The origin of love that homosexuals feel for one another

[LongingSoul]

None of which I have an argument with. The debate is not about the rights or wrongs of their actions.

The question at hand is "what is it that is shared between 2 same sex persons that causes them to care for each other beyond all others, to live together in a permanent and committed way, to sacrifice for each other, and which they themselves (genuinely) experience and describe as ‘love’ "? And… “How is this the same or different to the love that a heterosexual couple share”?

I’m afraid that I don’t have that same ability you do to feel sentimentality for sin.

I regard love as the most important and highest goal of man. To leave behind our animalness and be in communion with the divine origin of love… God, is what is behind all the movements of our heart. That is what I believe explains the desire for love. We desire love firstly in the flesh and affections. Our desire for love will constantly lead us to the point of making choices to engage in love. Behind the doors of choice in our path, are the callings of good and the callings of evil. This point is where the true dignity of the human reveals itself. We, each and every one of us has the capacity through natural reason, to choose either the good, which is God, the origin of love… or the evil, which rejects the origin of love and responds to the call of the flesh. Through one door we engage in love. Through the other we engage in the lies of the flesh. The choices are mutually exclusive but at any point, we are capable of rejecting the path of the lie and returning, impelled by the desire for love, to the doors of choice. Our feelings express at best the desire for love … not love itself. The choice is what is love.

To teach people that their bad choices, are actually true love, denies the ever present work of the Holy Spirit constantly calling them back to authentic love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To teach people that their bad choices, are actually true love, denies the ever present work of the Holy Spirit constantly calling them back to authentic love.

To the contrary, if we deny that they are even now capable of love, then we deny them of their very best resource to motivate themselves to avoid sin. When we flee sin, it is because we have come to love God, one another, and ourselves. So love comes first, before the decision to renounce sin.

When I was 18, I disentangled myself from a relationship that was extremely dysfunctional. I did this out of real love for God, my girlfriend, and myself. I did not have to get holy in order to love. I needed to love my girlfriend more fully and honestly, and only then could I realize that my presence in her life was a toxin. Love brings us to holiness.

The idea is not to “teach that their bad choices are true love”. It is to recognize that the real love and concern that we have for each other must not be circumscribed by our own selfishness. Romantically involved people usually don’t have perfect love. But imperfect love is still genuine love.

The wheat and the tares grow up together. LongingSoul, I know that you are trying to gather up the tares. But the only way to do that is to destroy the wheat, as well. Don’t.

 

[LongingSoul]

To the contrary, if we deny that they are even now capable of love, then we deny them of their very best resource to motivate themselves to avoid sin. When we flee sin, it is because we have come to love God, one another, and ourselves. So love comes first, before the decision to renounce sin.

When I was 18, I disentangled myself from a relationship that was extremely dysfunctional. I did this out of real love for God, my girlfriend, and myself. I did not have to get holy in order to love. I needed to love my girlfriend more fully and honestly, and only then could I realize that my presence in her life was a toxin. Love brings us to holiness.

The idea is not to “teach that their bad choices are true love”. It is to recognize that the real love and concern that we have for each other must not be circumscribed by our own selfishness. Romantically involved people usually don’t have perfect love. But imperfect love is still genuine love.

The wheat and the tares grow up together. LongingSoul, I know that you are trying to gather up the tares. But the only way to do that is to destroy the wheat, as well. Don’t.

Are you saying that a homosexual relationship is a legitimate expression of love?

 

[LongingSoul]

When I was 18, I disentangled myself from a relationship that was extremely dysfunctional. I did this out of real love for God, my girlfriend, and myself. I did not have to get holy in order to love. I needed to love my girlfriend more fully and honestly, and only then could I realize that my presence in her life was a toxin. Love brings us to holiness.

When you say that you needed to love your girlfriend more fully and honestly and love brings us to holiness,

 

[LongingSoul]

So love comes first, before the decision to renounce sin.

When I was 18, I disentangled myself from a relationship that was extremely dysfunctional. I did this out of real love for God, my girlfriend, and myself. I did not have to get holy in order to love. I needed to love my girlfriend more fully and honestly, and only then could I realize that my presence in her life was a toxin. Love brings us to holiness.

The idea is not to “teach that their bad choices are true love”. It is to recognize that the real love and concern that we have for each other must not be circumscribed by our own selfishness. Romantically involved people usually don’t have perfect love. But imperfect love is still genuine love.

That doesn’t accord with the words of St Paul… 1Thess4-8

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to control your own body in holiness and honor, not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness. Therefore whoever rejects this rejects not human authority but God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you."

