what do you think of homosexuality?

[Abba]

I am hoping that society returns to a time where there is more dignity.
This would inculde a return to purity and goodness without any hedonistic tendancies on display for all to see and approve of. Jesus suffered and died for us to live this way, in communion with the Father. If people are struggling with a particular sin, they need to deal with it privately and pray. You do not erase sin by getting the approval of society.

There sure is a lot of pressure now a days (socially, legally and every otherwise) to accept the harmony and beauty of homosexuality. The children are being indoctrinated in the public schools, media, Hollywood etc… I think the success that the gay lobby has obtained so far demonstrates the vulnerability and fragility of our societies and cultures.

The good news is that there are many people with homosexual tendencies who are fully committed to the teachings of Holy Mother Church. We all have our struggles to endure, but Jesus helps us to bear our crosses as we take this temporal journey. My answer to the question is that because I love those who suffering from homosexual tendencies I pray they will find their way to the Catholic Church. It’s not easy to be called to live a chaste life, but under the circumstance the best that can be obtained is found by being a true follower of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Publisher]

The Holy Spirit and the human authors of Sacred Scripture disagree…

Of course…I disagree in your opinion and belief system…but the question was not what you think of my opinion…nor was it what do you believe is God’s and and scriptures “opinion” but…well the OP’s question is stated above.

 

[lux_in_tenebris_1]

I may be speaking out of terms and truthfully I am just beginning to travel this road, but as a cradle Catholic, medical student and someone with homosexual attraction, I understand my homosexuality as both a cross and a gift. Dealing with suffering nearly everyday I see how suffering can elevate the human being to a sublime relationship with God, even at the cost of physical being. Homosexuality in the light of church teaching can be an incredibly lonely experience at times, but on the same note it affords me the opportunity to give my heart to God in ways heterosexual couples may not ever be able to do. To have my heart fully devoted to him and to have all that extra room in my soul filled with his grace can be overwhelming.

 

[ssa_fellow]

Homosexuality is a cross to bear. It is a cross given by God, and like all crosses, people have the Free Will to accept or reject carrying that cross. I have chosen to carry it, and though that’s an incredibly hard task, and I do a pretty bad job of it at times, that is ultimately the path I’m committed to.

Sometimes I fall to masturbation. But, I know that in my heart I don’t want to. Because, other times, I will have dreams where I’m tempted, and in those dreams I will normally flee from sin. I had one dream about 3 months ago now, where I fell to temptation in my dream, but then the last part of it was me on my knees, praying in Church and begging for forgiveness, singing: Kyrie Eleison.

So, I know that in my heart, I want what God wants now. 6 or 7 years ago, I might’ve had dreams, and desired to fall in them, but not anymore. Thanks be to God.

The love I have from Jesus and Mary is greater than any human being could give me anyways. I would never give that up for a mere mortal’s love. Their love is so great, and for all straight people who are called to marriage, you need to place their love at the center of that relationship. I can tell you that from experiencing it. Human love is not enough to sustain a marriage.

 

[ssa_fellow]

I may be speaking out of terms and truthfully I am just beginning to travel this road, but as a cradle Catholic, medical student and someone with homosexual attraction, I understand my homosexuality as both a cross and a gift. Dealing with suffering nearly everyday I see how suffering can elevate the human being to a sublime relationship with God, even at the cost of physical being. Homosexuality in the light of church teaching can be an incredibly lonely experience at times, but on the same note it affords me the opportunity to give my heart to God in ways heterosexual couples may not ever be able to do. To have my heart fully devoted to him and to have all that extra room in my soul filled with his grace can be overwhelming.

 

[drac16]

I say that my understanding of homosexuality comes primarily from the Qur’an. In many verses, it says that homosexuality sinful, so, as a muslim, I believe that it’s sinful. Often times it gets emotional and accusations of homophobia and bigotry come up, but I’m desensitized to that. It doesn’t give me the right to behave with malice, though.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

What do you think of copious threads about homosexuality?

