Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[SMGS127]

No. What you are claiming is different from what prodigal son is saying. What romance may have meant in old times is really irrelevant.

I am talking about a biological and psychological reality that occurs as a result of the attraction between men and women that starts a mating process. Those individuals who experience it for members of their own gender are those we call gay. It is NOT like the attraction between disinterested friends at all.

Now when gay Catholics come on these boards confessing to experiencing these attractions for a person of the same sex, I have seen posts that attempts to tell them they can go ahead and foster these as long as they don’t have sex and are sure they cannot fall into committing that sin. How these people know they are not vulnerable to these temptations I dont know because we are weak. Now these attractions confessed are clearly not disinterested friendly or brotherly attractions as they are disturbing to these individuals in that they recognize them as “gay” and know that something is up and want to know what the catholic position is. I do not agree that it is in any way consistent with catholic view of the world and natural law to encourage these as benign. At best they make these people vulnerable to these sins and should be avoided. If a man tells you he is in love with the wife of another, the last thing you will tell them if you are a prudent and responsible person is to continue with a close friendship with this woman. In fact you will tell them to cut off all contact with her as much as possible especially if she is also experiencing the same temptations. This is much More so if you are a catholic who believes in his religion.

Well again it can only be done by people who have high degrees of self control, but it’s possible.

As for your example, it isn’t analogous. You can’t be intimate with anyone’s spouse, PERIOD. Marital relationships heavily constrain the behavior to a much higher degree than a single person. An analogous situation would be advising a heterosexual male that he couldn’t be friends with a girl if he found her attractive, which I think is obviously false.

 

[One_point]

As for your example, it isn’t analogous. You can’t be intimate with anyone’s spouse, PERIOD. Marital relationships heavily constrain the behavior to a much higher degree than a single person. An analogous situation would be advising a heterosexual male that he couldn’t be friends with a girl if he found her attractive, which I think is obviously false.

Smgs, respectfully, you are simply making up your own rules here and stamping them with your own authority. Like SSA sins, I have sin only the ACTS of adultery described as sins and not the involuntary attraction that maried people may experience for non spouses or vice versa. Now you are telling us a rule (from where you got it besides your personal desire for the two to be different, I honestly don’t know) that rule is that adulterous, romantic involvement falling short of sexul thoughts and acts are fine but not so same sex romantic affairs. Please sigs, I will be asking next from where exactly you get the basis for this special treatment of SSA than others in a catholic world view.

The example you have given here is also completely false. A heterosexual male is free to pursue a relationship with a woman that will end up in sex. If that male is not free, if he is married or he is a priest or a monk, then his friendship with that woman will depend on many factors:

The level of attraction, is this a passing everyday attraction that males experience to attractive females or is it something stronger so that he could say he was falling in love with her or even experiencing obsessive thoughts about her? If the latter two, only the most irresponsible person will say that pursuing a close friendship with that woman would not be dangerous. This would be even more so if these feelings are mutual as opposed to one sided.

Like these males, a gay catholic experiencing this sort of focused romantic attraction to another same sex person are not free to pursue the kind of relationship this attraction points to. Therefore, there is no reason why these same considerations should not apply to these people if they are catholiocs.

 

[frobert]

At best these feelings and attractions make these people vulnerable to these sins and should be avoided. If a man tells you he is in love with the wife of another, the last thing you will tell them if you are a prudent and responsible person is to continue with a close friendship with this woman. In fact you will tell them to cut off all contact with her as much as possible especially if she is also experiencing the same temptations. This is much More so if you are a catholic who believes in his religion.:

There is a slang term in the Urban Dictionary, “Bromance” which describes the love and affection shared by two straight males.

While while some SSA males may have problems with such a concept when it concerns themselves, others may be comfortable with it. Prodigal_Son is one who appears to be comfortable with such a concept. I have know a gay male who was in a life long chaste relationship with another male. The one I did not know died when he about 70. The one I know is a devout Catholic, I have no reason to doubt his word that it was a chaste relationship.

 

[One_point]

There is a slang term in the Urban Dictionary, “Bromance” which describes the love and affection shared by two straight males.

