What if two chaste gays wish to marry civilly?

[Dakota_Roberts]

I don’t understand. What is a “joint household”? The top is gay civil marriage.

Peace,
Ed

I was pointing out that it is possible for them to get similar benefits and not be doing something sinful.

In this “hypothetical” situation of your very real friend, I would say that he is playing with fire sexually for considering a living arrangement in close proximity to another gay male as well as compromising morally by trying to fit the letter of the law (or the absence of the Bible or the Church to address his specific situation) into how he wants to live his life.

As Christians, Protestants/Evangelicals (as I used to be) or Catholic (as I am now), we are called to live as Christ. We are told that the greatest commandments are to Love God and Love Others. Are you loving your neighbor as yourself if you are “married” to him, living with him, and thus tempting him to sin by putting him in close proximity to you on a daily (more importantly, nightly) basis? Is that loving? Is it the MOST loving thing to do? See, everyone is trying to see what they can get away with, how far they could push the envelop and still be ‘not sinning’ or still make it under the heavenly limbo pole without touching. But as Christ followers, lovers of Jesus, we should make decisions that are unequivocally going to best represent Jesus in our lives, that are going to best show the love of Jesus toward others.

In an earlier post you said: “I would dare say that unless you’re gay, you can’t speak to the kind of same-sex relationship that gay people have – like a heterosexual relationship, it’s not just physical.” Sexual attraction is sexual attraction–male to male, male to female, female to female, female to male. If I was struggling to be pure, and my best (girl) friend was also, and we were providing Christian love and support to help us through that struggle, there is no question that can be a GOOD and LOVING relationship or living situation because the struggle of sexual purity is not with other females. It can be argued that perhaps the two gay men living together are not attracted to each other, but I would say…yet. Because if a female and a male decided to live as celibate man and wife, and try to help each other not have sex with members of the opposite sex, what’s to say that in vulnerable moments they would not sleep with each other? The same applies to two gay males.

The appearance to the outside world is that two gay men are married and living together; even if they tell everyone they know, “hey, we are celibate” --that does not really mean much considering they can’t speak to every single person who observes their lifestyle. Does their lifestyle speak as a witness to Christ, or is it a poor witness of someone who lives relativistically and tries to bend Christ’s INTENT into their own image? We are Christ’s witnesses. We must always remember that.

You can perhaps twist words, fit in certain sayings of the church and verses of the bible to say that two gay men can marry, and you could say, “see! I’m right! There is nothing that emphatically proves that this situation is not okay. So, let’s go for it!” However, if you have to jump through that many hoops, and there are so many people (esp. faithful Christians, laity, clergy, doctors of the Church, the CCC) pointing toward this not being the BEST and WISEST life course to travel on, why go there?

Like I said above, life is not about seeing how much we can get away with to be able to do what we want to make ourselves happy and comfortable. I AM CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST, NEVERTHELESS IT IS NOT I WHO LIVES BUT HE

There is so much theologically wrong with that post that it makes my eyes water.

 

[edwest2]

I didn’t see anything theologically wrong with that post. Can you point out specific parts you think are wrong?

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

When a man and woman not in love and not having a romantic relationship seek to marry, it’s almost always as a supporting ruse in a larger fraud: health insurance scam, immigration scam, etc.

Such a fraud would be no more morally upright among two celibate homosexual persons that hetero ones.

 

[lifeandhope]

I was pointing out that it is possible for them to get similar benefits and not be doing something sinful.

There is so much theologically wrong with that post that it makes my eyes water.

Such as…? What? I’m pretty sure it is more theologically sound than people trying to find a way to justify gay marriage. Your eyes watered? Whew, better get some tissue.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Loved that post Life and Hope. My eyes watered to see how well you managed to relay the message I would have liked to be able to, had I had the eloquence.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Because if a female and a male decided to live as celibate man and wife, and try to help each other not have sex with members of the opposite sex, what’s to say that in vulnerable moments they would not sleep with each other? The same applies to two gay males.