 

[Dempsey1919]

What do you think of copious threads about homosexuality?

I think it shows that homosexuality is a major issue in our times. It’s constantly in the media etc. Religious people need to discuss how to deal with the issue and how to best express our beliefs etc.

 

[Rau]

What do I think about it? It is a natural and normal variation of the extremely complex nature of human sexuality…just like heterosexuality is. Nature is complex and diverse…and so is human sexuality.

I do agree that same sex attracted individuals are relatively commonplace, did not choose their orientation, and no one set out to make them so.

But, I don’t like the words “natural” and “normal” as they often seem to be understood quite differently by different people.

It seems rational to me to view the “blue prints” for us humans as providing for 2 sexes, opposite sex attracted, and with various other characteristics, eg 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. We know there are variations on this. Are those variations “natural” and “normal”, or are they defects? And to what extent would understanding the cause of these variations enable us to answer that question? We don’t know what causes a proportion of people to experience sexual attractions inconsistent with their biological/anatomical “equipment”, but it strikes me as difficult to view that condition as “normal”.

Your post suggests that you take the view that the blue prints provide for variations (which thus could be termed natural and normal), even in the basic, “structural” characteristics, but it seems more rational to me to limit such variations to less structural aspects, such as eye colour, handedness, hair colour etc. Missing an arm, or being sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, does not seem to me to be provided for in the blue prints, but it happens.

But quite apart from those considerations is the question of what behaviours are acceptable.

I suspect some would argue that if it is “normal” and “natural” to be SSA, then it must be ok to indulge the attraction? This makes morality entirely relative - subject to an individual’s desires, which can’t be right.

 

[ssa_fellow]

I do agree that same sex attracted individuals are relatively commonplace, did not choose their orientation, and no one set out to make them so.

But, I don’t like the words “natural” and “normal” as they often seem to be understood quite differently by different people.

It seems rational to me to view the “blue prints” for us humans as providing for 2 sexes, opposite sex attracted, and with various other characteristics, eg 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. We know there are variations on this. Are those variations “natural” and “normal”, or are they defects? And to what extent would understanding the cause of these variations enable us to answer that question? We don’t know what causes a proportion of people to experience sexual attractions inconsistent with their biological/anatomical “equipment”, but it strikes me as difficult to view that condition as “normal”.

Your post suggests that you take the view that the blue prints provide for variations (which thus could be termed natural and normal), even in the basic, “structural” characteristics, but it seems more rational to me to limit such variations to less structural aspects, such as eye colour, handedness, hair colour etc. Missing an arm, or being sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, does not seem to me to be provided for in the blue prints, but it happens.

But quite apart from those considerations is the question of what behaviours are acceptable.

I suspect some would argue that if it is “normal” and “natural” to be SSA, then it must be ok to indulge the attraction? This makes morality entirely relative - subject to an individual’s desires, which can’t be right.

Celibacy.

Ok, that’s the one word missing from your long comment. It is not a good idea for Catholics to talk about these things… the things you’re talking about, because the Church doesn’t. The Church doesn’t actually say whether people are born gay or not, or if its genetic or not, and ultimately it doesn’t matter.

You are going to alienate people to the Church even more if you wax endlessly on “limiting structural aspects” “blue prints”… and why you would possibly mention “missing an arm” in this conversation is beyond me.

Ok, that’s my advice to you. That stuff isn’t important. And the Church clearly doesn’t think its important either. The Church does say that all same sex attracted people need to be celibate, and that’s the one thing you never said. So, that’s my advice to you, and to all Catholics.

When I hear Catholics wondering: well are they born that way? Is it an increase of hormones in the water? Guess what? Those questions aren’t questions that the Church is asking. Those questions are things you got from you, not from the Church.

Conform to the teachings of the Church, do not embellish it with the world’s thinking on homosexuality (be it liberal or conservative), both are equally opposed to Christ’s teachings.

