The origin of love that homosexuals feel for one another

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The bible is a faith record. It is certainly not a love manual, that is, a how-to-book that teaches us how to achieve the sensual kind of love that humans yearn for, although there is a book in the Old Testament, the Canticles or the Song of Songs, which celebrates human sexual love. The poetic verses therein speak of relations between lovers, clearly between a man and a woman. As you know, the bible contains verses in the Old and New Testament condemning sexual intimacy between two men and two women. Such is ungodly, or not from or of God.

In the questions posed by the OP pertaining to love, love is framed in its limited sense. True love is ennobling and noble. The highest form of manifestation is when Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, to redeem us. Even then, to be redeemed, each one of us has to first accept the wrongness of our sinful choices and repent so we may enter the kingdom of God.

Catholics are called to extend compassion for the struggles of our homosexual brothers and sisters. Compassion that enables, facilitates or affirms sin would be false.

Homosexual persons, on the other hand, 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. - CCC # 2359.

What is disinterested friendship? It does not mean uncaring friendship; it means just the opposite, that which is essentially altruistic and not self seeking, to help the other’s soul to reach heaven. That is genuine love.
,

Now THAT is a CATHOLIC ANSWER !!!

 

[Rau]

Homosexuality is lust, not love. While emotional closeness between two people who happen to be of the same gender, is not sinful, what is sinful about gay marriage and homosexuality is the fact that God never intended for two people of the same gender to act towards each other in a sexual way.

You may or may not be correct in respect of their sexual acts. But the question is a little different - “could 2 persons in a homosexual relationship love each other”? Consider those deep, caring, life-long, monogamous relationships when you answer.

 

[Rau]

Ahh … what do you mean by “permanent, monogamous relationship”? I don’t
deny that homosexuals experience love in ways like heterosexuals have, but
I hope you and I are on the same page that homosexuals aren’t to have, sad-
ly, any monogamous relationship as in romance, right?

I’m not advocating it - just referring to those cases as the better candidates for a “loving” relationship to be present. Others have said there can be no “love” in a homosexual relationship - though I am yet to hear what it is.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Love never expresses itself through sin.

The two are incompatible.

 

[DexUK]

I don’t believe that the love a person feels for another of the same gender is any different from the love another person feels for someone of the opposite gender.

Both can be affective, self-giving, altruistic and wholesome.

I also have significant trouble with the Biblical ‘proscriptions’ of homosexuality. All I can see is that it is the deliberate exchange of natural behaviour for unnatural behaviour that is condemned: St Paul condemns those who act contrary to their nature. Since one’s nature is God-given, to act contrary to it for any reason, including ‘fashionable behaviour’ such as might have been prevalent in some of the societies that St Paul evangelised, is to reject a gift from God. Rejecting anything from God (knowingly) is sinful.

In my eyes, it’s only the laws of man that speak against homosexuality, not the laws of God. We need to catch up with what God has taught us and do away with the crushing injustices that we heap upon our brothers and sisters who may not share the same desires we do, but have no other desires than those that they have been given.

Is it any wonder that a section of humanity, excluded until very recently from the ability to form stable and public committed relationships, have few moral frameworks to contain such relationships? If anyone says to you that homosexuals are, by nature, promiscuous as a function of their ‘deviancy’, then perhaps if there had been a way in which to make avowed commitments, they wouldn’t have been as tempted to stray?

 

[frobert]

The bible is a faith record. It is certainly not a love manual, that is, a how-to-book that teaches us how to achieve the sensual kind of love that humans yearn for, although there is a book in the Old Testament, the Canticles or the Song of Songs, which celebrates human sexual love. The poetic verses therein speak of relations between lovers, clearly between a man and a woman. As you know, the bible contains verses in the Old and New Testament condemning sexual intimacy between two men and two women. Such is ungodly, or not from or of God.

In the questions posed by the OP pertaining to love, love is framed in its limited sense. True love is ennobling and noble. The highest form of manifestation is when Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, to redeem us. Even then, to be redeemed, each one of us has to first accept the wrongness of our sinful choices and repent so we may enter the kingdom of God.

Catholics are called to extend compassion for the struggles of our homosexual brothers and sisters. Compassion that enables, facilitates or affirms sin would be false.

Homosexual persons, on the other hand, 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. - CCC # 2359.

