Same sex couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think prudence needs to be exercised when its a man and a woman, regardless of sexual orientation. I would not be very comfortable being in such a living arangement. Regardless if the two are sexually interested, I think men and women of similar age and experience generally shouldn’t live together in a familial way if they have no intention of marrying. Simply living in the same house, but in mostly different rooms isn’t too problematic. but its weird to be spending a lot of time with one person, of the opposite sex, who you are not married to/dating. What do I know though, If someone knows better than me please do correct me.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
Is there anyone with whom an adult with same-sex attraction may permissibly live? (Besides a relative.)
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean exactly by living with, but in general with anyone who doesn’t occasion sin for them, which I assume would include relatives.

Is there anyone they must live with? If it isn’t necessary, they should probably live alone.
 
anon65111186 said:
Depends on what you mean exactly by living with, but in general with anyone who doesn’t occasion sin for them, which I assume would include relatives.

Is there anyone they must live with? If it isn’t necessary, they should probably live alone.
Click to expand...
It’s simply the normal way of things for people not to live alone. This has been true in monastic orders, in marriages, and among priests. I certainly think it must be an option for anyone.

Also, as a man attracted to men and women, I can say that I could live with nearly every person I know without it being a temptation for me to have sex (or pursue romance) with them. I just find most people not to be attractive, in that sort of way. In my case – if I weren’t married, which I am – would you say I could live with another guy or a few other guys, that I was not attracted to?
 
Social expectations were manipulated. I watched it happen… slowly… gradually. The poison was dripped into people’s veins and continues to be dripped into people’s veins. I was aware enough, thank God, to not fall for most of it. But it continues… And every step down damages and fragments society along the way.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Also, as a man attracted to men and women, I can say that I could live with nearly every person I know without it being a temptation for me to have sex (or pursue romance) with them. I just find most people not to be attractive, in that sort of way. In my case – if I weren’t married, which I am – would you say I could live with another guy or a few other guys, that I was not attracted t
Click to expand...
I think that with another homosexual man like in the OP it would be a matter of judgement for both of them to make, but if they want to be safe just live alone, but still be a part of a community.

If you know yourself and think with a clear conscience that you would not be attracted in any circumstances to a roomate I don’t see anything sinful in that. The main thing is to make sure it will lead to holiness, not sin. It could be a sinful situation for a host of different reasons, like if they tempted you with addictions or unholy behavior etc.
 
If a 20 year old man rents a room within a house from a 60 year old widow, she is, for all intents and purposes, his roommate. Yet I doubt anyone would suggest the possibility of scandal. If there is no romantic interest, I don’t see the inherent problem. In modern secular society, its not unusual to have platonic roommates of various genders and ages - especially in large cities.
 
I don’t live in modern secular society, because in this case, what is called modern is usually wrong in some way, and society is not entirely secular, thank God. Large cities? What about small towns?

No, the problem is the desire to find an excuse for cohabitation with sex. Platonic? I think if you asked the average person under 30 what that word meant you’d get a blank stare.

I’m only aware of two genders, that’s it.
 
There are only two genders, yes.
I think you’re wrong. Yes, on the one hand cohabitation is a rampant issue… but we’re not talking about that here. The average under 30 person living in the secular world would be unfazed by either situation…cohabiting couple or purely platonic roommates. One is wrong to be sure… but both are considered “normal” today. The latter isn’t intrinsically wrong.
 
Over and over on this forum many Catholics make it clear that anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+ should just keep their mouth shut about it. And as @twf points out they should also live alone, not have any friends who might tempt them. Oh, yes, one poster a while back now expressed concern that the Courage ministry might not be a good idea because members would socialize with members of the same sex.

I wonder if how many of you could do it and not struggle with the isolation that is being suggested because if one puts all the concerns about who one lives with, associates with, what they can talk about it boils down to isolation. I have noted that there are people who appear to be isolated but they do not seem happier or holier. The seem bitter and judgmental like they want other people to be as unhappy as they are. Basically if you are saying you could live like an unofficial hermit, no problem, cuz Iyou’d have Jesus, I’m saying I don’t believe you.

Oh, and deny that this is actually being said but rarely does anyone offer any support for LGBTQ+ folk.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
And to be clear the pastoral document didn’t weigh in on the role of the will and culpability.
Click to expand...
How could it - what act of the will do you have in mind? And for which act (by which actor) is culpability to be judged?

There are persons who experience SSA and who embrace it and in so doing make sinful choices. There are persons who experience SSA and reject it and work every day to remain chaste. On what grounds is their mere experience of SSA to be called sinful? None.
 
Edward_H said:
But this document didn’t…no dogma, no doctrine was given.
Click to expand...
Do we need doctrine and dogma specifying what is not sinful, before we can have any confidence about what is not sinful?
 
Last edited:
As Joe detailed above the will cooperated early on in the shaping of various behaviors.

He explained it so well and so sincerely.
 
Yes doctrine provides moral truth, the criteria and mechanisms of our life with God. So yes. Doctrine gives us true criteria with which to put into our intellect, which then on a day to day basis provides our conscience.

We don’t generate moral criteria ourselves…that’s the anarchy of relativism that we see today.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
cooperated early on in the shaping of various behaviors.

He explained it so well and so sincerely.
Click to expand...
Well it just made the attraction worse, but I probably had help from bad spiritual influences, and definately some mental/spiritual confusion. I also didn’t really know what I was doing/what was going on initially.
But even so I am not sure what you are trying to argue, Even in an extreme example, suppose you stab yourself, but then change your mind and repent. You dying, while a major consequence of your action, is not a sin in that moment.

The attraction is objectively disordered because the goal of the feeling is for one to sin. striving to reorder ones attractions is something one should do if they are able. Some will debate if this is possible, and there are a great many wrong ways about of going about this, thus people are right to be cautious of unprofessional, infectual,and damagaing therapeutic techniques. I support therapy, don’t get me wrong, but I also acknowledge there is plenty of room to do it in unhealthy ways.

What point are you trying to argue?
 
Last edited:
Joe_73 said:
What point are you trying to argue?
Click to expand...
The same one he has argued all along. That if you experience SSA, you are sinning. And his greatest argument in support of that claim is that there is no doctrine or dogma that says you aren’t! :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
No need to take an extreme example.

What you described is what many men describe about their porn addictions…little by little, giving in, getting consolation from self-climax, continuation.

When we “seek consolation” in created things and get it…we strengthen our attachment to those created things.
 
No you’ve shrunken and distorted a much larger point about the pathway to this behavior (in order to dismiss it!)

What Joe described is no different from men who get addicted to hetero porn…little by little, they seek consolation in created things, or in their imagination, they receive reinforcement when they reach climax. And the behavior strengthens precisely along the curve that Skinner drew out with other forms of reinforced behavior.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
No you’ve shrunken and distorted a much larger point about the pathway to this behavior (in order to dismiss it!)

What Joe described is no different from men who get addicted to hetero porn…little by little, they seek consolation in created things, or in their imagination, they receive reinforcement when they reach climax. And the behavior strengthens precisely along the curve that Skinner drew out with other forms of reinforced behavior.
Click to expand...
Morality is the evaluation of human acts.
Attraction to the same sex is disordered, but the attraction is not sinful. Attractions are not actions.
ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
Click to expand...
 
Not quite so…and in 1749 is the support.

Early actions done deliberately can contribute to a strengthening of inclinations/attractions. It’s the front side / growth curve that you’re trying to sweep under the rug.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top