 

[Rau]

Celibacy.

Ok, that’s the one word missing from your long comment. It is not a good idea for Catholics to talk about these things… the things you’re talking about, because the Church doesn’t. The Church doesn’t actually say whether people are born gay or not, or if its genetic or not, and ultimately it doesn’t matter.

You are going to alienate people to the Church even more if you wax endlessly on “limiting structural aspects” “blue prints”… and why you would possibly mention “missing an arm” in this conversation is beyond me.

Ok, that’s my advice to you. That stuff isn’t important. And the Church clearly doesn’t think its important either. The Church does say that all same sex attracted people need to be celibate, and that’s the one thing you never said. So, that’s my advice to you, and to all Catholics.

When I hear Catholics wondering: well are they born that way? Is it an increase of hormones in the water? Guess what? Those questions aren’t questions that the Church is asking. Those questions are things you got from you, not from the Church.

Conform to the teachings of the Church, do not embellish it with the world’s thinking on homosexuality (be it liberal or conservative), both are equally opposed to Christ’s teachings.

Sorry if my comment was too long. I would be the first to agree with you that the cause of SSA does not matter in so far as determining what is not sinful (SSA), and what is sinful (homosexual relations). And by the way, I make no comment on whether homosexuality is genetic or not or arising by any other particular mode. I don’t know.

But I do think it is necessary to question the use of the terms “natural” and “normal” when describing homosexuality. While some use the words innocently, others see them as providing justification for actions that are believed to flow as a result of what is “natural” and “normal”.

I note and thank you for your advice, but to eliminate any doubt, my belief in respect of homosexuality does not depart at all from what the Church teaches. I do question why the Church refers to a “psychological” cause for homosexuality in the Catechism - I would have thought it beyond the Church’s competence to characterise the condition in that way.

 

[ssa_fellow]

Sorry if my comment was too long. I would be the first to agree with you that the cause of SSA does not matter in so far as determining what is not sinful (SSA), and what is sinful (homosexual relations). And by the way, I make no comment on whether homosexuality is genetic or not or arising by any other particular mode. I don’t know.

But I do think it is necessary to question the use of the terms “natural” and “normal” when describing homosexuality. While some use the words innocently, others see them as providing justification for actions that are believed to flow as a result of what is “natural” and “normal”.

I note and thank you for your advice, but to eliminate any doubt, my belief in respect of homosexuality does not depart at all from what the Church teaches. I do question why the Church refers to a “psychological” cause for homosexuality in the Catechism - I would have thought it beyond the Church’s competence to characterise the condition in that way.

Well, who’s using those words? If they’re people arguing against the Church, I say they can use them all they want, its a hard enough gauntlet to try to get people to come round to the Church’s teachings on sexual morality.

As you say, some people might use those words as justifications, so they have justifications for sin. Its nothing new or unique. I just think it distracts from the issue at hand. I mean, then you get caught up in the definitions of natural and normal. Which, according to my definitions, I would say same sex attraction is not normal, but it is natural.

So, while you and I share the view of the Church that all homosexual actions are wrong (which puts us in a minority, at least in America), we could spend 4 or 5 posts arguing whether it is natural or not *. But, to what purpose?

See, you can have people following the Church’s teaching on this who still disagree with you on whether it is natural or normal. Isn’t it more important to get people to follow the Church’s teachings in their lives, to stop sinning… then it is to be on the same page of some arbitrary defintions, which the Church doesn’t even take an official position on, and which you yourself admit are merely used by some people as a justification for sin?

… sorry if this coming off as rather forceful, I’m on my game tonight *

 

[Rau]

Well, who’s using those words?

This person:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11684159&postcount=18

The idea comes up regularly, and is a commonly used as rationalisation for why homosexual relations “must” be ok. I much rather prefer to have the debate without reference to those 2 words because they are loaded and misused.