What is disinterested friendship? It does not mean uncaring friendship; it means just the opposite, that which is essentially altruistic and not self seeking, to help the other’s soul to reach heaven. That is genuine love.
,

You didn’t answer,ear my question. Where does it say in the bible that a homosexual can not feel and express love. So far all I see are abstract arguments that since homosexual sex is a sin a how homosexual can not love another homosexual.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

St Paul condemns those who act contrary to their nature.

No, he doesn’t. The Greek explicitly says “contrary to nature”. That is a *mile *away from saying “contrary to one’s own nature”.

 

[Brendan]

You didn’t answer,ear my question. Where does it say in the bible that a homosexual can not feel and express love. So far all I see are abstract arguments that since homosexual sex is a sin a how homosexual can not love another homosexual.

They can, but, by definition, ‘love’ must entail a desire for the good for the other.

As such, actual love cannot include an inclination to damage the soul of the other. True love, therefore would carry with it a desire to never do any act that is contrary to God’s Will.

So yes, one homosexual SHOULD love another, just as we are all to love one another.

But any expression of acts contrary to the Will of God could not correctly be called ‘love’

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They can, but, by definition, ‘love’ must entail a desire for the good for the other.

As such, actual love cannot include an inclination to damage the soul of the other. True love, therefore would carry with it a desire to never do any act that is contrary to God’s Will.

So yes, one homosexual SHOULD love another, just as we are all to love one another.

But any expression of acts contrary to the Will of God could not correctly be called ‘love’

You need to make another distinction here. To love is to have a firm disposition to will the good of another person. But you can have this firm disposition without knowing what is good for another person. I’m quite sure some homosexuals love their partners, but they don’t really understand what is good for their partners. Even actions motivated by love, in this case, do not always lead to the good of the other.

So their love is, as it were, impotent – in more than one sense. But it is still love.

 

[Brendan]

You need to make another distinction here. To love is to have a firm disposition to will the good of another person. But you can have this firm disposition without knowing what is good for another person. I’m quite sure some homosexuals love their partners, but they don’t really understand what is good for their partners. Even actions motivated by love, in this case, do not always lead to the good of the other.

So their love is, as it were, impotent – in more than one sense. But it is still love.

I would disagree with your assessment. All love is Divine in origin. It is the essense of God. So anything that is contrary to God, by definition is contrary to love.

They certainly experience a pleasant attraction, and I have no doubt that there is an emotional response similar to marital love, but it cannot be so.

In much as God is Justice, and no matter what a person believes is a just act. If it is sinful, if it is contrary to God, it cannot be Justice. Likewise with Love

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

Perhaps the same logic could be applied to the “love” of humans towards animals.

I know it is technically possible for a woman to engage in bestiality with dogs, and I’ve read stories about zoos in Germany where men could engage in bestiality with goats and llamas - these zoos were recently banned.

Or take the love of money - Michael Jackson singing “money… I would lie for you, I would die for you”.

So, if God is love, is all “love” coming from God?

Or, perhaps we should say there exist perverted forms of “love” that are not coming from God?

There was a drug lord in Mexico who “loved” to brutally torture and kill people. He was a true sadist.

If we assumed that all “love” comes from God, we would end up with strange paradoxes: bestiality… pedophilia… the love of money… sadism… sadistic murder… necrophilia… and who knows what else. They could all be called forms of “love”.

I think we should ask, are they true love, per God’s definition of love revealed in the Bible, as taught by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church? Or, is the world perverting the meaning of love, redefining it in ways incompatible with God’s definition of what true love is?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So, if God is love, is all “love” coming from God?

Or, perhaps we should say there exist perverted forms of “love” that are not coming from God?

We’re not saying that the impulse to sinful action is loving. We’re saying that a person who loves another person does something to hurt that person (a sin), without understanding that the action is hurtful.

I love my wife, but I sometimes hurt her, because I don’t understand what is good for her. If really loving a person means always knowing what’s good for them, then – in point of fact – none of us really love.

I am not claiming most homosexual relationships are characterized by self-giving love. But some are.

 

[DexUK]

No, he doesn’t. The Greek explicitly says “contrary to nature”. That is a *mile *away from saying “contrary to one’s own nature”.

I would advise you to read a commentary on the Bible so that you can understand the nature and contexts of the writings of St Paul which relate to the cultures in which he was operating.