St Paul says that engaging in fornication is exploiting the other… not loving.

 

[Rau]

Are you saying that a homosexual relationship is a legitimate expression of love?

But do the actions, which can be misguided, define the motivation?

What of the devoted married couple, now elderly, with one terminally ill and suffering in many ways and who wants an end. A spouse may collaborate in euthanasia, a wrong and misguided act, however much welcomed by the other. Now, I can foresee an argument that says the assisting spouse has by his actions, ceased to “love”, or was motivated by pity, not love. But it is very likely an argument resting on reasoning not comprehended by the persons concerned. It would not be reasonable to say that the spouse stopped loving his suffering wife.

Back to the same sex couple I posited earlier (permanent, caring, committed, etc). If this relationship were one in which the pair agreed to refrain from sex, due to a belief that such actions were wrong, then could it be that the two love each other?

Does the sin of a married couple who practice contraception erase their love, or make it imperfect?

 

[LongingSoul]

But do the actions, which can be misguided, define the motivation?

What of the devoted married couple, now elderly, with one terminally ill and suffering in many ways and who wants an end. A spouse may collaborate in euthanasia, a wrong and misguided act, however much welcomed by the other. Now, I can foresee an argument that says the assisting spouse has by his actions, ceased to “love”, or was motivated by pity, not love. But it is very likely an argument resting on reasoning not comprehended by the persons concerned. It would not be reasonable to say that the spouse stopped loving his suffering wife.

These are the very dilemmas which highlight the nature of true love though. A spouse can be deluded and overwhelmed by his feelings about the suffering wife, but we could never say that euthanasia was an act of love. The fellows own suffering may mitigate his culpability in the face of Gods final judgement, but his act was one motivated by sin. His suffering isn’t sin. The choice which he has come to is a sin against reason and God. In States where euthanasia is illegal, people are put on trial for their crime regardless of the circumstances. If we start to say that it was an act of genuine love, we give sin and the devil legitimacy that isn’t proper.

Back to the same sex couple I posited earlier (permanent, caring, committed, etc). If this relationship were one in which the pair agreed to refrain from sex, due to a belief that such actions were wrong, then could it be that the two love each other?

Do you mean living as friends in a relationship of disinterested friendship involving the care and commitment pertaining to all friendships. (You couldn’t say ‘permanent’ as friendship by nature is not served by the binds of permanent commitment.) That is in fact philial love or even familial love. It doesn’t entertain romantic interest or have a sexual goal. That is love.

Does the sin of a married couple who practice contraception erase their love, or make it imperfect?

It transforms it to a physical feeling only no longer blessed with beatitude.

 

[Sky_River]

But do the actions, which can be misguided, define the motivation?

What of the devoted married couple, now elderly, with one terminally ill and suffering in many ways and who wants an end. A spouse may collaborate in euthanasia, a wrong and misguided act, however much welcomed by the other. Now, I can foresee an argument that says the assisting spouse has by his actions, ceased to “love”, or was motivated by pity, not love. But it is very likely an argument resting on reasoning not comprehended by the persons concerned. It would not be reasonable to say that the spouse stopped loving his suffering wife.

Back to the same sex couple I posited earlier (permanent, caring, committed, etc). ** If this relationship were one in which the pair agreed to refrain from sex, due to a belief that such actions were wrong, then could it be that the two love each other?**

Does the sin of a married couple who practice contraception erase their love, or make it imperfect?

The Bible says that even lusting is sexual immorality. If they had lustful thoughts or feelings, it still would be wrong, because of the fact that homosexuality is a sin. However, if their relationship was platonic, then it wouldn’t be sinful or morally wrong.

 

[Rau]

The Bible says that even lusting is sexual immorality. If they had lustful thoughts or feelings, it still would be wrong, because of the fact that homosexuality is a sin. However, if their relationship was platonic, then it wouldn’t be sinful or morally wrong.

Lust need not be a factor. An engaged couple may also have feelings of desire. This does not erase the love they have for each other.

And “Platonic love” is still love, though I don’t know whether that would ordinarily have the aspects of 1 on 1 commitment that some same sex couples express.

 

[Sky_River]

Lust need not be a factor. An engaged couple may also have feelings of desire. This does not erase the love they have for each other.

And “Platonic love” is still love, though I don’t know whether that would ordinarily have the aspects of 1 on 1 commitment that some same sex couples express.

Lust and sexual desire are the same thing. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. It’s possible for a homosexual couple to love each other, but that still doesn’t justify their sexual sin. I don’t understand what you’re trying to argue.

