Testimony from a gay man

[Ophelia23]

So I’m to be miserable and lonely then because I’m gay? Is that your meaning?

Not in the least.

I am so sorry for your evident heartbreak and the feeling that your Church has let you down. I can understand where that feeling would come from. I truly can. And my words will likely seem useless to you, as they would likely feel small to me were the roles reversed. But please try and hear me out, if you will. We are all called to perfection through holiness. Much like the spokes on the wheel of a bike, there are many, many paths and acts of holiness that all lead to one center: Christ. Marriage, single life, clergy… there are many paths.

As you have said, your sexuality is not the defining part of your life. Nor should it be. You are so much more than your sexual desires. I am so much more than mine. We are complex. We have gifts, we have talents, we have vices, we have inclinations to different forms of sin. It is what it is. I think when people refer to the “gay lifestyle”, it is not a reference to how you dress or act or think or speak. Same sex attraction is not in and of itself sinful. It is the sexual act outside of the context of marriage that is sinful, and the Church believes marriage only belongs between one man and one woman. I understand you were raised Catholic. I would advise reading Theology of the Body, because it will help you to understand how deeply connected both the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality are. Within theology, they can not be separated because of our desires or our wishes or our inclinations, all of which are very real.

The Church’s rules on homosexuality are very clear. Unfortunately, all of us are capable of misunderstanding, of judging, of being mean, and of driving people away. What we are legitimately called to do is love one another. This does not mean tolerating everything another person does and simply accepting it as morally sound. On the other hand, it also does not mean throwing out our stones. We are all equally fallen. We are all equally guilty in Christ’s crucifixion. His blood is on my hands still. This call to holiness does not mean you have to live a life of loneliness or isolation or sadness. No! Many people, men and women, are called to a celibate life. Many people are called to a single life. There is no shame attached to it. It is a vocation. A true, legitimate, honorable vocation.

I am praying for you. Investigate your faith fully. Don’t investigate people’s opinions. You are so loved, and so deeply valued, and you ARE a part of this amazing, mystical body of Christ. :hug3:

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I know we all have a tendency to sin. But when we do sin, we tend to know and experience it AS a sin when we’re doing it.

I can’t experience being gay as being sinful. It’s simply not there in me. I know the rules, certainly. But they don’t make sense. They actually contradict what my faith and the bible say. The bible condemns men who **exchanged **their desires and acted against what they were. They rebelled. I didn’t. I didn’t exchange anything. I didn’t rebel against my nature. My nature has always been this. And yet if I follow my nature, there’s nowhere for me to go in the eyes of so many people who say they are Christians. I’d hurt nobody. No damage would occur to anyone else. I would only be expressing my love for someone in an intimate way that straight people do in their marriages - except there’s no way that I can do it that people in the church will accept.

I am made in the image of God. God wants me to love him and to be true to him and to all the gifts I was given. I am told I must love/do unto others in the same way I would wish to be loved/done unto. Why should I deny a part of myself that only wants to express that love? Why am I not allowed to give myself totally to another person in the same way a straight person gives themselves totally to their spouse? I don’t care what that giving is called - marriage, partnership, bonding, whatever.** What I can’t understand is why I’m prevented from doing something that is natural to me and harmful to nobody.**

I can’t make someone else gay. No matter what I do or say, nobody is going to stop finding women attractive and start finding men attractive (or vice versa). I am not a threat to anyone. So why am I being told that I’m sinful if all I’m doing is loving someone?

Doesn’t this sentence stand out as a justification for any kind of sin…Sinning comes naturally and we believe if it’s our private sin, it is harmful to no one…What about looking at porn, masturbation, theft, even abortion? All those things could be described as “natural” to the person who desires them, and harming no one (but themselves).

Priests and other religious live celibate lives. Nuns and other female religious do as well. Are they miserable and lonely because they have no sexual intimacy in their lives? To the contrary, I see nuns especially as quite joyful and content.

All love is not free from sin, you must recognize that. Anyone unmarried is called to chastity. Why are you any different?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why should I deny a part of myself that only wants to express that love? Why am I not allowed to give myself totally to another person in the same way a straight person gives themselves totally to their spouse?

