When Homosexuals love eachother

[on_the_hill]

Homosexuality is a conscious choice people make, just as being “straight” is a conscious
choice.

To say that my being heterosexual was a conscious decision on my part is ludicrous. I didn’t decide to be straight. There wasn’t a moment in my life where I looked at both males and females and decided, “I pick that one, the female.”

There wasn’t a moment in my life when I thought, “God wants me to be straight, therefore I will be straight so as to avoid sin and God’s wrath.”

 

[ignatius777]

To say that my being heterosexual was a conscious decision on my part is ludicrous. I didn’t decide to be straight. There wasn’t a moment in my life where I looked at both males and females and decided, “I pick that one, the female.”

There wasn’t a moment in my life when I thought, “God wants me to be straight, therefore I will be straight so as to avoid sin and God’s wrath.”

Do you believe sexual preference is mutable?

 

[on_the_hill]

Do you believe sexual preference is mutable?

Hmm…I’m not entirely sure one way or the other. I don’t think homosexuality among men is mutable, mostly because I’ve never met a man who started out one way then went the other. I haven’t known many gay men to know for sure, but those that I’ve known always said they were interested in males their whole lives.

However, I’ve known two or three women who started out straight and then switched over to lesbian lifestyles. One was even engaged to be married to a man at one point. Maybe they always were gay but tried to be straight?

But my own ‘sexual expression’ stands pat. I was never, ever romantically or sexually attracted to or interested in males. I’ve liked girls from my earliest memories.

 

[LoveMorrissey]

I firmly believe that God loves all his Children and I also believe that homosexuality is a legitimate form of love. We live in the 21st century and Pope Francis is proving that we as a church can remain strong defenders of the faith but at the same time modernise.

 

[ignatius777]

Hmm…I’m not entirely sure one way or the other. I don’t think homosexuality among men is mutable, mostly because I’ve never met a man who started out one way then went the other. I haven’t known many gay men to know for sure, but those that I’ve known always said they were interested in males their whole lives.

However, I’ve known two or three women who started out straight and then switched over to lesbian lifestyles. One was even engaged to be married to a man at one point. Maybe they always were gay but tried to be straight?

But my own ‘sexual expression’ stands pat. I was never, ever romantically or sexually attracted to or interested in males. I’ve liked girls from my earliest memories.

Its interesting you noticed mutability of sexual preference in women as I too have known 2 women who were gay but eventually got married and were very happy. I think the anecdotal evidence we have is enough t suggest that sexual preference can be mutable. It seems unreasonable to think that no man ever has changed from one to the other.

 

[davidv]

I firmly believe that God loves all his Children and I also believe that homosexuality is a legitimate form of love. We live in the 21st century and Pope Francis is proving that we as a church can remain strong defenders of the faith but at the same time modernise.

If by homosexuality you mean sexual intimacy, do you have any legitimate Church teaching that supports this opinion?

In contrast, I can find many that denounce this immoral sex as an grave offense against God.

 

[Rau]

I firmly believe that God loves all his Children and I also believe that homosexuality is a legitimate form of love. We live in the 21st century and Pope Francis is proving that we as a church can remain strong defenders of the faith but at the same time modernise.

I hope all love is “legitimate”. But how do you feel about 2 men having a sexual relationship? Do you think the Pope is just fine with that?

 

[SavannahGal]

When such an absurdity is proposed, it ought to be dismissed, and has been dismissed throughout history up to the present time.

Let’s consider what else has been dismissed throughout history up to the present time: namely, tolerance & compassion for gay people, decriminalization of homosexuality, etc.

The truth is that in considering homosexuality “throughout history,” it is only relatively recently that we’ve even considered treating gay people with anything other than complete disdain. It wasn’t until 1986 with “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” that the Church first condemned “violent malice” against homosexual persons. This notion of treating homosexuals with “compassion” is only decades old, yet we tend to act as though we’ve always treated gay people compassionately as a society and as a Church. We haven’t. Not even close.

Even in the United States, at one time homosexuality was punishable by death. And I certainly can’t be the only one that remembers the McCarthy era when witch hunts not only targeted suspected communists, but also homosexuals. Many people’s lives were destroyed. If when it comes to homosexuality and marriage, we’re going to place so much value on history and tradition, we ought to consider all of that history, not just that which is convenient.

 

[frobert]

Some French homosexuals who marched in Paris in favor of traditional marriage would disagree with you.

And this adopted orphan also disagrees:
“We hear people say, ‘living with a gay couple is better than staying in an orphanage.’ Hear what I say about such an assertion: That statement reeks of dishonesty. There are tens of thousands of hetero couples waiting to adopt us. They say: ‘a gay couple is better than nothing.’ That is shocking. That is homophobia! “The best thing for a child is to have a mum and dad. I will not cease to repeat it. To say that an orphan, because it is in an orphanage, does not deserve to have any mother, or does not deserve to have any father, that is cruel! It is unjust! It is a denial of equality!..”
Source: newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5455

your quote is from a blantantly politically biased Australian news rag. If there are tes of thousands of mon and dad couples anxiously waiting to adopt then why are there so many orphens going unadopted?

