Same Sex Celibate Couples

[ajaffres]

I would say that it would be hard for two individuals who really love each other not to be attracted to each other. I guess each having their own place and avoiding be alone with one another would be the best recipe for success in this circumstances. What would be worse though is if the pretended to be heterosexual and then married someone of the other sex. That would be deceit wouldn’t it and make the marriage invalid, not counting the psychological damage the heterosexual person would have to endure if he/she ever found out.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I would say that it would be hard for two individuals who really love each other not to be attracted to each other. I guess each having their own place and avoiding be alone with one another would be the best recipe for success in this circumstances. What would be worse though is if the pretended to be heterosexual and then married someone of the other sex. That would be deceit wouldn’t it and make the marriage invalid, not counting the psychological damage the heterosexual person would have to endure if he/she ever found out.

You are a product of the 20th century, before Freud this concept didn’t really exist.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

The OP didn’t say they are sexually attracted to each other, the OP said they loved each other. There are several types of love.

Perhaps the OP should clarify.

I read it as romantic love, not brotherly love.

As another poster pointed out, I have never had to agree to celibacy with a friend.

Of corse, I have had discussions with a male friend (I am female) about not liking him “in that way”… But if I knew he might have romantic feelings for me, which I did not reciprocate, I would not move in with him, either.

 

[MarieVeronica]

They should talk to their priest. Placing themselves in a situation that is a temptation to sin is not something they should do. The fact that they consider themselves a “couple” indicates they need counsel from their priest.

Agree with this, wholeheartedly. The situation you describe is ill-advised. Because they describe themselves as a “couple” that means, they aren’t “just friends” (as was unwisely suggested here). For this “couple” to cohabitate… would be a terrible mistake.

God bless.

 

[DexUK]

In answer to the original question, if this homosexual couple were to live together and did NOT conduct themselves in lustful fashions towards each other (including in thought as well as action) then they are not actually sinning.

It would be analogous to an invalidly ‘married’ heterosexual couple who wanted to become Catholics waiting for the appropriate convalidation or radical sanction to take place. They have to live as brother and sister rather than husband and wife. If they do live as brother and sister, the Church says they’re not sinning.

Now obviously a homosexual couple can’t get married, so they’re going to need to be prepared to live as ‘brother and brother’ indefinitely… indeed, if this is what they actually want for their relationship, then they aren’t actually committing any sins, surely?

Anyone who says that they are, is essentially implying that two homosexual persons may never be alone together at any time as they will always and forever represent an occasion of sin to each other, in which case the same applies to heterosexual men and women which would make courting impossible…

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Agree with this, wholeheartedly. The situation you describe is ill-advised. Because they describe themselves as a “couple” that means, they aren’t “just friends” (as was unwisely suggested here). For this “couple” to cohabitate… would be a terrible mistake.

God bless.

Well what exactly would you call a pair who love each, live together and do lots of things while being totally unrelated.

 

[SteveGC]

In answer to the original question, if this homosexual couple were to live together and did NOT conduct themselves in lustful fashions towards each other (including in thought as well as action) then they are not actually sinning.

It would be analogous to an invalidly ‘married’ heterosexual couple who wanted to become Catholics waiting for the appropriate convalidation or radical sanction to take place. They have to live as brother and sister rather than husband and wife. If they do live as brother and sister, the Church says they’re not sinning.

Now obviously a homosexual couple can’t get married, so they’re going to need to be prepared to live as ‘brother and brother’ indefinitely… indeed, if this is what they actually want for their relationship, then they aren’t actually committing any sins, surely?

Anyone who says that they are, is essentially implying that two homosexual persons may never be alone together at any time as they will always and forever represent an occasion of sin to each other, in which case the same applies to heterosexual men and women which would make courting impossible…

Dex, what of the sin of scandal? Yes, the invalidly ‘married’ heterosexual couple is often allowed to continue co-habitation until validation, as you say. But in the case of homosexuals, there will be no such future validation, and their co-habitation is a matter of public observation. Granted, it would have to be also a public observation that each held themselves out as homosexuals, but this is typically not difficult to ascertain publicly, even without prying.