In any case, your point is moot, because ‘Nature’ has many instances of homosexual behaviour in other species (which are not subject to sin) therefore recourse to ‘natural law’ does not support your point.

 

[mgoforth]

I have heard that God is love, and that all love is from God. God is indeed the source and originator of goodness and all that is love.

Now, what is it that homosexuals feel for each other?

Could we just put it down to eros or lust? I mean, you hear these remarkable stories of men who stay together well into their 80s, in what seems to be a truly loving relationship.

Now, if homosexuals did feel true love for one another, and God disapproves of homosexual relationships… then where is this love from? If all love is of God, and I know it’s a big ‘if’, but if homosexuals do truly love each other… where is it from? Could it still be of God, simply expressed in some distorted fashion?

You’re not talking about love, you’re talking about feelings. Love is not a feeling. Love is often accompanied by feelings, but sometimes the feelings are absent for people that we truly love.

So what is love? It’s desiring good for the person we love. That’s why we sometimes speak of “tough love” where no happy feelings exist at all. And what is good for other people? Ultimately it’s their eternal salvation. Let’s face facts - no matter how happy we make someone in this world by consenting to their sin or aiding them in sin, it can only last about 80 years or so. At the same time, we’re leading them down a path toward an eternity of misery.

As another poster correctly pointed out, this doesn’t just apply to homosexuality. It’s the same for all sins. So premarital sex between a man and woman is not love either. It’s warm and fuzzy feelings about the other person with whom we’re skipping merrily down the path to Hell.

If homosexuals who have an understanding of the Catholic faith truly care about themselves and each other, they should ask God for the grace to resist these urges. That’s love.

 

[LongingSoul]

We’re not saying that the impulse to sinful action is loving. We’re saying that a person who loves another person does something to hurt that person (a sin), without understanding that the action is hurtful.

I love my wife, but I sometimes hurt her, because I don’t understand what is good for her. If really loving a person means always knowing what’s good for them, then – in point of fact – none of us really love.

I am not claiming most homosexual relationships are characterized by self-giving love. But some are.

You’re applying a subjective logic to this that undermines the Truth. We all have the capacity within our human limits to know God and to know love since we are made in His image. When you say that 2 same sex people engaging in romantic affection and sexual pleasure are manifesting love when they don’t know any better, you make love pagan. At best, those feelings and urges manifest the illusion of love. If you are on a desert highway and you see a great pool of water in the distance on the road and begin to imagine and act as if that really was water… your life becomes a lie. A mirage looks for all intents and purposes like true water, but it isn’t. We aren’t meant to act on a mirage as if it really is water. It will save a lot of people a lot of pain if with our knowledge we do the right thing and teach others about such a phenomenon so that they can have the best chance to keep to the course and the reach the final destination.

Love has a very specific nature and in life there are many mirages that appear to be love but they are fruitless illusions.

 

[One_point]

No, he doesn’t. The Greek explicitly says “contrary to nature”. That is a *mile *away from saying “contrary to one’s own nature”.

What is “ones own nature”? Is it his nature objectively discerned or his “feelings”? Since when does ones feelings become ones nature? A mans physical nature is the body designed for sexual complementarity with a woman. His emotions cannot possibly alter his nature which is objective. Theres no “personal” or “subjective” nature. Our natures are objective, each one of us. And they are not feelings!

To the question of this thread: first of all, feelings are not love. The people who are equating feelings with love even amongst heterosexuals have a way to go in actually studying the true meaning of love. Feelings are blind. Yet love comes from freedom. Without freedom there is no love. Love is a choice! Nothing is more fundamental to Christianity, surely. Freedom and the choice of love. Without this, Christianity is pure nonsense. It seems so many Catholics dont know this. In the sociopath thread people expressed the same thought, that some one who cannot feel “warm fuzzies” is somehow incapable of love. It is a sad testament to the failure of proper catholic education that so many don’t even know the meaning of love from the Christian point of view, and yet this is our call! You can feel utterly repulsed by someone (even God!) and yet completely love them by ignoring these feelings and choosing to do the best for them regardless.

