What does it look like to be gay – and a practicing Catholic?

[at9009]

No one is saying you can’t use the word homosexual… Go ahead and use it! Do you have a problem with people using the term Same Sex Attracted?

Peace!

I kind of disagree that using the term gay indicates a lifestyle choice (one could still easily be celibate and chaste). For many it is simply is synonymous with ssa. Both terms ssa and gay have negative connotations sometimes associated with them. I think either can used depending on preferences and I always follow up with what they mean by it.

For myself personally gay just means same sex attracted (just maybe slightly more specific since it also shows I don’t really have any opposite attractions). However I generally use either term depending on the audience.

Homosexual isn’t really used because it has a very clinical sterile feel to it and was often used I’m a very negative connotation in the past by some. It is technically accurate but will most likely shut down conversation than help

But Joe Prever is a great example for me too

 

[TMC]

What is the correct term for disorder - homosexuality or SSA?

Everyone who has SSA seems to deny they’re homosexual, which is all the more confusing since there aren’t any heterosexuals who (by definition) have “same sex attraction.”

Therefore, where are all the homosexual Catholics?

“Same Sex Attracted” seems to be the politically correct choice over referring to someone as homosexual. “Gay” is a lifestyle choice. A SSA person would be a practicing Catholic if he or she were living a chaste life and keeping the commandments. The same would apply to heterosexual singles, married couples, and celibate priests. All must be chaste according to their state in life.

SSA is not a “politically correct” term. In fact, I only encounter it here and a few other conservative on line sites. A person who is attracted to people of the same sex is gay whether or not they are currently sexually active. Being gay is not a “lifestyle choice.” Gay people can be celibate, monogamous, or promiscuous - just like straight people.

 

[bobballen_18]

SSA is not a “politically correct” term. In fact, I only encounter it here and a few other conservative on line sites. A person who is attracted to people of the same sex is gay whether or not they are currently sexually active. Being gay is not a “lifestyle choice.” Gay people can be celibate, monogamous, or promiscuous - just like straight people.

On one hand, I see what you mean…

…on the other hand, as someone who struggles with SSA, I object to being called “gay”. If Joe Prever wants to call himself gay, fine. I thought that the extended “interview” with him as seen in Post #4 was very good, and I thought he had very good insights. However, I don’t share his opinion on identifying as “gay”.

People will probably accuse me of “denying reality” by refusing to identify as “gay” but I see it as the opposite. There are two different ways of looking at it, I suppose.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

SSA is not a “politically correct” term. In fact, I only encounter it here and a few other conservative on line sites. A person who is attracted to people of the same sex is gay whether or not they are currently sexually active. Being gay is not a “lifestyle choice.” Gay people can be celibate, monogamous, or promiscuous - just like straight people.

I would agree with you. I had never seen SSA before coming to this site.

Isn’t it interesting the fascination people here have with homosexuality? And for the most part, very few gay or lesbians are a part of the conversation. It always seems to be about ‘them.’ Very little conversation WITH ‘them.’

 

[TMC]

On one hand, I see what you mean…

…on the other hand, as someone who struggles with SSA, I object to being called “gay”. If Joe Prever wants to call himself gay, fine. I thought that the extended “interview” with him as seen in Post #4 was very good, and I thought he had very good insights. However, I don’t share his opinion on identifying as “gay”.

People will probably accuse me of “denying reality” by refusing to identify as “gay” but I see it as the opposite. There are two different ways of looking at it, I suppose.

I am certainly happy to refer to people by the terms they choose, within reason.

 

[_Abyssinia]

SSA is not a “politically correct” term. In fact, I only encounter it here and a few other conservative on line sites. A person who is attracted to people of the same sex is gay whether or not they are currently sexually active. Being gay is not a “lifestyle choice.” Gay people can be celibate, monogamous, or promiscuous - just like straight people.

I would agree with you. I had never seen SSA before coming to this site.

Isn’t it interesting the fascination people here have with homosexuality? And for the most part, very few gay or lesbians are a part of the conversation. It always seems to be about ‘them.’ Very little conversation WITH ‘them.’

“Same sex attraction” is used on various Catholic websites, in books etc. Other Christians use the term too.