Thus you typically have a situation of public knowledge of both homosexual orientation and co-habitation, which combine to form scandal. This would suffice for sin, regardless of their chastity, no?

 

[UnlikelyHomeDad]

Welcome! The Cafeteria is now open!

That’s what I keep reading on this thread. Justifying wrong. It reminds me of the way Catholics vote, as just one example. I knew a guy that chose not to read the bible so that he could not form his conscience and therefore not be held accountable. See any problems with that guys? Interestingly, my wife, who was seeing him at the time, she found him having sex with someone in his car. My wife was such a bad chose of character that I suspected she might be seeing him behind my back once, so I hund outside her house once to see if she was betraying me. That’s before I proposed. I’ve never doubted since. Our conversations about these nut cases she dated prior to me are interesting. In fact, one of them wasn’t a nut, but rather a womanizer and actually a personal friend of mine. He’s the one that matched us up. She was from a traditional old fashioned home that later I discovered practiced ABC, even though she was number 8. Different uninformed Protestants (those rejecting the fullness of the teachings of Christ’s Church) is really no different that Catholics rejecting the teachings of the Church (even if implied through forming onces conscience to “right thinking”).

 

[SteveGC]

Welcome! The Cafeteria is now open!

That’s what I keep reading on this thread. Justifying wrong. It reminds me of the way Catholics vote, as just one example. I knew a guy that chose not to read the bible so that he could not form his conscience and therefore not be held accountable. See any problems with that guys? Interestingly, my wife, who was seeing him at the time, she found him having sex with someone in his car. My wife was such a bad chose of character that I suspected she might be seeing him behind my back once, so I hund outside her house once to see if she was betraying me. That’s before I proposed. I’ve never doubted since. Our conversations about these nut cases she dated prior to me are interesting. In fact, one of them wasn’t a nut, but rather a womanizer and actually a personal friend of mine. He’s the one that matched us up. She was from a traditional old fashioned home that later I discovered practiced ABC, even though she was number 8. Different uninformed Protestants (those rejecting the fullness of the teachings of Christ’s Church) is really no different that Catholics rejecting the teachings of the Church (even if implied through forming onces conscience to “right thinking”).

Hmm. That’s interesting. My read-through of the thread largely suggests illuminating and admonishing wrong, as opposed to* justifying *it. Maybe I need to read through it again, but I’m fairly certain I’ve been following close since the beginning.

 

[Havard]

Welcome! The Cafeteria is now open!

That’s what I keep reading on this thread. Justifying wrong. It reminds me of the way Catholics vote, as just one example. I knew a guy that chose not to read the bible so that he could not form his conscience and therefore not be held accountable. See any problems with that guys? Interestingly, my wife, who was seeing him at the time, she found him having sex with someone in his car. My wife was such a bad chose of character that I suspected she might be seeing him behind my back once, so I hund outside her house once to see if she was betraying me. That’s before I proposed. I’ve never doubted since. Our conversations about these nut cases she dated prior to me are interesting. In fact, one of them wasn’t a nut, but rather a womanizer and actually a personal friend of mine. He’s the one that matched us up. She was from a traditional old fashioned home that later I discovered practiced ABC, even though she was number 8. Different uninformed Protestants (those rejecting the fullness of the teachings of Christ’s Church) is really no different that Catholics rejecting the teachings of the Church (even if implied through forming onces conscience to “right thinking”).

I think you might need to read through the thread again, the majority of us are not justifying homosexual behavior. In fact, I’m not even sure if the minority are either, at least not intentionally. I think they are just naive in thinking sinful behavior is not a danger in the situations discussed.

 

[Castello]

You’ve defined two couples’ feelings toward each other based on one fact about them apiece. That’s quite judgmental. I agree the facts themselves are not indicative of wholesome, marital love, but the couples may indeed love each other, very much.

