each person. But the clear teaching of the Church is that persistant and unrepentant sin on any grave matter places the soul in serious danger. If we insist on choosing our sin over God, we may well spend eternity with our sin and not with Him. If your hypothetical applies to someone you know, feel free to contact me if you wish to talk with someone who has been there to a large degree.

 

[Exalt]

I’m assuming you are asking about eternal consequenses. As I understand it, all sin comes before God and only he will judge each person. But the clear teaching of the Church is that persistant and unrepentant sin on any grave matter places the soul in serious danger. If we insist on choosing our sin over God, we may well spend eternity with our sin and not with Him. If your hypothetical applies to someone you know, feel free to contact me if you wish to talk with someone who has been there to a large degree.

Oh, it does. Me.

I guess God’s going to send me to hell, then, right? Heh. Well, I’m a pretty nice person. Seems … cruel … to punish me with eternal hellfire for … just loving someone.

But I guess that’s a big part of why I don’t believe in a God to begin with. It just doesn’t make sense to call a being who would do that good.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

For my part, I will give the fantastic notion of a “chaste homosexual” all the credence I would give to the equally likely occurrence of a devil praying the rosary or of a unicorn’s placement at the Kentucky Derby.

Would you say the same of a “chaste heterosexual” or do you only make judgments about people you cruelly compare to the devil ? I find your comment quite distasteful and thoroughly homophobic. To attribute behavior to an entire group of people is the definition of bigotry. You probably thought your comment was clever or humorous. I found it neither.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

But I guess that’s a big part of why I don’t believe in a God to begin with. It just doesn’t make sense to call a being who would do that good.

I’m afraid the person sending you to hell is not God, but yourself. God gave us a choice: go to Heaven or go to hell. We choose by our actions: either we try to live by God’s rules or we live by Earth’s rules. You can’t have it both ways: live by Earth’s rules, ignoring God’s great plans for us, and then go live in God’s kingdom.

Someone once said it’s like God gave us two buttons. If you push button A, you go to Heaven; push button B, you go to hell. If you push button B, you can’t blame God for that. And if you pushed button B, would God be “good” if He said, “Too bad, I lied. I’m doing things my way, even though I offered you the choice.”?

God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell. He doesn’t hate homosexuals. He doesn’t hate any sinners. He wants you to live in Heaven so much, but you keep refusing Him! It’s not God, but your homosexual acts that are condeming you to hell. So, can you say that they are still good? Would a good act send you to hell?