While while some SSA males may have problems with such a concept when it concerns themselves, others may be comfortable with it. Prodigal_Son is one who appears to be comfortable with such a concept. I have know a gay male who was in a life long chaste relationship with another male. The one I did not know died when he about 70. The one I know is a devout Catholic, I have no reason to doubt his word that it was a chaste relationship.

What about this friendship if it was truly chaste singles it out from regular friendships between women or between men that all human beings experience right from childhood to death? Seems this singling out means we are talking about a whole nother thing than what most of us mean when we refer to “my best friend” or such terms?

 

[SMGS127]

Smgs, respectfully, you are simply making up your own rules here and stamping them with your own authority. Like SSA sins, I have sin only the ACTS of adultery described as sins and not the involuntary attraction that maried people may experience for non spouses or vice versa. Now you are telling us a rule (from where you got it besides your personal desire for the two to be different, I honestly don’t know) that rule is that adulterous, romantic involvement falling short of sexul thoughts and acts are fine but not so same sex romantic affairs. Please sigs, I will be asking next from where exactly you get the basis for this special treatment of SSA than others in a catholic worldview.

“Special treatment?” This was the NORMAL between members of the same sex throughout history. Marriage was a contract between two members of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation and maintaining a family until death. Friendships were between any two people and involved physical intimacy but no sexual intimacy, as that was reserved for marriage. These friendships oftentimes were uniquely between two individuals who committed themselves to taking care of each other. This arrangement was prominent in the Western world until Rousseau declared that love only found its place in marriage. This was quickly accumulated into the Puritan worldview that nothing was ever okay that caused any enjoyment, and now we end up in our emotionally repressed American culture. Only in this culture does SSA seemingly mean life of loneliness, because gays and lesbians are told to suck it up and stop loving each other, not just stop having sex with each other/lusting after each other. For 19 centuries, those called to marriage got married. Those not called to marriage or vocations involved themselves in so-called “romantic friendships” (also a modern term). This included gay men and lesbians; Shakespeare is the obvious example.

Even now, you see romance much more openly defined in European cultures uninfluenced by Puritanical error. And I have an incredibly hard time believing the Catholic Church would stand by and accept rampant immorality occurring in Western countries without comment. They certainly didn’t with homosexual sexual conduct, abortion, euthanasia, or contraception when they became prominent .

 

[One_point]

“Special treatment?” This was the NORMAL between members of the same sex throughout history. Marriage was a contract between two members of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation and maintaining a family until death. Friendships were between any two people and involved physical intimacy but no sexual intimacy, as that was reserved for marriage. These friendships oftentimes were uniquely between two individuals who committed themselves to taking care of each other. This arrangement was prominent in the Western world until Rousseau declared that love only found its place in marriage. This was quickly accumulated into the Puritan worldview that nothing was ever okay that caused any enjoyment, and now we end up in our emotionally repressed American culture. Only in this culture does SSA seemingly mean life of loneliness, because gays and lesbians are told to suck it up and stop loving each other, not just stop having sex with each other/lusting after each other. For 19 centuries, those called to marriage got married. Those not called to marriage or vocations involved themselves in so-called “romantic friendships” (also a modern term). This included gay men and lesbians; Shakespeare is the obvious example.

Even now, you see romance much more openly defined in European cultures uninfluenced by Puritanical error. And I have an incredibly hard time believing the Catholic Church would stand by and accept rampant immorality occurring in Western countries without comment. They certainly didn’t with homosexual sexual conduct, abortion, euthanasia, or contraception when they became prominent .

And I find it completely wrong to compare these friendships here and “physical intimacy” with what am talking about. Do I hug my best friend? Of course. Why is that relevant? I have already said what I mean by “romantic” and it is nothing at all like what you are suggesting here. These things you are describing are not in any way “romantic” as I have described it, which is that attraction that begins a mating process in humans and which every body past puberty recognizes to be different than mere friendship. Are you telling me that the attractions gay people experience that tell them they are gay are just what I experience for my friends of my gender?