 

[Mulligan2]

I believe people are born as either heterosexuals or homosexuals. So I believe God made homosexuals that way. I have an extremely difficult time believing that God would then ask a homosexual to NOT act on their same sex attraction, and instead lead a life of loneliness without a partner.

 

[Rau]

I believe people are born as either heterosexuals or homosexuals. So I believe God made homosexuals that way. I have an extremely difficult time believing that God would then ask a homosexual to NOT act on their same sex attraction, and instead lead a life of loneliness without a partner.

What do you believe in respect of the single (heterosexual) person who ‘suffers’ the attractions and the urges, but does not find a spouse? Should they be expected to go without sex, despite their God-given desires?

 

[Mulligan2]

What do you believe in respect of the single (heterosexual) person who ‘suffers’ the attractions and the urges, but does not find a spouse? Should they be expected to go without sex, despite their God-given desires?

I don’t want to veer off topic on this thread. The OP asked ‘what do you think of homosexuality’ and I provided my thoughts. But if you would like me to elaborate on my earlier thoughts I would be happy to. I cannot comprehend the notion that God would make someone a homosexual, and then say “oh, by the way, don’t be who you are” - and instead ask them to live a life of loneliness and (perhaps) heartache and despair.

 

[Lormar]

What do you think of copious threads about homosexuality?

I’m sick of them.

 

[marymary1975]

Celibacy.

Ok, that’s the one word missing from your long comment. It is not a good idea for Catholics to talk about these things… the things you’re talking about, because the Church doesn’t. The Church doesn’t actually say whether people are born gay or not, or if its genetic or not, and ultimately it doesn’t matter.

You are going to alienate people to the Church even more if you wax endlessly on “limiting structural aspects” “blue prints”… and why you would possibly mention “missing an arm” in this conversation is beyond me.

Ok, that’s my advice to you. That stuff isn’t important. And the Church clearly doesn’t think its important either. The Church does say that all same sex attracted people need to be celibate, and that’s the one thing you never said. So, that’s my advice to you, and to all Catholics.

When I hear Catholics wondering: well are they born that way? Is it an increase of hormones in the water? Guess what? Those questions aren’t questions that the Church is asking. Those questions are things you got from you, not from the Church.

Conform to the teachings of the Church, do not embellish it with the world’s thinking on homosexuality (be it liberal or conservative), both are equally opposed to Christ’s teachings.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Rau]

I don’t want to veer off topic on this thread. The OP asked ‘what do you think of homosexuality’ and I provided my thoughts. But if you would like me to elaborate on my earlier thoughts I would be happy to. I cannot comprehend the notion that God would make someone a homosexual, and then say “oh, by the way, don’t be who you are” - and instead ask them to live a life of loneliness and (perhaps) heartache and despair.

OK, and you also said that you believe God would expect them to act on their same sex desires, then i asked you:

What do you believe in respect of the single (heterosexual) person who ‘suffers’ the attractions and the urges, but does not find a spouse? Should they be expected to go without sex, despite their God-given desires?

This is not to take you off topic, but to test the robustness of your reasoning.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think it shows that homosexuality is a major issue in our times. It’s constantly in the media etc. Religious people need to discuss how to deal with the issue and how to best express our beliefs etc.

It is the major topic of propaganda in our times. Some news show last night breathlessly reported as a “tickler” that a major change had happened that was going to change football forever. I thought they were going to report that the NFL had announced that run-back of punts was going to be eliminated, in order to prevent injuries from guys running into each other at full speed from opposite directions. Instead, they reported that one single college player had “come out”. Yeah, he’s the first guy going into the NFL who liked other guys instead of girls. Nobody in the NFL *ever dreamed *that one of the other guys might be gay. Yeah, sure. They’re allowing Marines to be openly gay, and the thought that a fellow football player is openly gay is going to change the NFL forever. This is the kind of propaganda that’s being put out there.

The home shows are so awash with homosexual couples pretending that they are capable of getting pregnant together that I’m bracing myself for the first gay Cialis commercial. It is only a matter of time.