Life, are you saying that two people should not be in a relationship if, at some point in the uncertain future, a sin (sexual or otherwise) may occur in it? If that’s the case, then I’m not sure that anyone should be in any relationship at all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[lifeandhope]

Grace & Peace!

Life, are you saying that two people should not be in a relationship if, at some point in the uncertain future, a sin (sexual or otherwise) may occur in it? If that’s the case, then I’m not sure that anyone should be in any relationship at all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Thank you for your clarifying question. No, my standpoint is not that two people should not be in a relationship in case of potential sin. That would be silly–if I avoided every potential for sin, whether in relationships or not, it would be impossible because I am so “prone to wander” (…Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love…sorry, had to finish the lyric ), or, the more technical term, concupiscence. The operative word in the statement you quoted is LIVE: it is just common sense that you would not want to LIVE together, perpetuating a long and sustained sexual temptation from which it is difficult to escape–if your temptation is in the very place you live, where else do you flee?

 

[lifeandhope]

When a man and woman not in love and not having a romantic relationship seek to marry, **it’s almost always as a supporting ruse in a larger fraud: **health insurance scam, immigration scam, etc.

Such a fraud would be no more morally upright among two celibate homosexual persons that hetero ones.

Well said, and you support my point that our love for the Lord should drive us toward a lifestyle that is above reproach. I like how you put this; I think it sums it up well.

 

[CopticChristian]

What is the moral theology of such a scenario? How does that differ from a chaste man and woman seeking a civil marriage?

FNR,

To say someone is gay is not to say someone is heterosexual with homosexual thoughts. The notion of being gay is acceptance of the attraction and acting on it in my opinion, based on opinions put forward from NARTH. In other words “gay” means acceptance of the lifestyle.

Your scenario in this case would be a non-sequitor.

Your proposition may have been better positioned as…

Two heterosexual males with same sex attraction that are chaste.

This proposition begs the question as to what the purpose of unity in a civil union would be? There appears to be no purpose. If two heterosexual males, let’s say, with same sex attraction choosing to be chaste what would be the reason if any to do anything except be room mates?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

FNR,

To say someone is gay is not to say someone is heterosexual with homosexual thoughts. The notion of being gay is acceptance of the attraction and acting on it in my opinion, based on opinions put forward from NARTH. In other words “gay” means acceptance of the lifestyle.

Your scenario in this case would be a non-sequitor.

Your proposition may have been better positioned as…

Two heterosexual males with same sex attraction that are chaste.

This proposition begs the question as to what the purpose of unity in a civil union would be? There appears to be no purpose. If two heterosexual males, let’s say, with same sex attraction choosing to be chaste what would be the reason if any to do anything except be room mates?

You repeatedly going on about how homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with homosexual thoughts has grown rather trite and is more or less based on you redefining what you think the words mean. You are basically saying people can’t be homosexual because God’s design has man engaging in sex with woman, but this is all based on logic before the Fall, after the Fall imperfection entered into the world and people are born deaf, dumb, blind, missing limbs, all sorts of mental mess ups, cerebral palsy and that wasn’t in God’s design either. It is quite possible that (one of) the cause of homosexual attractions is hormonal mess ups affecting the brain while still in the womb, what people fail to realise is that the etiology of the attractions is entirely irrelevant, even if the attractions are caused directly by genetics (which at this point seems highly unlikely) the engaging in sex with the same sex part would still be sinful as the person ultimately has the choice whether to act on the or not. Choosing not to indulge those thoughts wouldn’t make them non-homosexual/bisexual, it would mean they are working hard on being chaste in that aspect of chastity. You seem to try to apply rationality to theology, but not all of theology can be rationally known, part of faith is that you accept the things which can not be proven.