Straight people are not allowed to give themselves physically to anyone they are not married to, regardless of the quality of that love. Many more heerosexuals in this world are morally enjoined by the Church not to physically express their love than are homosexuals. Do you think that such prohibitions on unmarried heterosexuals, many of whom remain unmarried (or divorced, or widowed) for their entire lives means that they are incomplete human beings? That they cannot “give themselves” totally? If so, you’re simply wrong.

Genital expression is way overvalued in this world – far in excess of the entire relationship between two human beings. There has been elevated, selfless, and thoroughly fulfilling love recorded over the centuries between people with no erotic relationship whatsoever. It includes people of different ages, in different kinds of roles than romantic, etc.

Only in the modern world has there developed the artificial notion that erotic expression is intrinsic to happiness.

 

[Angela77]

DON’T LEAVE THE CHURCH!!!

It’s just way to cool to leave.

As for people who say gayness is a choice and that it can be changed: I don’t think that’s the official Catholic view.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

In my opinion, the parts that I bolded show that simply being gay isn’t some sinful choice. The CCC basically says the cause of homosexuality isn’t known, and it admits that a sizable amount of people have “homosexual tendencies.” The only thing it really seems to condemn are homosexual ACTS.

 

[antag]

Doesn’t this sentence stand out as a justification for any kind of sin…Sinning comes naturally and we believe if it’s our private sin, it is harmful to no one…What about looking at porn, masturbation, theft, even abortion? All those things could be described as “natural” to the person who desires them, and harming no one (but themselves).

Priests and other religious live celibate lives. Nuns and other female religious do as well. Are they miserable and lonely because they have no sexual intimacy in their lives? To the contrary, I see nuns especially as quite joyful and content.

All love is not free from sin, you must recognize that. Anyone unmarried is called to chastity. Why are you any different?

Porn, masturbation, etc, do have an effect because they would cause me to devalue the object of the porn, masturbation, theft, etc. There’s a natural harm that comes from it.

Where is the natural harm in two people of the same sex freely giving themselves to the other in a bodily way? It’s not done selfishly, it’s done for the love of the other person. Isn’t that what the marital act is meant to be? The mutual love and support of the other that comes from the giving? Of course it’s not open to procreation with two gay people, so it’s not ‘marriage’ if ‘marriage’ is to be defined as the situation wherein babies can only be created legitimately. So that makes marriage twofold - one, for the love and support of the partner and two, for the creation of life. But plenty of people get married who can’t have children, and that includes people who know this before they are married. So if two straight people may legitimately have only that one aspect of marriage open to them, and if that same aspect is possible between two people of the same sex, then why are they denied it? It’s not right just to do so. I can’t believe that God requires me to bottle up that love that I could give another person and never express it. He said himself that we are to love one another as we ourselves would be loved. Why are we, his people, putting up barriers to stop that?

 

[St_Francis]

You don’t mention having problems in your personal connection with the Church, so why would you consider leaving the Church over comments made by anonymous strangers online?

And most of these comments seem to be in the context of discussing policy, like should people be legally allowed to marry people of the same sex? In the context of this discussion, one might comment that homosexual activity is a sin. Do you take that as a condemnatory comment directed against you personally? If you are living chastely, then why would you? Having a temptation is not a sin, just giving in to it, mentally or physically. And pointing out that an action is [objectively] a mortal sin is not condemning anyone, any more than pointing out that robbing banks is illegal is putting people in jail.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Antag, I PM’d you with a more detailed and personal message. Should be in your inbox.

Be yourself and love yourself - In this vast and ever expanding universe, filled with galaxies and stars and planets in numbers of incalculable measure, there is only one of you; so be the best you that you can be.

…And let your pride flag fly high, my friend. You’re beautiful just the way you are. Don’t be hurt by the words of others, no matter who they are or who they say they represent. You aren’t sick, you aren’t wrong, and God loves you. God loves us all. No exceptions.

Be blessed,
Casey

While it is true the God loves us all–what do you mean when you say that? From your post I could hazard a guess but I would prefer not to put words into your mouth. Could you please clarify what you believe love is and what you mean when you say God loves us all.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[antag]

As you can see, this is hurting me. I live with this hurt day in day out. It’s not a huge portion of my life, admittedly, since there are plenty of other things for me to do, but I am missing out on something I don’t believe I should be, and I haven’t found a good reason for that other than, effectively, “because we say so, and we’re always right”.