 

[frobert]

What about this friendship if it was truly chaste singles it out from regular friendships between women or between men that all human beings experience right from childhood to death? Seems this singling out means we are talking about a whole nother thing than what most of us mean when we refer to “my best friend” or such terms?

I was responding to:
Originally Posted by One point View Post
“At best these feelings and attractions make these people vulnerable to these sins and should be avoided.”

I would agree that the relationship I spoke to goes deeper than “my best friend,” but isn’t deeper relationship the type that you spoke to in the above quote? I will admit that I am sometimes slow on the uptake and could have misread your intent.

 

[SMGS127]

And I find it completely wrong to compare these friendships here and “physical intimacy” with what am talking about. Do I hug my best friend? Of course. Why is that relevant? I have already said what I mean by “romantic” and it is nothing at all like what you are suggesting here. These things you are describing are not in any way “romantic” as I have described it, which is that attraction that begins a mating process in humans and which every body past puberty recognizes to be different than mere friendship. Are you telling me that the attractions gay people experience that tell them they are gay are just what I experience for my friends of my gender?

No I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that close friendship used to include physical intimacy like kissing and making out and cuddling/sleeping together [literal, not sexual]. For almost all of human history it meant that, at least for women. Men were more varied.

So two women replicating that in this day and age would be considered by society to be in a relationship, but in reality, it’s a close, sexually disinterested relationship. The fact that their sexual orientations are lesbian aids the emotional bonding experience of the friendship, but it does not influence the morality of the relationship.

 

[One_point]

I was responding to:
Originally Posted by One point View Post
“At best these feelings and attractions make these people vulnerable to these sins and should be avoided.”

I would agree that the relationship I spoke to goes deeper than “my best friend,” but isn’t deeper relationship the type that you spoke to in the above quote? I will admit that I am sometimes slow on the uptake and could have misread your intent.

I meant people who are “in love” with each other or generally headed that way.

 

[One_point]

No I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that close friendship used to include physical intimacy like kissing and making out and cuddling/sleeping together [literal, not sexual]. For almost all of human history it meant that, at least for women. Men were more varied.

So two women replicating that in this day and age would be considered by society to be in a relationship, but in reality, it’s a close, sexually disinterested relationship. The fact that their sexual orientations are lesbian aids the emotional bonding experience of the friendship, but it does not influence the morality of the relationship.

Woooot? Making out was a normal part of womn relationshps in history seriously, I don’t believe you. In my culture people would fall over their heads if they caght women “making out” or caressing each other in any way that blood sisters would never do, or mothers with their daughters.Was it ok for sisters to “make out” or mothers and daughters in these places? If not then I simply disagree with what you are suggesting has been a normal part of friendship in human history, no. honestly the things I read here sometimes surprise me so much. maybe I don’t know what making out means but the one I have in mind is very improper for same sex persons to do and in some instances it is even improper for unmarried heteresoxual couples to do only married or maybe engaged couples male and female.

 

[SMGS127]

Woooot? Making out was a normal part of womn relationshps in history seriously, I don’t believe you. In my culture people would fall over their heads if they caght women “making out” or caressing each other in any way that blood sisters would never do, or mothers with their daughters. Was it ok for sisters to “make out” or mothers and daughters? If not then I simply disagree with what you are suggesting has been a normal part of friendship. honestly the things I read here sometimes surprise me so much. maybe I don’t know what making out means but the one I have in mind is very improper for same sex persons to do and in some instances it is even improper for unmarried heteresoxual couples to do.

No it was not done with family members . I assumed you realized I meant close friendships to not include blood relations. I don’t call my sister my friend; I call her my sister.

You don’t have to believe me. But look up information on so-called “romantic friendships.” Yes, it included making out, but it wasn’t done erotically (another symptom of our modem culture is that making out is seen as only erotic in nature). Now there were certainly people who took advantage of these situations, such as lesbians in the Victorian Era who married for social norms and then had sexual dalliances with their partner on the side, but this was an abuse of an existing framework that stopped short of sex, not representative of it.

Do research into “romantic friendships.” Seriously.

 

[One_point]

No it was not done with family members . I assumed you realized I meant close friendships to not include blood relations. I don’t call my sister my friend; I call her my sister.