There are different views among same-sex attracted Catholics in regards to indentity. This article references Daniel Mattson, who is part of Courage:

But Mattson’s view that the same-sex-attracted man or woman should not self-identify as “gay” — which is shared by members of the Courage apostolate — is not a view that is common to all Catholics who strive to live chastely with same-sex attraction. Another viewpoint, articulated at the conference by author Eve Tushnet, is that “gayness” is a part of self-identity.

Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/the-church-and-same-sex-attraction/#ixzz3v08G1lZD

Daniel Mattson indentifies as somebody with same-sex attraction, talks about the language here: firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/07/why-i-dont-call-myself-a-gay-christian

Although Cardinal Ratzinger doesn’t use the term same-sex attraction by name, Daniel Mattson cites this quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

In 1986, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the “Pastoral Letter on the Care of the Homosexual Person.” In it, we read:

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

 

[at9009]

People like Daniel Mattson are entitled to the opinion and suggestions, but I disagree with the assertion that its the only right way (and the inference that to not use SSA is otherwise amoral). To me there is a difference between using gay to describe your attractions and using gay as the primary adjective to describe your identity (I view the ladder as the problem).

However, I have no qualms with someone preferring to use SSA over gay likewise I wouldn’t have any qualms with someone preferring the reverse. The important thing is to determine what they mean before one makes any assumptions.

I see Courage (people like Mattson) and Spiritual Friendship (Prever and Tushnet approach I guess) as often approaching the same problem with slightly different perspectives. Both are useful, but each is a ministry that appeals to slightly different people. Sort of like how there are many different religious orders.

 

[Kurisu35712]

The difference is that a straight Catholic can find someone to marry, and has hope that his desires of intimacy and love can be fulfilled. A gay Catholic has to deal with the knowledge that he’ll never have any of that, even though it feels completely natural to him. So he ends up having to struggle not just with his own flesh, but his heart as well, which is far more difficult.

You can’t really just say that it’s the same for me as everyone else. I’m coming to terms with the fact that I’ll never have that intimacy with another person like you can. You never have to deal with that. It can be completely excruciating, especially when a lot of Catholics don’t want to deal with it because they’re scared that the amount of sacrifice, loneliness, and pain it takes to live this way might invalidate their position.

This post is important from an emotional standpoint and I think it’s important that more people see it, whether they agree with the sentiment or not. I frequently see people, here in particular, talking about how the call to chastity for a SSA person is just a vocation, expectation, cross, whatever word one prefers, that can be turned to good for God’s Glory and all that, which is all true. But the implication, intentional or not, tends to be that it’s easy (or at least, not as hard as it sounds), all one needs to do is not get romantically involved with anyone. In saying that but nothing else, it presents a type of clinical attitude towards the issue and tends to overlook the main challenge of living a completely chaste lifestyle, which is loneliness. The frequent loneliness experienced by faithful Catholics struggling with SSA takes a huge toll, emotionally and spiritually, and it’s important for us, as one Body in Christ, to remember that when these issues come up.

 

[TCEL]

This post is important from an emotional standpoint and I think it’s important that more people see it, whether they agree with the sentiment or not. I frequently see people, here in particular, talking about how the call to chastity for a SSA person is just a vocation, expectation, cross, whatever word one prefers, that can be turned to good for God’s Glory and all that, which is all true. But the implication, intentional or not, tends to be that it’s easy (or at least, not as hard as it sounds), all one needs to do is not get romantically involved with anyone. In saying that but nothing else, it presents a type of clinical attitude towards the issue and tends to overlook the main challenge of living a completely chaste lifestyle, which is loneliness. The frequent loneliness experienced by faithful Catholics struggling with SSA takes a huge toll, emotionally and spiritually, and it’s important for us, as one Body in Christ, to remember that when these issues come up.

I agree, but I read a fascinating dialogue somewhere where a Catholic expressed the same sentiment, and his SSA Catholic friend basically corrected him, saying that he better not treat him like this cross is any heavier than others. He said if that’s the case, then we aren’t living our Christianity to the fullest. Gave me a different perspective, and it’s one not very often heard.

 

[randomuser]

I kind of disagree that using the term gay indicates a lifestyle choice (one could still easily be celibate and chaste). For many it is simply is synonymous with ssa. Both terms ssa and gay have negative connotations sometimes associated with them. I think either can used depending on preferences and I always follow up with what they mean by it.