If I had chosen to follow my heart ten years ago, when I did fall in love with someone, I believe that I would have been happy and at peace. As it happens, I was too nervous. And I have real trouble believing that that is what God wants for me.

 

[aemcpa]

Where is the natural harm in two people of the same sex freely giving themselves to the other in a bodily way?

Where is the natural ability for two people of the same sex to do so? It’s physically impossible. All they can do is masturbate onto each other. There is no biological mechanism for donation and reception.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Where is the natural harm in two people of the same sex freely giving themselves to the other in a bodily way? It’s not done selfishly, it’s done for the love of the other person. Isn’t that what the marital act is meant to be?

You received an insufficient Catholic education. According to the Catechism with which you should have become familiar (if you were raised Catholic), the natural harm of homosexual acts is that they oppose natural law and are intrinsically disordered. No amount of self-proclaimed “love” can elevate disorder to order. The boundaries are clear in Catholicism.

Please learn your faith, perhaps for the first time.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Porn, masturbation, etc, do have an effect because they would cause me to devalue the object of the porn, masturbation, theft, etc. There’s a natural harm that comes from it.

Where is the natural harm in two people of the same sex freely giving themselves to the other in a bodily way? It’s not done selfishly, it’s done for the love of the other person. Isn’t that what the marital act is meant to be? The mutual love and support of the other that comes from the giving? Of course it’s not open to procreation with two gay people, so it’s not ‘marriage’ if ‘marriage’ is to be defined as the situation wherein babies can only be created legitimately. So that makes marriage twofold - one, for the love and support of the partner and two, for the creation of life. But plenty of people get married who can’t have children, and that includes people who know this before they are married. So if two straight people may legitimately have only that one aspect of marriage open to them, and if that same aspect is possible between two people of the same sex, then why are they denied it? It’s not right just to do so. I can’t believe that God requires me to bottle up that love that I could give another person and never express it. He said himself that we are to love one another as we ourselves would be loved. Why are we, his people, putting up barriers to stop that?

You keep bringing the discussion back to sex. What about priests, what about nuns, what about unmarried heterosexuals? They are in the exact same condition that you are in, called to be chaste and not indulge in sexual acts.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Antag,

I’m not a practicing Catholic but I’m one of those that think a gay person can “change” so to speak. But you need to understand that in the context I state it so not as to get offended, hopefully.

I’m very skeptical of anything that seems to suggest biological determinism. Homosexuality isn’t the only issue but it’s one of the issues most prominent in the media and peoples minds about determinism.

My own view–not that I have any proof–is that no one is born gay, straight, or bi per se. I think our sexuality develops overtime and more from environmental settings, nuances affecting our psychological development. There are biological factors to our sex drive, however. I’m not knowledgeable on all those factors be they hormonal or otherwise.

The human body itself is anatomically and physiologically designed for sexual reproduction (what we might call a “heterosexual design”) and I think that is the most objective thing we can say about the design of the body per it’s sexual function.

I’m biracial but I was raised mainly around black people from a very early age. And very early on a developed a sexual attraction to the same kinds of body shapes that black males typically find attractive, and white males often do not. The question might be how or why did I develop these sexual attractions which are a discrimination against the male form and white women and Asian women in general? Why the typical “black” and “Puerto Rican” shape of behind and butt?

We might ask a question as to how and why a Puerto Rican Jennifer Lopez could become a sexual icon in the United States when for decades a woman of her hue, with a round shaped and “big” butt, would not have risen to such fame? The U.S. for many decades before hand was a “breast” country and glorified flatter butts on women. In mainstream culture that is.

What I’m getting at here is that we seem to develop sexual attraction to certain shapes of the human form. And given that men and women are both of the same species and are less sexually dimorphic than a number of animals and primates, it seems to me that homosexual attraction is an attraction to a certain physical shape.

Pedophiles share this attraction to a certain physical shape with heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals.

All that said… I don’t think one choose to have their sexual attraction. I think it’s something we mentally develop. But I think it can change too. It used to be I only liked “round” butts on women but now I’m more “catholic” (universal) in my sexual attraction to the female bottom. And I think that probably goes for the female shape as a whole. And while I’m not accepting of all female shapes my appreciation or attraction has greatly broadened from what it was as a small child.