You don’t have to believe me. But look up information on so-called “romantic friendships.” Yes, it included making out, but it wasn’t done erotically (another symptom of our modem culture is that making out is seen as only erotic in nature). Now there were certainly people who took advantage of these situations, such as lesbians in the Victorian Era who married for social norms and then had sexual dalliances with their partner on the side, but this was an abuse of an existing framework that stopped short of sex, not representative of it.

Do research into “romantic friendships.” Seriously.

In my experience, people who make claims especially startling ones like this (tht making out was a normal part of female disinterested friendships in ALL human history…still wraping my head around that one, lol) bear the burden of proof.

What I asked was were these “physical intimacies” practiced between blood sisters and mothers-daughters? If not then you are claiming that something sexual or seriously tending that way for same sex was a part of these cultures. If they could not be done by blood relatives then they were not benign as you are attempting to suggest. If they were then they were benign and part of the language of that culture. we are not in that culture so taking gestures with one meaning today and going 5 centuries in the past to apply a meaning is just irresponsible. Why would you need to engage in physical intimacies with sexual meaning today especially wwith a person you are in love with or attracted to??

 

[SMGS127]

In my experience, people who make claims especially startling ones like this (tht making out was a normal part of female disinterested friendships in ALL human history…still wraping my head around that one, lol) bear the burden of proof.

What I asked was were these “physical intimacies” practiced between blood sisters and mothers-daughters? If not then you are claiming that something sexual or seriously tending that way for same sex was a part of these cultures. If they could not be done by blood relatives then they were not benign as you are attempting to suggest. If they were then they were benign and part of the language of that culture. we are not in that culture so taking gestures with one meaning today and going 5 centuries in the past to apply a meaning is just irresponsible. Why would you need to engage in physical intimacies with sexual meaning today especially wwith a person you are in love with or attracted to??

Who says it has to have sexual meaning? If it’s moral in one age, it can’t be inherently immoral. I don’t particularly care what other people think. They wouldn’t know I was making out with a girl; it’s not like I or anyone else would do it in public. And since scandal would have to be avoided ANYWAY, the only thing that matters is intentions since the action isn’t inherently immoral if it was moral in one day and age. Making out CAN have sexual meaning, but I don’t understand the argument that it MUST have sexual meaning.

And there are actions one does with friends that they don’t with their sisters. Being physically intimate is one of them. For example, I have known girls who held hands with each other who were just friends, but would NEVER do so with their sister. I have known [straight] girls who kissed/made out for emotional bonding, and they wouldn’t do that with their sister either. Not everyone lives in Puritanville, USA.

 

[One_point]

Who says it has to have sexual meaning? If it’s moral in one age, it can’t be inherently immoral. I don’t particularly care what other people think. They wouldn’t know I was making out with a girl; it’s not like I or anyone else would do it in public. And since scandal would have to be avoided ANYWAY, the only thing that matters is intentions since the action isn’t inherently immoral if it was moral in one day and age. Making out CAN have sexual meaning, but I don’t understand the argument that it MUST have sexual meaning.

And there are actions one does with friends that they don’t with their sisters. Being physically intimate is one of them. For example, I have known girls who held hands with each other who were just friends, but would NEVER do so with their sister. I have known [straight] girls who kissed/made out for emotional bonding, and they wouldn’t do that with their sister either. Not everyone lives in Puritanville, USA.

So this is all about justifying something which you are actually doing. making out with other women and telling yourself its all ok.

You have not established that this ieven true, that women used to make out in catholic Europe with the approval of the church.

You surely know different kinds of people than I do. That one person has trouble holding their sister’s hand doesnot mean that sisters don’t hold hands. How do you know why they are not holding hands? People have all sorts of dynamics within families. But you are saying that friends engage in some “making out” and do things which everyone would be disgusted if they caught two sisters doing or mothers and daughters and suggest they see a psychiatrist. Then you are simply insisting that something highly removed from disinterested friendship is going on. This idea that this was ever alright for the church, you have to prove or else this is slander and creating scandal.

 

[SMGS127]

So this is all about justifying something which you are actually doing. making out with other women and telling yourself its all ok.