In so far as homosexual couples have true love for each other, they regard each other as brothers. This is the disinterested love the church speaks of. As soon as sexual motives are involved, it is lust. Not love. It is possible that both may exist in a person. When this person chooses God, he will orient himself to destroying the lust and growing the brotherly regard. The sexual feelings, desires and romantic affection towards his brother will always be contrary to love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would advise you to read a commentary on the Bible so that you can understand the nature and contexts of the writings of St Paul which relate to the cultures in which he was operating.

Which commentary on the Bible would you recommend?

As for the book of Romans, the Greek passage says, “μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν”, which means to “exchange the natural behavior (of the body) for an unnatural behavior.” I read ancient Greek, and that’s what the text says. I propose that the commentaries you are reading distort the text.

I would much prefer a person to simply reject Christian morality openly and honestly, instead of trying to force the Bible to conform to one’s own moral beliefs.

In any case, your point is moot, because ‘Nature’ has many instances of homosexual behaviour in other species (which are not subject to sin) therefore recourse to ‘natural law’ does not support your point.

That’s not what natural law is. If it was, then deformities would be natural, since they occur in nature.

Natural law refers to the conditions for the flourishing of the species. Although homosexual friendships are certainly compatible with human flourishing, the act of sodomy (or masturbation, or oral sex to orgasm) is not compatible with human flourishing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You’re applying a subjective logic to this that undermines the Truth. We all have the capacity within our human limits to know God and to know love since we are made in His image. When you say that 2 same sex people engaging in romantic affection and sexual pleasure are manifesting love when they don’t know any better, you make love pagan. At best, those feelings and urges manifest the illusion of love. If you are on a desert highway and you see a great pool of water in the distance on the road and begin to imagine and act as if that really was water… your life becomes a lie. A mirage looks for all intents and purposes like true water, but it isn’t. We aren’t meant to act on a mirage as if it really is water. It will save a lot of people a lot of pain if with our knowledge we do the right thing and teach others about such a phenomenon so that they can have the best chance to keep to the course and the reach the final destination.

Love has a very specific nature and in life there are many mirages that appear to be love but they are fruitless illusions.

I don’t think you’re entirely wrong here. But consider the sentence, “I desire what is best for you.” The phrase “what is best” here is ambiguous. I have an opinion about what is best for my wife. Now, if all I desire for my wife is *what I think *is best for her, then we’re talking about something subjective, not true love.

But if I desire for my wife what is *really *best for her, even if I don’t know what that is, then I truly love her. Even in this latter case, however, my ability to act on behalf of my wife is ALWAYS limited by my own subjective opinions about what is best for her.

I think that homosexual partners can love each other in this latter sense. I think that many homosexual partners would be willing to break up with each other forever, if they truly believed that would be a better life for the other person.

 

[Brendan]

I would advise you to read a commentary on the Bible so that you can understand the nature and contexts of the writings of St Paul which relate to the cultures in which he was operating.

Immaterial, as the message of inspired Scripture is timeless, it applies to every person in every age. This is especially true in matters of the Nature of God and the nature of sin. God Himself is timeless and unchanging. What is offensive to Him will always be offensive to Him. What is pleasing to Him will always be so.

In any case, your point is moot, because ‘Nature’ has many instances of homosexual behaviour in other species (which are not subject to sin) therefore recourse to ‘natural law’ does not support your point.

You are misunderstanding the concept of “Nature” It refers to Human Nature, that which is proper and essential to being human. I would recommend that you read a good introduction to Aquinas.

And even if we were discussing what is natural to animals, there is no case of animal behavior where males will continue to seek same sex act when fertile females are available.

So ‘nature’ provides no examples, other than humans, were males will continue to engage in sexual acts exclusively with males when fertile females are available to them.

So at best ‘prison’ homosexuality is the best that ‘nature’ can offer us as examples.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would advise you to read a commentary on the Bible so that you can understand the nature and contexts of the writings of St Paul which relate to the cultures in which he was operating.

In any case, your point is moot, because ‘Nature’ has many instances of homosexual behaviour in other species (which are not subject to sin) therefore recourse to ‘natural law’ does not support your point.

One, Natural Law is not “what happens in nature,” including what happens in species other than man.

Two, Pauline theology has been declared inspired by the Holy Spirit, just like the other books of the Bible going back to Genesis. The theology in Paul’s letters is not restricted to, nor dependent on, any cultural constructs.

Three, the integrated doctrine of human sexuality is a product of Scripture + Sacred Tradition, and is a unified whole which is also permanent and timeless.