Around the world, there are an estimated 153 million orphans who have lost one parent. There are 17,900,000 orphans who have lost both parents and are living in orphanages or on the streets and lack the care and attention required for healthy development. These children are at risk for disease, malnutrition, and death.

Source: ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=43

 

[Rau]

Let’s consider what else has been dismissed throughout history up to the present time: namely, tolerance & compassion for gay people, decriminalization of homosexuality, etc.

The truth is that in considering homosexuality “throughout history,” it is only relatively recently that we’ve even considered treating gay people with anything other than complete disdain. It wasn’t until 1986 with “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” that the Church first condemned “violent malice” against homosexual persons. This notion of treating homosexuals with “compassion” is only decades old, yet we tend to act as though we’ve always treated gay people compassionately as a society and as a Church. We haven’t. Not even close.

Even in the United States, at one time homosexuality was punishable by death. And I certainly can’t be the only one that remembers the McCarthy era when witch hunts not only targeted suspected communists, but also homosexuals. Many people’s lives were destroyed. If when it comes to homosexuality and marriage, we’re going to place so much value on history and tradition, we ought to consider all of that history, not just that which is convenient.

Would any of this history lead you to believe that a sexual relationship between 2 men is good?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Hi guys! Now as an avid listener of Catholic Radio, I’ve heard some good responses to this topic many times, but it never hurts to be reminded again.

In a long discussion with a few of my friends the other day (one agnostic, one a sort of cafeteria Catholic, and one a protestant who didn’t say all that much), they asked me why I don’t think homosexual acts are moral. I explained, to the best of my ability, that I believe God created sex to be done within marriage, that you can see this in the way we are designed (the pieces “fit” lol), and that it is to be a reflection of love so great that another human being can come out of it.

Now, later on in the conversation, the cafeteria Catholic mentioned that he thinks homosexual marriage is fine, that he knows a lot of homosexual couples that are just as in love and just as happy as he is in their relationships. Unfortunetely, we were all throwing out so many beliefs that I didn’t get a chance to object to that.

This is a common objection to the Church’s teachings on sex, so how would one refute it? Keep in mind, an agnostic was present, so if I would have said anything, I probably might have referred to natural law stuff to the best of my ability rather than the Bible.

For your agnostic pal: (keep religion out of the discussion)

The purpose of sexual relations is reproduction. Engaging in sexual relations in any other way is unnatural, weird and immoral (if you have morals). Any variation of natural sexual activity is nothing more than masturbation. A good agnostic can engage in normal sexual relations (man and woman) and prevent reproduction (contraception) but Catholics can’t do that.

Your cafeteria Catholic friend can think anything he wants but should be aware of the Church’s teaching about homosexuality and the definition of marriage. Inform him…and save his soul.

For your protestant friend, simply toss out some of the many Bible passages condemning homosexuality. Whatever the Bible says should be acceptable to him. If he is unsure of the interpretation, make sure you give the Catholic interpretation. Remember, we wrote the Bible…we know what it means.

Most people do not need an organized religion or a Magisterium to tell them that homosexual acts are not normal or natural. Those who choose to engage in such activity are frustrating the laws of nature. Since society depends on reproduction to continue as a society…homosexual activity should not be acceptable.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Hi guys! Now as an avid listener of Catholic Radio, I’ve heard some good responses to this topic many times, but it never hurts to be reminded again.

In a long discussion with a few of my friends the other day (one agnostic, one a sort of cafeteria Catholic, and one a protestant who didn’t say all that much), they asked me why I don’t think homosexual acts are moral. I explained, to the best of my ability, that I believe God created sex to be done within marriage, that you can see this in the way we are designed (the pieces “fit” lol), and that it is to be a reflection of love so great that another human being can come out of it.

Now, later on in the conversation, the cafeteria Catholic mentioned that he thinks homosexual marriage is fine, that he knows a lot of homosexual couples that are just as in love and just as happy as he is in their relationships. Unfortunetely, we were all throwing out so many beliefs that I didn’t get a chance to object to that.

This is a common objection to the Church’s teachings on sex, so how would one refute it? Keep in mind, an agnostic was present, so if I would have said anything, I probably might have referred to natural law stuff to the best of my ability rather than the Bible.

Catholicism has taught that the highest forms of love are completely obtainable and expressible without sex so the “but they love each other” argument is worthless.

Hmm…I’m not entirely sure one way or the other. I don’t think homosexuality among men is mutable, mostly because I’ve never met a man who started out one way then went the other. I haven’t known many gay men to know for sure, but those that I’ve known always said they were interested in males their whole lives.