You have not established that this ieven true, that women used to make out in catholic Europe with the approval of the church.

You surely know different kinds of people than I do. That one person has trouble holding their sister’s hand doesnot mean that sisters don’t hold hands. How do you know why they are not holding hands? People have all sorts of dynamics within families. But you are saying that friends engage in some “making out” and do things which everyone would be disgusted if they caught two sisters doing or mothers and daughters and suggest they see a psychiatrist. Then you are simply insisting that something highly removed from disinterested friendship is going on. This idea that this was ever alright for the church, you have to prove or else this is slander and creating scandal.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_friendship

Please feel free to browse the article and sources. Another good resource would be books on lesbianism in the Victorian era, which references the romantic friendship framework.

The term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid 19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become more rare as physical intimacy between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with anxiety.

 

[Mark121359]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_friendship

Please feel free to browse the article and sources. Another good resource would be books on lesbianism in the Victorian era, which references the romantic friendship framework.

But this doesn’t answer One point’s question. Namely, that the Catholic Church is A-OK with this.

Peace, Mark

 

[SMGS127]

But this doesn’t answer One point’s question. Namely, that the Catholic Church is A-OK with this.

Peace, Mark

So you think that an extremely prevalent phenomenon in the West for ~1850 years of Church history, if gravely immoral, would go unanswered by a Church that responded to IVF within a period of 20 years, and ABC within 50?

 

[One_point]

I have looked at that Wikipedia article. Apparently as that same article says, the term is a modern creation to retrospectively describe things in the past that were non-sexual. I therefore have a hard time understanding:

1)how these modern people knew that these friendships were “romantic” and not merely normal friendships if they were clearly non-sexual in nature. Seems like projection to me.
2) Where making out is even hinted at in that article?: Hugging, holding hands, kissing, sharing a bed. That is something blood sisters in my culture do. It is NOT making out. The kissing…a peck in the cheek, forhead or even on the lips…is that not kissing? Please define making out so that we know what you really mean.

 

[Mark121359]

I have looked at that Wikipedia article. Apparently as that same article says, the term is a modern creation to retrospectively describe things in the past that were non-sexual. I therefore have a hard time understanding:

1)how these modern people knew that these friendships were “romantic” and not merely normal friendships if they were clearly non-sexual in nature. Seems like projection to me.
2) Where making out is even hinted at in that article: Hugging, holding hands, kissing, sharing a bed. That is something blood sisters in my culture do. It is NOT making out. The kissing…a peck in the cheek, forhead or even on the lips…is that not kissing? Please define making out so that we know what you really mean.

Exactly correct. And that’s the term that was used.* "What I’m saying is that close friendship used to include physical intimacy like ***kissing and making out **and cuddling/sleeping together [literal, not sexual]. For almost all of human history it meant that, at least for women." When I see the term “making out” I see something far more than a harmless little peck. I see something here that our Church would say could incite or entice one to sin.

Peace, Mark

 

[One_point]

Exactly correct. And that’s the term that was used.* “What I’m saying is that close friendship used to include physical intimacy like ***kissing and making out ****and cuddling/sleeping together [literal, not sexual]. For almost all of human history it meant that, at least for women.” When I see the term “making out” I see something far more than a harmless little peck. I see something here that our Church would say could incite or entice one to sin.

Peace, Mark

Me too. Which is why I said even some kind of making out is inappropriate even for opposite sex but unmarried couples? Also, to show this just modern projection of its ideas into the past to make the history fit a modern idea, see this suggestion of "romantic friendship’ in the Bible from that Wikipedia article:

*Proponents *of the **romantic friendship hypothesis **also make reference to the Bible. Historians like Faderman and Robert Brain[9] believe that the descriptions of relationships such as David and Jonathan or Ruth and Naomi in this religious text establish that the customs of romantic friendship existed and were thought of as virtuous in the ancient Near East, despite the simultaneous taboo on homosexuality.

See it is A hypothesis. Not history. And they find these ideas even in the bible. And David and Jonathan never made out. and the suggestion that making out between women was ever ok with the catholic church remains to be proved by smgs.