If it’s synonymous, then why wouldn’t “celibate gay person” be simpler and to the point? With all due respect, I think the whole “SSA” thing is tilting at windmills and it’s doubtful the term will ever be common usage outside CAF - who else would be attracted to same-sex people other than, well, gay people?

 

[at9009]

If it’s synonymous, then why wouldn’t “celibate gay person” be simpler and to the point? With all due respect, I think the whole “SSA” thing is tilting at windmills and it’s doubtful the term will ever be common usage outside CAF - who else would be attracted to same-sex people other than, well, gay people?

You make a good point celibate gay person (striving to be chaste) is probably the best description for me (but it doesn’t necessarily work for everyone). What I meant as synonymous is that how I treat gay is how many who prefer SSA treat SSA. It simply describes the attraction without any connotation towards the behavior.

Some people prefer SSA over gay, that is their choice. I get extremely annoyed at people playing the language police and I wouldn’t want do that to them. I don’t think it is quite black and white as people make it out to be. I’d rather understand why someone chooses how to describe it and go for there. It is possible for gay/SSA Catholics to reach different positions (hence why you have people like Daniel Mattson and people like Joseph Prever)

I’m not really open about it with my family but they would probably react less awfully if I used SSA vs. gay. For some, it has the connotations associated with political activism. So I might use SSA first to explain my position then use the two interchangeably. With secular friends I would just use gay celibate.

 

[bobballen_18]

I see Courage (people like Mattson) and Spiritual Friendship (Prever and Tushnet approach I guess) as often approaching the same problem with slightly different perspectives. Both are useful, but each is a ministry that appeals to slightly different people. Sort of like how there are many different religious orders.

You know, I definitely agree with the idea that the people who have SSA are somewhat diverse in their experiences, and so I’m very open to the possibility that there are different types of ministry needed for people with SSA.

Still, I think language is extremely important. In some instances sure, I might “play the language police”…lol but darn it, words are important. Seriously, sexuality is something that, to quote CCC 2332, “affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” I don’t know about you, but to me, from that it sounds like sexuality is so important that it merits being very careful and precise with the language used about it!

Anyway, this is why I believe that sure, it’s okay to have different focuses in ministry. But I don’t believe that has to include differences in the language used with regards to our sexuality. Right understanding and use of sexuality should be a component of any ministry towards those with SSA, and therefore, I believe that focus on language which is a) most reflective of the truth of sexuality, and b) distinct from understanding of the world about sexuality, is a must. I don’t think calling oneself “gay” is in and of itself wrong, because based on people’s writings such as Joe Prever and others, I understand generally how chaste, faithful Catholics use the term, but I don’t think it fits the criteria of either (a) and or definitely not (b).

Originally posted by TCEL: I agree, but I read a fascinating dialogue somewhere where a Catholic expressed the same sentiment, and his SSA Catholic friend basically corrected him, saying that he better not treat him like this cross is any heavier than others. He said if that’s the case, then we aren’t living our Christianity to the fullest. Gave me a different perspective, and it’s one not very often heard.

You know, there’s something to what that SSA Catholic said. On one hand, I think it’s very compassionate to have the response that Kurisu35712 outlined in her response. After all, there has been a long history of terrible attitudes towards those with SSA, and there is a real problem of loneliness (I can attest to that personally, that’s for sure). On the other hand, though, the response of that SSA Catholic is essentially correct! Why do we as SSA Catholics assume that our cross is any harder than anyone else’s? That’s awfully assuming of us. I mean sure, it’s okay to desire appropriate ministry in the Church towards those with SSA, but ultimately, our happiness shouldn’t depend on our cross being recognized as special and above and beyond anyone else’s cross. I imagine that some people do have it harder than others, and perhaps some people with SSA have it harder than others who don’t have it, but I don’t think we ought to expect to be treated as if our cross is so different or more heavy than any other. I know that personally I don’t want to be treated as if my cross is any different. Frankly, I only want friendship, and I have confidence that as long as I have that, I have the capacity to do God’s will for my life and to carry any cross God may want me to carry!

 

[at9009]

Still, I think language is extremely important. In some instances sure, I might “play the language police”…lol but darn it, words are important. Seriously, sexuality is something that, to quote CCC 2332, “affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” I don’t know about you, but to me, from that it sounds like sexuality is so important that it merits being very careful and precise with the language used about it!