 

[CopticChristian]

You repeatedly going on about how homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with homosexual thoughts has grown rather trite and is more or less based on you redefining what you think the words mean. You are basically saying people can’t be homosexual because God’s design has man engaging in sex with woman, but this is all based on logic before the Fall, after the Fall imperfection entered into the world and people are born deaf, dumb, blind, missing limbs, all sorts of mental mess ups, cerebral palsy and that wasn’t in God’s design either. It is quite possible that (one of) the cause of homosexual attractions is hormonal mess ups affecting the brain while still in the womb, what people fail to realise is that the etiology of the attractions is entirely irrelevant, even if the attractions are caused directly by genetics (which at this point seems highly unlikely) the engaging in sex with the same sex part would still be sinful as the person ultimately has the choice whether to act on the or not. Choosing not to indulge those thoughts wouldn’t make them non-homosexual/bisexual, it would mean they are working hard on being chaste in that aspect of chastity. You seem to try to apply rationality to theology, but not all of theology can be rationally known, part of faith is that you accept the things which can not be proven.

Dakota,

With all due respect our opinions differ.

 

[Dickie_Bush]

Dakota Roberts;It would seem to me ,that you have bought into the notion that there exists a separate class of individuals whom one could label as ‘‘Homosexual’’.There are many who find this distinction as fallacious .There are many who would agree with Coptic Christian, that ‘‘Homosexual’’ is indeed an aceptance of a life style based in sexual perversion ,just as ‘‘Swinger’’ or ‘‘Playboy’’ are life styles based on perversion of Gods natural law which has ordained sexual expression to be limited to the confines of marriage.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dakota Roberts;It would seem to me ,that you have bought into the notion that there exists a separate class of individuals whom one could label as ‘‘Homosexual’’.There are many who find this distinction as fallacious .There are many who would agree with Coptic Christian, that** ‘‘Homosexual’’ is indeed an aceptance of a life style based in sexual perversion **,just as ‘‘Swinger’’ or ‘‘Playboy’’ are life styles based on perversion of Gods natural law which has ordained sexual expression to be limited to the confines of marriage.

Dickie,

If you are going to reference me…please get this correct

Homosexual is a heterosexual with same sex thoughts

Homosexual with same sex thoughts that acts out those thoughts and accepts the acts may call themselves “gay”

Gay is the equivalent of accepting that one is homosexual and there is no alternative other than acting out…

 

[Dickie_Bush]

Coptic Christian;Please excuse me for my misunderstanding.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota Roberts;It would seem to me ,that you have bought into the notion that there exists a separate class of individuals whom one could label as ‘‘Homosexual’’.There are many who find this distinction as fallacious .There are many who would agree with Coptic Christian, that ‘‘Homosexual’’ is indeed an aceptance of a life style based in sexual perversion ,just as ‘‘Swinger’’ or ‘‘Playboy’’ are life styles based on perversion of Gods natural law which has ordained sexual expression to be limited to the confines of marriage.

I at no point claimed they were a different class.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Life, are you saying that two people should not be in a relationship if, at some point in the uncertain future, a sin (sexual or otherwise) may occur in it? If that’s the case, then I’m not sure that anyone should be in any relationship at all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Of course this is absurd.

No one is encouraging a man and woman to live in a relationship when they are not married because sin may occur. It would be the near occasion of sin and sin may occur. This would of course be Mortal sin and to confess this the participants would need to examine and form their conscience to not sin this sin again. This would cause some thinking about the notion of living together, we would hope.

Now two heterosexual men with same sex thoughts or two gay men that act out their thoughts to live together in a relationship could never be married. Sin may occur and that sin may be Mortal. Sodomy would be considered Mortal sin even if this is in a committed relationship because the notion that two men can be in a sodomizing relaionship and not sin is nonsense. This would have to be confessed and some serious examination of conscience and formation of conscience should be done with recognition that something needs to be done to avoid this absurdity.

No one is suggesting that sin is the reason someone should not be in a relationship…we are examing a partiuclar kind of sin, sin that is Mortal and in particular sexual sin.,…and in this case the OP has proposed the near occasion of sin of Sodomy…OK…