Same sex couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ratio1 said:
Hypothetically, if two person of the same sex who have same sex attraction and live together but they do not perform any sexual acts, nor indulge in any sexual thoughts of each other, ie pure love [looking after each other etc]
Click to expand...
Depends on the person but to be safe I think it would be better they didn’t live together. If there is even a hint of occasion to sin in the area of same sex attraction, it should be avoided. To me the situation sounds like an occasion to sin.

It’s like saying a man and woman who are attracted to the opposite sex live together. Can they live together if it is just pure love and they don’t have sexual thoughts? Of course they shouldn’t live together because it’s an occasion to sin. What if they kiss or hold hands? That is definitely an occasion to sin.

What if a priest and a parishioner held hands or kissed, what would you think of that? Same applies in the chastity area for laypeople, unless they plan to get married and are not living together.

So the answer is no, they shouldn’t, it isn’t a good idea.
 
Edward_H said:
The Church itself uses this language.

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

It doesn’t say mental or otherwise.
Click to expand...
“Disorder” is used theologically - it’s not a reference to medical conditions of any kind.
 
It’s a bit differant though simply because of the sexes involved, gay or straight, there is something fundamentally different about two men cohabitating, and a man and a woman cohabitating. same sex(non sexual), non entangled relations could possibly be healthy emotionally and healing, while with those of the opposite sexes, regardless of sexual interest, its going to get confusing.
 
Last edited:
I never used mental disorder…I was responding to boom boom point and was struck that boom boom trotted out that word. she was running out of fuel.
 
Last edited:
Joe_73 said:
It’s a bit differant though simply because of the sexes involved, gay or straight, there is something fundamentally different about two men cohabitating, and a man and a woman cohabitating.
Click to expand...
Under normal circumstances, yes, but throw in inclination to a particular sin (homosexual sin) and the disorder of same sex attraction, and the situation changes entirely.
 
Joe_73 said:
and healing, while with those of the opposite sexes, regardless of sexual interest, its going to get confusing
Click to expand...
Sorry for the incomplete post. What I was getting at is same sex emotionally honest and vulnerable relations often heal (to some extent), sexual attractions(via insecurities) to the same sex. It doesn’t always get more sexually tempting. It probably would work better with one straight man, but there might be some benefit in relating to someone with a similar struggles, for support. Relating to someone as a mutual and close friend seems to decrease sexual attraction to them. some of this is a controversial vewpoint of course, but one that I share.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
she was running out of fuel.
Click to expand...
  1. I’m a male.
  2. I’m not running out of fuel. I’m running out of patience. You are quoting from a Church document that directly says homosexual inclination is not a sin (which is all we are arguing about) to support your position, which as far as I can tell with you constantly shifting the goalposts, is that homosexual attraction is itself per se sinful. This is flatly wrong and numerous people have pointed it out to you. Someone citing a document that says the direct opposite of their position is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen.
  3. This bizarre idea you have that everyone else is “lukewarm” because they recognize the above is ridiculous. Someone who is struggling to live chastely despite SSA is not “lukewarm.” They’re making a great effort for the sake of God. Your attitude towards them is, at best, callous. It’s certainly obnoxious and uncharitable.
  4. You defining everything as “sin” is not a sign that you’re more fervent or whatever. It’s a sign you either don’t understand the concepts or you just need to be more precise with your language.
 
Last edited:
  1. The document is a pastoral document; it’s not definitively ruling on anything…notice it deliberately blurs the terms attraction and inclination!!
But it does say the inclination is disordered.
 
Edward_H said:
But it does say the inclination is disordered.
Click to expand...
Again, no one has disagreed with this. No one is saying that homosexuality is a good thing or something to be commended. But not every “disorder” is sinful. Let’s take a purely physical disorder. Someone is born with a congenital heart defect. Their heart is “disordered” in the most basic sense: it does not work as it normally should. We all agree that there is a disorder. But we’d all also agree that the person who has this disorder does not bear any culpability for this disorder, because it wasn’t a result of their free, conscious choice, which is a requirement for sin.
 
Last edited:
Great.

And to be clear the pastoral document didn’t weigh in on the role of the will and culpability. It’s a pastoral document, not a document on moral theology
 
Edward_H said:
And to be clear the pastoral document didn’t weigh in on the role of the will and culpability. It’s a pastoral document, not a document on moral theology
Click to expand...
A pastoral document can use statements on moral theology to explain and illuminate why the pastoral approach is what it is.

If a pastoral document says, “Mary was conceived without original sin and is the mother of Christ, and therefore when you minister to people, suggest a strong devotion to the Virgin Mary.” the fact that the immaculate conception is expressed in the context of pastoral ministry doesn’t make it any less definitive.
 
Thinking back to many threads on CAF, a lot of people here are adamant that if a man and woman platonically share an apartment they still sin as they cause scandal. Thus by that reasoning, a gay man cannot have a female roommate. According to many on CAF, a gay man should also avoid a male roommate as this is a near occasion of sin.
Thus a gay man cannot have a roommate…

Of course I think that’s nonsense. Platonic roommates of either sex is very normal in the 21st century and does not carry any scandal if the term roommate is used rather than partner.
 
But this document didn’t…no dogma, no doctrine was given. tks for the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
But this document didn’t…no dogma, no doctrine was given. tks for the discussion.
Click to expand...
If what you’re looking for an infallible teaching on the subject on the level of the immaculate conception or the divinity of Christ, then no. But you’ve moved the bar up into the stratosphere. The clear weight of the Church’s understanding of the moral implications of homosexual desire (rather than actions) demonstrate that it is not sinful in and of itself. I can see you’re kind of backing away from your argument so I’ll let this one go.
 
I think its also bad advice to advise people with ssa to stay away from those of the same sex. It tends to increase the sexual desire when they don’t fulfill their needs for connection and relating. The loneliness and desperation will just increase the potential sexual aspect of it, while actually connecting on healthy term can be tremendously healing.
 
Last edited:
The date on the calendar does not change the fact that if an unmarried man and woman share an apartment then that is a cause for scandal. Not just because other people will see it but because God sees it as well. We do not want to corrupt young people.
 
Just to put it out here because some people in this thread seem to be a little confused…

Attraction for gay people works the same as it does for straight people. As in, people are usually attracted to specific individuals and not everyone in the sex that they are attracted to. Just like straight people can live together without sexual temptation, gay people can also live together without sexual temptation… because there may not be an attraction.
 
Last edited:
No, I am simply keeping a pastoral document at a pastoral level…you’re the one doing the inflating of it.
 
The date on the calendar changes cultural expectations. If a man introduces a woman as his roommate, it is assumed that their’s is a platonic arrangement. This is common place in our modern culture. The roommate designation implies there is nothing sexual nor romantic.
“Girlfriend” and “roommate” are very different social designations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top