**First, I apologize for the long rambling. I am horrible at speaking concisely lol **
So part 1:

I didn’t mean to imply that I think that sexuality isn’t important. I still don’t quite understand how my cross totally affects everything yet.

Maybe it’s just me personally but SSA vs gay feels semantics because I honestly see it as two ways to say the same thing. Both mean attracted to others of the same sex, neither implies behavior, neither implies permanence, neither affects my ability to pursue a holy life. I can understand why it bothers some and they prefer SSA. Like for example, I would probably use SSA in a Christian setting to avoid any confusion. I do appreciate how people who use SSA use it because it helps to treat it as something that is tertiary to someones identity and not primarily like male/female or Christian is. However, I already treat saying gay the same way so maybe some need to learn that type of perspective and for them the words matter. I also see the benefit of using gay when trying to do ministry to non-chaste people with SSA where using the term SSA will push them further from God.

So, maybe it is not an either or situation, but a contextual situation. I understand people have their preferences, so I generally try to be respectful of that. I do get annoyed of certain writers who have inferred that not only SSA is the preferred term but that to use gay is somehow sinful. I disagree with that mentality and view it as a tincy bit uncharitable. However, I realize this is probably a topic that will always be debated which is fine.

 

[TCEL]

You know, there’s something to what that SSA Catholic said. On one hand, I think it’s very compassionate to have the response that Kurisu35712 outlined in her response. After all, there has been a long history of terrible attitudes towards those with SSA, and there is a real problem of loneliness (I can attest to that personally, that’s for sure). On the other hand, though, the response of that SSA Catholic is essentially correct! Why do we as SSA Catholics assume that our cross is any harder than anyone else’s? That’s awfully assuming of us. I mean sure, it’s okay to desire appropriate ministry in the Church towards those with SSA, but ultimately, our happiness shouldn’t depend on our cross being recognized as special and above and beyond anyone else’s cross. I imagine that some people do have it harder than others, and perhaps some people with SSA have it harder than others who don’t have it, but I don’t think we ought to expect to be treated as if our cross is so different or more heavy than any other. I know that personally I don’t want to be treated as if my cross is any different. Frankly, I only want friendship, and I have confidence that as long as I have that, I have the capacity to do God’s will for my life and to carry any cross God may want me to carry!

I personally think it would be difficult, and I’m certainly not trying to write it off; but there are so many things you can do if you’re celibate. A person is so available to be a blessing to other people. I know someone who is just that.

 

[at9009]

On one hand, I think it’s very compassionate to have the response that Kurisu35712 outlined in her response. After all, there has been a long history of terrible attitudes towards those with SSA, and there is a real problem of loneliness (I can attest to that personally, that’s for sure). On the other hand, though, the response of that SSA Catholic is essentially correct! Why do we as SSA Catholics assume that our cross is any harder than anyone else’s? !

**Part II: I apologize for the wall of text. ** Also, let me convey that this is just my personal opinion and I am sure there are others in my position who feel differently )

I never had that mentality that my cross is somewhat harder. I believe God gives each of us the cross that we can handle. Like for example, I am healthy, had a good childhood, no physical disabilities, and am able to pursue my dream career in medicine. I do have this struggle with being attracted to other guys, but I am blessed is so many ways. So I understand that it is important to avoid anyone with any cross developing what I’d call a martyr complex. So I always appreciate the reminder that others have difficult crosses an are struggling; that is definitely an important message

However, there has been a tremendous pastoral/supportive failure with regards to SSA individuals. For example, growing up even within a Catholic background, I was never taught there was a distinction between the sexual acts and the attractions. In fact I remember plenty of other Christian denominations treated them both as equally sinful and never do I remember someone Catholic correcting it (THAT did almost destroy my faith because I got to a point where I viewed myself as unsavable since I wasn’t able to remove my attractions despite remaining celibate). Marriage and the nuclear family was almost idolize to the point where it wasn’t treated as a vocation but rather a check box in life that everyone goes through. Religious vocations were mentioned sometimes, but a celibate life outside of the religious vocation context was almost never addressed. There are plenty of homilies that address family life, ministries that support families, marriage counseling, kids, but there are essentially zero ministries that help people in a celibate vocation (whether that be SSA individuals or divorced individuals). So the lack of support with the addition of our culture at large idolizing romance and sex has made this cross feel somewhat more difficult to carry.