And you are right. Your sexual orientation is only one small part of you. And you sound like a decent guy.

I wish homosexuality and bisexuality were not such big deals in the world. But people are obsessed with the sexual lives of others.

Richard the Lionhearted, the famous Crusader from out of England, supposedly was gay by the way. And actively so. I always find that a bit ironic given the modern conversations today. As Richard was a great champion of the Church against Islam.

But Richard wasn’t trying to pass gay marriage. I think that’s what really angers most your opposition. They prefer you stayed the “other” like a Muslim rather than become a “heretic” like the Jewish converso that dresses and looks just like them.

It’s been hypothesized–even with the Jews of 1940s Germany–that it’s not the “other” we hate. In fact we can love them and get along with them. But it is those that are the same but with slight differences. We hate them. We will massacre them. We understand they may slip in alien customs and beliefs into our population.

Basically, “gay marriage” is marriage heresy. If this were heterosexual Mormons with 20 wives or Muslims with 4 wives or some atheist woman in her 20s sleeping around with several men you’d have Catholics speaking highly of them and socializing with them. It’s just human psychology. Probably has little to nothing to do with religion. Like punching a man in the face. His anger or shock or fear has nothing to do with his religion. It’s a normal, human, psychological response.

 

[antag]

You received an insufficient Catholic education. According to the Catechism with which you should have become familiar (if you were raised Catholic), the natural harm of homosexual acts is that they oppose natural law and are intrinsically disordered. No amount of self-proclaimed “love” can elevate disorder to order. The boundaries are clear in Catholicism.

Please learn your faith, perhaps for the first time.

Please don’t be rude to me. I do know my faith. I have a copy of the catechism.

I question the ‘natural law’ because I’m a natural being. I am what I am naturally. Nothing forced me to be the way I am. I did not choose to change my orientation. It wasn’t imposed upon me. I don’t think I’m disordered in the sense that it is used. I know homosexuality isn’t widespread in humans, but that doesn’t make it unnatural, it just makes it uncommon, like left handedness.

 

[aemcpa]

You keep bringing the discussion back to sex. What about priests, what about nuns, what about unmarried heterosexuals? They are in the exact same condition that you are in, called to be chaste and not indulge in sexual acts.

Priests and nuns at least volunteered to be celibate for life. But the fact remains that marriage is not the default state for every adult, but is only for those who are positively called to it. The default state is single and celibate, until and unless God calls you out of that state and into a marriage.

 

[antag]

You keep bringing the discussion back to sex. What about priests, what about nuns, what about unmarried heterosexuals? They are in the exact same condition that you are in, called to be chaste and not indulge in sexual acts.

They chose it in order to be what they wanted to be.

I didn’t choose it. I have it imposed upon me.

 

[Eruvande]

My best friend is a single woman with no marriage prospects. This isn’t her fault, but she has to live with celibacy. How is this different?

 

[aemcpa]

Please don’t be rude to me. I do know my faith. I have a copy of the catechism.

I question the ‘natural law’ because I’m a natural being. I am what I am naturally. Nothing forced me to be the way I am. I did not choose to change my orientation. It wasn’t imposed upon me. I don’t think I’m disordered in the sense that it is used. I know homosexuality isn’t widespread in humans, but that doesn’t make it unnatural, it just makes it uncommon, like left handedness.

What “forced” you to be the way you are is the disorder in nature and society itself that is among the consequences of original and actual sin. You don’t choose to die, either, but death in itself is unnatural even though we all die.

 

[antag]

My best friend is a single woman with no marriage prospects. This isn’t her fault, but she has to live with celibacy. How is this different?

At least the option is possible, even if not probable.

 

[livingwordunity]

We weren’t born yesterday.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please don’t be rude to me. I do know my faith. I have a copy of the catechism.

I am not “being rude.” Clearly, however, in several posts on this thread, you identify immutable Truth with “rudeness.”

I question the ‘natural law’ because I’m a natural being.

Proving my point, that you do not understand your faith and do not understand natural law in particular.

Your explanation of “feeling natural” and “being natural” is ***not the Church’s definition of ‘natural law.’ *** Therefore, your education in Catholicism is insufficient.