 

[pnewton]

But that’s the point, isn’t it? Feelings of affection are not love. We need to get the definition correct before we can determine whether homosexual intimacy constitutes love.

I see definition of love to be the first of two problems on this thread. No, love is not just feelings. Yet if we define love as selfless action for the good of another, is there anyone who thinks a homosexual can not do this? For sure the homosexual relationship is disordered. Yet I think love can still exist. An alcoholic parent can still love their child.

The other problem with this thread is the continuing red herring of the immorality of homosexuality. That is a given and is not the question of this thread. One can post every scripture and Church statement on the subject and still have contributed nothing to understand either the definition of love or the nature of homosexual love, if it exists.

 

[Rau]

LomgingSoul,

You make the case that substantial numbers of happy, devoted, committed couples do not share love. The definition of love you rely on is noble and ideal, and it would be good were we all to understand it and aspire to it. Your arguments occasionally focus on actions as opposed to what underlies. It is right to say that euthanasia is not a good act, but wrong to say the participants ceased to love. The action is misguided. The wife taking the pill does wrong, and may be misguided in her actions, but has not stopped being in love, albeit an imperfect love against a more complete standard. Indeed vast numbers of people have no concept at all that contraception is a wrong. There is no merit in declaring their relationships to be not one of love. It is imperfect like all human love.

 

[Rau]

I see definition of love to be the first of two problems on this thread. No, love is not just feelings. Yet if we define love as selfless action for the good of another, is there anyone who thinks a homosexual can not do this? For sure the homosexual relationship is disordered. Yet I think love can still exist. An alcoholic parent can still love their child.

The other problem with this thread is the continuing red herring of the immorality of homosexuality. That is a given and is not the question of this thread. One can post every scripture and Church statement on the subject and still have contributed nothing to understand either the definition of love or the nature of homosexual love, if it exists.

I agree with both your points. And if we want to restrict love to be that which meets the highest ideals, we end up disenfranchising so many, to what end?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That doesn’t accord with the words of St Paul… 1Thess4-8

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to control your own body in holiness and honor, not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness. Therefore whoever rejects this rejects not human authority but God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you."

St Paul says that engaging in fornication is exploiting the other… not loving.

I don’t understand. Don’t you agree that a person can act in two ways toward the same person? You are right that – insofar as one is fornicating, one is not loving – but it does not follow that one does not imperfectly love the person with whom he/she is fornicating.

Thanks for the quotation from Paul, though. Very edifying!

 

[Aloysium]

From this discussion, I would say that it seems that it is possible to grow in love within a homosexual relationship, but its perfection would include celibacy.

 

[mgoforth]

Christian love is possible between friends, no?

But not if they’re gay?

Are we talking about friendship or “romantic” love? I was specifically talking about the latter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are we talking about friendship or “romantic” love? I was specifically talking about the latter.

I am talking about friendship, but in particular friendship between people who consider themselves gay lovers or gay spouses. I’m saying the friendship part can be truly love, even if the sex part isn’t.

 

[mgoforth]

I am talking about friendship, but in particular friendship between people who consider themselves gay lovers or gay spouses. I’m saying the friendship part can be truly love, even if the sex part isn’t.

I suppose I would agree with that…but to live together as “gay lovers or gay spouses” presents very serious problems, even if there’s no sexual activity going on.

1. 
   *]It’s scandalous to others. It promotes a lifestyle that the Church condemns.
   *]It would be an occasion of sin. They would be willingly placing themselves in a situation that tempts them to grave sin.
   
   It would be best for those two people to live separate lives that don’t place them in temptation and won’t present the wrong image to society.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I suppose I would agree with that…but to live together as “gay lovers or gay spouses” presents very serious problems, even if there’s no sexual activity going on.

1. 
   *]It’s scandalous to others. It promotes a lifestyle that the Church condemns.
   *]It would be an occasion of sin. They would be willingly placing themselves in a situation that tempts them to grave sin.
   
   It would be best for those two people to live separate lives that don’t place them in temptation and won’t present the wrong image to society.

1. 
   I wasn’t talking about any moral wrongness involved in the person’s actions, which I consider largely irrelevant to the question of whether they love each other. I’m just saying that there can be real love between sinners, even if these two people are sinning with each other.

 

[mgoforth]

I wasn’t talking about any moral wrongness involved in the person’s actions, which I consider largely irrelevant to the question of whether they love each other. I’m just saying that there can be real love between sinners, even if these two people are sinning with each other.

Possibly a very disordered love…but what’s the point of making such a statement?