My other problem is you are right I don’t want my cross to be treated differently either, but it is. If a person goes into church and admits to struggling with alcoholism, the church members rally around them. If I admit my SSA, the support isn’t always there. I have heard plenty of derogatory comments within Church that has made me realize that at least for now, I often have to keep my cross a secret. Otherwise I worry about a substantial minority of individuals within the church view we with hostility or like some kind of Trojan horse. Many of them have the attitude of not only should I use SSA, but that I should basically shut up and carry my cross on my own (mostly probably due to fatigue of dealing with this particular issue). However, what that makes me feel like is that if my cross was known is I would be viewed as a lesser person and some would prefer shut up, sit in the back of the pews, and they can go back to pretending that people like me with SSA don’t really exist (All the while they will focus on providing support to people with other type of crosses). The fact that there is still this huge stigma within traditional circles (even within the Catholic Church) adds an extra weight on my shoulders that makes this cross even harder to carry.

I’m not looking to be treated as some special person for my cross. I actually hate that because it often feels like I’m then being treated as some kind of cultural pawn in the culture war (i.e. the ‘good’ gay/ssa versus the ‘bad’ gay/ssa rather than just a person with a particular struggle). I would just like to be able to have my cross known without feeling like I have to hide it. For example, I have many Christians in my family. I could say I struggled with many types of sins (from having sex outside of marriage, alcoholism,…) and receive support. However, if I were to even mention my SSA regardless of the fact that I am celibate and striving to be chaste, some of them would cut me off and stop talking with me (I even worry about that within my immediate family). I also often feel like I’m treated as an intellectual or theological debate rather than a person. So I don’t see it as doctrinal issues, but rather pastoral care issues that need to be addressed.

However, despite all of these frustrations I have, the ability to go to mass on Sunday and receive the Eucharist (when I am able to) has helped sustain me and is probably the primary reason why I still feel like I belong within the Catholic Church.

 

[TCEL]

However, there has been a tremendous pastoral/supportive failure with regards to SSA individuals. For example, growing up even within a Catholic background, I was never taught there was a distinction between the sexual acts and the attractions. In fact I remember plenty of other Christian denominations treated them both as equally sinful and never do I remember someone Catholic correcting it (THAT did almost destroy my faith because I got to a point where I viewed myself as unsavable since I wasn’t able to remove my attractions despite remaining celibate). Marriage and the nuclear family was almost idolize to the point where it wasn’t treated as a vocation but rather a check box in life that everyone goes through. Religious vocations were mentioned sometimes, but a celibate life outside of the religious vocation context was almost never addressed. There are plenty of homilies that address family life, ministries that support families, marriage counseling, kids, but there are essentially zero ministries that help people in a celibate vocation (whether that be SSA individuals or divorced individuals). So the lack of support with the addition of our culture at large idolizing romance and sex has made this cross feel somewhat more difficult to carry.

My other problem is you are right I don’t want my cross to be treated differently either, but it is. If a person goes into church and admits to struggling with alcoholism, the church members rally around them. If I admit my SSA, the support isn’t always there. I have heard plenty of derogatory comments within Church that has made me realize that at least for now, I often have to keep my cross a secret. Otherwise I worry about a substantial minority of individuals within the church view we with hostility or like some kind of Trojan horse. Many of them have the attitude of not only should I use SSA, but that I should basically shut up and carry my cross on my own (mostly probably due to fatigue of dealing with this particular issue). However, what that makes me feel like is that if my cross was known is I would be viewed as a lesser person and some would prefer shut up, sit in the back of the pews, and they can go back to pretending that people like me with SSA don’t really exist (All the while they will focus on providing support to people with other type of crosses). The fact that there is still this huge stigma within traditional circles (even within the Catholic Church) adds an extra weight on my shoulders that makes this cross even harder to carry.

I’m not looking to be treated as some special person for my cross. I actually hate that because it often feels like I’m then being treated as some kind of cultural pawn in the culture war (i.e. the ‘good’ gay/ssa versus the ‘bad’ gay/ssa rather than just a person with a particular struggle). I would just like to be able to have my cross known without feeling like I have to hide it. For example, I have many Christians in my family. I could say I struggled with many types of sins (from having sex outside of marriage, alcoholism,…) and receive support. However, if I were to even mention my SSA regardless of the fact that I am celibate and striving to be chaste, some of them would cut me off and stop talking with me (I even worry about that within my immediate family). I also often feel like I’m treated as an intellectual or theological debate rather than a person. So I don’t see it as doctrinal issues, but rather pastoral care issues that need to be addressed.