Loving someone else doesn’t make you sin-proof with respect to them… it doesn’t create some bubble of sinlessness within our overall fallen nature. The fact is, people who love each other can, and often do, cause each other to sin. Gay people are no exception.

The thing is, they have emotions and feelings, but, they are not real love.

Question is, to these emotions pass this QC:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated,
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.Love never fails.

 

[ajaffres]

In light of all this, what would you recommend homosexuals do? What are their options?

We know they did not choose to be gay, an heterosexual marriage would never be valid, they should not join a religious order, since they would face daily temptations living with so many others of the same sex. Should they remain home with their parents or live with a relative?

 

[DexUK]

The thing is, they have emotions and feelings, but, they are not real love.

Question is, to these emotions pass this QC:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated,
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.Love never fails.

Specifically regarding that quote, it could apply to anyone anywhere and how they feel about anyone else, regardless of gender or sexuality.

As for the sin of scandal which I was asked about earlier (and sorry, I haven’t worked out how to do multiple quoting from different posts yet) there has to be a limit because it’s also a sin, is it not, to presume someone to be sinful when they aren’t?

I perceive that a lot of people, too many in fact, are much too prepared to think the worst of others as their default position. I’m pretty sure that itself approaches some measure of sin too…

 

[Havard]

The thing is, they have emotions and feelings, but, they are not real love.

Question is, to these emotions pass this QC:

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated,
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.Love never fails.

With all due respect, that was a tangent, and we’ve moved on from it. I’d rather not get back off the OP’s question again.

 

[DexUK]

In light of all this, what would you recommend homosexuals do? What are their options?

We know they did not choose to be gay, an heterosexual marriage would never be valid, they should not join a religious order, since they would face daily temptations living with so many others of the same sex. Should they remain home with their parents or live with a relative?

I see no reason why a homosexual person shouldn’t belong to a religious order. The life within such an institution is essentially a public one (at least amongst all the people that person would be living with) so it would be unlikely any temptation would be acted on. Indeed, I’d suggest that likelihood would be substantially less than if left to their own devices in the secular world which cares less about sanctity.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

In light of all this, what would you recommend homosexuals do? What are their options?

We know they did not choose to be gay, an heterosexual marriage would never be valid, they should not join a religious order, since they would face daily temptations living with so many others of the same sex. Should they remain home with their parents or live with a relative?

Live alone, single, like other unmarried, adult people. Or live with a member of the sex to whom they have no attraction. Or live with a straight person of the same sex.

 

[DexUK]

… Or live with a member of the sex to whom they have no attraction. Or live with a straight person of the same sex.

Some would inevitably argue that the former would simply lead to ‘scandal’ of heterosexual nature while the latter would lead to ‘scandal’ of homosexual nature. Which just leaves solitary confinement, and I consider that cruel and unnatural.

 

[Havard]

Some would inevitably argue that the former would simply lead to ‘scandal’ of heterosexual nature while the latter would lead to ‘scandal’ of homosexual nature. Which just leaves solitary confinement, and I consider that cruel and unnatural.

As I’m sure you know, being gay doesn’t mean you find every same-sex person attractive. There always options that wouldn’t cause scandal.

 

[DexUK]

As I’m sure you know, being gay doesn’t mean you find every same-sex person attractive. There always options that wouldn’t cause scandal.

Well you and I may know that - it seems self evident to me. The trouble is there are people out there who don’t agree and assume (wrongly of course) that any homosexual person is just itching to jump every man he sees. It’s a ridiculous argument, of course, but I’ve heard and read it made many times.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Live alone, single, like other unmarried, adult people. Or live with a member of the sex to whom they have no attraction. Or live with a straight person of the same sex.

Since gay people don’t typically wear signs announcing that they are gay doesn’t living with a member of the opposite sex have more potential to cause scandal than living with a member of the same sex?