Same sex couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edward_H said:
the means that the Church provides to struggle toward God and the good.

Failing to use these means today/now can also be a sin.
Click to expand...
i have to ask though. Can you give me an example of these “means”?

Also what happens if they dont work?
 
Edward_H said:
Go to Veritatis Splendor and spend some slow time there.
Click to expand...
I know it well. You won’t find anything there that contradicts the fundamental position that it is knowingly (deliberately) chosen acts which are subject to moral evaluation.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
You continue to pretend that “attractions” don’t grow or be strengthened…and no serious behavioral researcher would agree with you.
Click to expand...
No one denies this may happen. If one has cultivated an ”interest” in pornography, one does wrong. Each time One chooses to dwell on pornographic thoughts or to consume pornography, one does wrong. If One recognizes these wrongs, repents of them and then works to abandon the wrong acts, one does good. One may continue to have thoughts and temptations, but these are not sins unless One chooses to act - eg by choosing to dwell on those thought or to consume pornography.

While SSA is not directly comparable - the principles are the same. One must knowingly, deliberately, consciously choose evil to sin.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
No one denies this may happen. If one has cultivated an ”interest” in pornography, one does wrong. Each time One chooses to dwell on pornographic thoughts or to consume pornography, one does wrong. If One recognizes these wrongs, repents of them and then works to abandon the wrong acts, one does good. One may continue to have thoughts and temptations, but these are not sins unless One chooses to act - eg by dwelling on those thought or consuming pornography.

While SSA is not directly comparable - the principles is the same. One must knowingly, deliberately, consciously choose evil to sin.
Click to expand...
This, is all so true
 
Edward_H said:
How well the intellect does this work is influenced by how free that person still is…have they let their appetites run wild in the past pursuing pleasure without reference to the good, etc.

A person can become “less free” and can become enslaved to their senses and appetites. As I have said fifty times attractions can grow, be channeled, get off the rails of the good and the true.
Click to expand...
All true - so what? You simply make a case to lessen a persons culpability for new sins on account of the effect of prior sins.
 
"So when are you going to meet a nice [person of the opposite sex]?

“Let me set you up with [person of the opposite sex].”

“How come you never date. You are gay are you? har har”

Ad. Nauseum.

And lesbi-honest… At some point these questions aren’t about genuine interest but about getting the scoop.

I’m conspicuously single because of the area where I live and even people who should know better have “wondered.” And since I’m not looking I’m even more suspect.

When LGBTQ+ people hold hands with their partner, talk about their partner or date at work they aren’t flaunting anything, they are doing exactly what cis-het people do.
 
Two people of the same sex who happen to also have SSA are not violating any Catholic teaching just by living together. That wouldn’t make sense. You have to look into other circumstances.

Similarly, there is nothing objectively wrong with kissing and holding hands. Is it wrong when a little girl kisses her grandma? No. Is two guys kissing inherently wrong? Nope, not inherently. What if it’s just a friendly kiss like they do in some cultures? See, it’s circumstance.

Not all morality is black and white. Sometimes it is.
Even when it is black and white, there are situations that affect moral culpability.

So with the moral principles as a foundation, we can go on from there.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Have been single for years and very rarely get that.
 
Last edited:
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]
  1. are they still chaste? <<<<<<<<<<<< YES
  2. have they violated any Catholic teaching? <<<<<<<<<<< NO, because they are basically roommates, living as siblings
Click to expand...
  1. yes, they would still be chaste.
  2. Depends. In theory, they would not be breaking Catholic teaching because they would be basically roommates who are living like siblings. But it could lend to scandal (which is sinful) if their public lives lead people to believe (even wrongly) that they are engaging in homosexual acts.
If the answer to the above is no, what it they:
  1. hold hands
  2. kiss
  3. etc etc [i hope you know what i mean, where do you start drawing the line?]
Click to expand...
1 & 2) This is a gray area. I’m inclined to believe that while they might be chaste in this situation, they would be committing the sin of scandal if they are not behaving the same way two siblings would behave.
  1. I don’t know what “etc etc” means, so I’m not going to guess
The big issues here are:
  • The sin of scandal, which doesn’t really exist in the secular would and doesn’t exist in a lot of mainstream Protestantism today. Also, there are a lot of Catholics who don’t understand this sin too. So by living together, if they are not careful, they could be committing the sin of scandal.
  • Near temptation of sin. It takes A LOT of sheer willpower and a TON of Grace for a romantic couple to live together without (1) temptation and (2) without eventually giving into temptation. So their sex drives are going to play a big part in this.
In closing, objectively: it’s most likely a bad idea. Subjectively, it’s theoretically possible to live together and remain chaste and not give scandal, but very difficult.

I hope this helps.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Maybe you live in an area where there are a lot of unmarried/uncoupled people of all ages. Years back, where I live, people got married young and now they co-habitate young, have babies on purpose w/o marriage young. When I’ve lived near a metro area I never encountered it,but the more rural it gets, the more being coupled is expected.
 
Assertions need to developed and supported; yours wasn’t
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
But it could lend to scandal (which is sinful) if their public lives lead people to believe (even wrongly) that they are engaging in homosexual acts.
Click to expand...
Is this purely subjective? I know of a Christian brotherhood who was perceived by a person at church to be a group of gay guys, merely because they hugged at the sign of peace. To quote Wilde, “Those who see ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.” It’s common enough for two men to live together. Why not blame the people making assumptions?
 
Edward_H said:
Assertions need to developed and supported; yours wasn’t
Click to expand...
I directly referenced specific Church teaching that rebutted your assertions.
From the CCC, specifically. Quoted. Linked.

So what you say above is either
  1. baiting
  2. mean spirited obstinacy
You pick.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
40.png
phil19034:
But it could lend to scandal (which is sinful) if their public lives lead people to believe (even wrongly) that they are engaging in homosexual acts.
Click to expand...
Is this purely subjective? I know of a Christian brotherhood who was perceived by a person at church to be a group of gay guys, merely because they hugged at the sign of peace. To quote Wilde, “Those who see ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.” It’s common enough for two men to live together. Why not blame the people making assumptions?
Click to expand...
  1. men hugging each other isn’t uncommon, nor is a group a gay guys scandalous. People should not be scandalized by a bro-hug, and if they are, then they have scrupulosity or some kind of phobia.
  2. two men living together as roommates isn’t scandalous unless people have good reason to think (based on the actions of the men) that they are involved in a romantic/sexual.
  3. You asked “why not blame he people making assumptions,” well it’s not about blame. It’s whether your individual choices set a bad example that lead others to sin because of your actions. The Catholic Church has always taught this is sinful. Modern society disagrees with the Church on this, and so does many religious groups. But Catholic teaching that we must strive to set a good example at all times, because we don’t know who’s watching and what impressions our bad example can have on others.
God Bless.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top