However, despite all of these frustrations I have, the ability to go to mass on Sunday and receive the Eucharist (when I am able to) has helped sustain me and is probably the primary reason why I still feel like I belong within the Catholic Church.

I completely agree with everything you have expressed.

 

[cjforJesus]

This post is important from an emotional standpoint and I think it’s important that more people see it, whether they agree with the sentiment or not. I frequently see people, here in particular, talking about how the call to chastity for a SSA person is just a vocation, expectation, cross, whatever word one prefers, that can be turned to good for God’s Glory and all that, which is all true. But the implication, intentional or not, tends to be that it’s easy (or at least, not as hard as it sounds), all one needs to do is not get romantically involved with anyone. In saying that but nothing else, it presents a type of clinical attitude towards the issue and tends to overlook the main challenge of living a completely chaste lifestyle, which is loneliness. The frequent loneliness experienced by faithful Catholics struggling with SSA takes a huge toll, emotionally and spiritually, and it’s important for us, as one Body in Christ, to remember that when these issues come up.

So are you saying that sexual contact cures loneliness?
One does not have to have genital contact with another human being to lead a full productive life.
I know two very happy elderly women who have been roommates for YEARS.They are very active in Church affairs and the many outreach programs of the parish.

 

[bobballen_18]

I personally think it would be difficult, and I’m certainly not trying to write it off; but there are so many things you can do if you’re celibate. A person is so available to be a blessing to other people. I know someone who is just that.

Indeed, being single is an opportunity to devote oneself to the service of other people and the Church, which is a real blessing (one that I unfortunately haven’t taken advantage of lately… ).

So, while it is important for a Catholic in general to know this, I feel like it is sometimes incorrectly assumed that someone who comes to terms with their SSA must commit themselves to a life of celibacy. And frankly, I think identifying as “gay” contributes to that (in my opinion, false) assumption.

I guess to apply that to the title of the thread to stay on topic - well, having SSA (or being gay, as the title puts it) is not (necessarily) synonymous with living a life of celibacy. In my opinion, the person with SSA is as free to marry as the one without it, though admittedly/obviously the aspect of having SSA would need to be known by and discussed with the potential spouse.

 

[bobballen_18]

So are you saying that sexual contact cures loneliness?
One does not have to have genital contact with another human being to lead a full productive life.
I know two very happy elderly women who have been roommates for YEARS.They are very active in Church affairs and the many outreach programs of the parish.

I did not see anything in the post you quoted which says sexual contact cures loneliness.

What I saw was a post asking people to consider that simply saying “be chaste” does not solve the problem that most people with SSA face, which is loneliness and/or isolation. I don’t think the post gave any “advice” on how to cure loneliness, just raised a good point regarding a possibly overlooked aspect of having SSA.

 

[at9009]

Indeed, being single is an opportunity to devote oneself to the service of other people and the Church, which is a real blessing (one that I unfortunately haven’t taken advantage of lately… ).

So, while it is important for a Catholic in general to know this, I feel like it is sometimes incorrectly assumed that someone who comes to terms with their SSA must commit themselves to a life of celibacy. And frankly, I think identifying as “gay” contributes to that (in my opinion, false) assumption.

I guess to apply that to the title of the thread to stay on topic - well, having SSA (or being gay, as the title puts it) is not (necessarily) synonymous with living a life of celibacy. In my opinion, the person with SSA is as free to marry as the one without it, though admittedly/obviously the aspect of having SSA would need to be known by and discussed with the potential spouse.

I tend to kind of agree with you. I do believe and know of several people are gay/ssa who are indeed married and happy(I think they are called mixed orientation marriage) though it does present with its own unique challenges.

However, I do think that many of us with SSA/are gay have discerned that marriage is unlikely our personal vocations which implies a celibate vocation (but each individual person needs to discern and truly try to find God’s path for them). It is possible that God can change my situation where I would then be called to marriage, but there is also the reality that I will not and will remain celibate for life. I think its a balance of hope and reality of one’s situation I guess. A similar analogy is like a person with cancer; they have the believe and knowledge that God can cure them of the disease, but they also acknowledge that it may not be within His plans.