Struggling with homosexuality issue

[mtflatina88]

Hello everyone,

I am struggling at the moment with the Church’s stand on homosexuality. I completely understand the argument that it is only natural for a man and a woman to have sex, but I have also heard arguments for homosexuality that essentially say that when Paul was condemning homosexuality, he was actually condemning the lustful desires he knew were coming out of it back then. Back then there was no concept of a long lasting, committed homosexual marriage as there is today. I just want to know why the Church hasn’t listened to this argument. I’m not saying I firmly believe that, I’m soul searching so to speak.

Then I have another question stems from this. OK, so let’s say that it is God’s law that only heterosexual sex within marriage is allowed. But say a homosexual is attracted to someone of his or her own sex and truly loves that person, and feels that deeply about that person. Would it be ok to live with that person, together in true love, as long as nothing sexual stemmed from it? Maybe this is impossible, I don’t know. I guess what I am saying is that Jesus may not like homosexuality, but wouldn’t he like a loving bond between two people even if they were the same sex? To be clear, I’m not calling this marriage, maybe I’m just thinking of a civil union.

 

[Holly3278]

I am not sure but I think that romantic love between two people of the same sex is forbidden regardless of whether the relationship is sexual or not.

 

[bugz2007]

Hello everyone,

I am struggling at the moment with the Church’s stand on homosexuality. I completely understand the argument that it is only natural for a man and a woman to have sex, but I have also heard arguments for homosexuality that essentially say that when Paul was condemning homosexuality, he was actually condemning the lustful desires he knew were coming out of it back then. Back then there was no concept of a long lasting, committed homosexual marriage as there is today. I just want to know why the Church hasn’t listened to this argument. I’m not saying I firmly believe that, I’m soul searching so to speak.

Because the Church believes that the gift of our sexuality is given us as far more than something to use to express a loving commitment to someone. The love that sex is meant to demonstrate is free, total, faithful, and fruitful, as God’s love for us is. This type of sexual union is only possible between a man and a woman.

Then I have another question stems from this. OK, so let’s say that it is God’s law that only heterosexual sex within marriage is allowed. But say a homosexual is attracted to someone of his or her own sex and truly loves that person, and feels that deeply about that person. Would it be ok to live with that person, together in true love, as long as nothing sexual stemmed from it? Maybe this is impossible, I don’t know. I guess what I am saying is that Jesus may not like homosexuality, but wouldn’t he like a loving bond between two people even if they were the same sex? To be clear, I’m not calling this marriage, maybe I’m just thinking of a civil union.

Even if not being sinful, such a living situation would be a near occasion of sin for one or both parties if either of them had a sexual attraction to the other or to the same sex in general. The situation would be imprudent for the same reasons that cohabitation is, either for unmarried couples or for individuals of differing sex.

Jesus desires for us to love all people. However, sexuality has an appropriate time, place, and situation in which to be used. Romantic love intrinsically involves our sexuality, and to place oneself in a potentially tempting situation is a near occasion of sin to be avoided.

 

[Kevin42]

Would it be ok to live with that person, together in true love, as long as nothing sexual stemmed from it?

In a perfect world, with perfect people this could be done. Of course, if we have met those two requirements, then everyone is a saint, so it is really irrelevant.

Back to the real world now. I have heard of the occasional case where two men or two women who have been in a long relationship have come back to the Church, were able to continue living together as brothers or sisters. This would not easy, and for the majority it would probably not be wise. However, it has been done by a very, very, small number of people.

I would suggest that you continue your own research on the subject if it bothers you. However, all the while remember that the Church has authority concerning this issue, and we are bound to obey her whether we like and/or understand her reasoning. By being obedient to the Church, we are being obedient to Jesus, and that is always pleasing to God. In fact, it may be even more pleasing when one does not agree or understand, because it then requires a stronger consent of the will and more trust in God.

Peace and good.

 

[Luke65]

Hello everyone,

I am struggling at the moment with the Church’s stand on homosexuality. I completely understand the argument that it is only natural for a man and a woman to have sex, but I have also heard arguments for homosexuality that essentially say that when Paul was condemning homosexuality, he was actually condemning the lustful desires he knew were coming out of it back then.

Well, you should read what St. Paul wrote for yourself. He explicitly stated that homosexual acts are “unnatural”, i.e., they violate the natural law, and are thus “intrinsically evil”, which is what the Church has always taught. Here is the passage that was too “obscure” for our new president to comprehend:

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:22-27 NASB)

And I hope you see how prophetic this passage is, especially the last part.

 

[pipper]

To tell the truth, I have never heard of two men who had a “commited relationship” that was truly monagamous, it seems the ones who try commited relationships are always in “open relationships”.

The ones who do try for closed monagamous relationships, those relationships are very often short lived. I don’t know why, perhaps it is more a male thing, than a gay thing.

But all of that aside, just trust the church, she has known what she is doing for 2,000 years now. The church does not issue a blanket condemnation against all homosexuals just because they are homosexual. She does require that all people be chaste…all.

There are Catholic approved support groups for gay people who are striving to follow church teachings, and remain chaste.

Remember in the bible it says that all have sinned, all.

 

[Primox]

There is always a tendency to think “What paul meant was…” But in fact, Paul’s exhortation against homosexual acts was not prefaced with “because it so often takes place in the wrong context” or “because it takes place among Pagans.” It is human error that we should embellish upon God’s perfect word, and yet it stands. Paul may not have thought about the possibility of a sinless union between a homosexual couple, but rest assured, God did (and scripture is God-breathed)

The act of a same-sex couple living togeather may not, in itself, be a matter of sin, but a matter of prudence. In the same way it would be imprudent for an unmarried heterosexual couple to live common-law due to the constant provocation of sin, it would likewise be imprudent for a homosexual couple to do so.

Finally, there seems to be a contradiction at hand. If we believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that God wishes to rid us of iniquity, that he can, and that he will, is it not unusal to resolve ourselves on our impure appetites? It’s like saying, “God cannot make me clean, so let’s find a compromise”