However, I’ve known two or three women who started out straight and then switched over to lesbian lifestyles. One was even engaged to be married to a man at one point. Maybe they always were gay but tried to be straight?

But my own ‘sexual expression’ stands pat. I was never, ever romantically or sexually attracted to or interested in males. I’ve liked girls from my earliest memories.

What do you mean by started out straight? Do you mean exclusively dating men or that they were only attracted to men? They may have been confused about how they felt about men because they may have felt that their dissatisfaction with men was normal given the degree to which heterosexual women complain about men.

I firmly believe that God loves all his Children and I also believe that homosexuality is a legitimate form of love. We live in the 21st century and Pope Francis is proving that we as a church can remain strong defenders of the faith but at the same time modernise.

Same sex love can be perfectly legitimate however sexual expression of it is never morally legitimate.

Its interesting you noticed mutability of sexual preference in women as I too have known 2 women who were gay but eventually got married and were very happy. I think the anecdotal evidence we have is enough t suggest that sexual preference can be mutable. It seems unreasonable to think that no man ever has changed from one to the other.

Women have been marrying men since time immemorial for reasons other than sexual attraction so the fact that they would up married doesn’t mean much of anything about women’s sexuality.

Let’s consider what else has been dismissed throughout history up to the present time: namely, tolerance & compassion for gay people, decriminalization of homosexuality, etc.

The truth is that in considering homosexuality “throughout history,” it is only relatively recently that we’ve even considered treating gay people with anything other than complete disdain. It wasn’t until 1986 with “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” that the Church first condemned “violent malice” against homosexual persons. This notion of treating homosexuals with “compassion” is only decades old, yet we tend to act as though we’ve always treated gay people compassionately as a society and as a Church. We haven’t. Not even close.

Even in the United States, at one time homosexuality was punishable by death. And I certainly can’t be the only one that remembers the McCarthy era when witch hunts not only targeted suspected communists, but also homosexuals. Many people’s lives were destroyed. If when it comes to homosexuality and marriage, we’re going to place so much value on history and tradition, we ought to consider all of that history, not just that which is convenient.

I would like to point out that in the UK the Catholic Church started supporting decriminalization in the 1950s which I think qualifies as treating them with compassion.

your quote is from a blantantly politically biased Australian news rag. If there are tes of thousands of mon and dad couples anxiously waiting to adopt then why are there so many orphens going unadopted?

Around the world, there are an estimated 153 million orphans who have lost one parent. There are 17,900,000 orphans who have lost both parents and are living in orphanages or on the streets and lack the care and attention required for healthy development. These children are at risk for disease, malnutrition, and death.

Source: ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=43

International adoption is a pain to do, takes months or years and tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[on_the_hill]

What do you mean by started out straight? Do you mean exclusively dating men or that they were only attracted to men? They may have been confused about how they felt about men because they may have felt that their dissatisfaction with men was normal given the degree to which heterosexual women complain about men.

They were dating men and then for various reasons they switched to women.

I don’t know why it worked out the way it did. One of them felt she wasn’t attractive enough to ‘compete’ for the guys she was interested in and didn’t want to be alone, so she started dating women. I don’t know whether or not that’s the full truth, but that’s her story. And now she’s legally “married.”

 

[frobert]

International adoption is a pain to do, takes months or years and tens of thousands of dollars.

You forgetting that many countries besides the US have legal gay marriage.

BTW international adoption may be a pain but their are many agencies that help ease the pain.

 

[JimG]

Let’s consider what else has been dismissed throughout history up to the present time: namely, tolerance & compassion for gay people, decriminalization of homosexuality, etc.

The truth is that in considering homosexuality “throughout history,” it is only relatively recently that we’ve even considered treating gay people with anything other than complete disdain. It wasn’t until 1986 with “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” that the Church first condemned “violent malice” against homosexual persons. This notion of treating homosexuals with “compassion” is only decades old, yet we tend to act as though we’ve always treated gay people compassionately as a society and as a Church. We haven’t. Not even close.

Even in the United States, at one time homosexuality was punishable by death. And I certainly can’t be the only one that remembers the McCarthy era when witch hunts not only targeted suspected communists, but also homosexuals. Many people’s lives were destroyed. If when it comes to homosexuality and marriage, we’re going to place so much value on history and tradition, we ought to consider all of that history, not just that which is convenient.

No, it’s not true that that there was never tolerance for same sex sexual activity. Many societies had no problem whatever with sexual activities between person of the same sex. But those societies, while accepting homosexual relations, still viewed same sex marriage as an absurdity. Or rather, they never even considered such an idea at all, since the primary requirement for marriage has always been sexual complementarity. Persons of the same sex were not and are not ‘marriage material’ because they are not capable of the marital act. That was just common sense.

Societies had no particular interest in sexual activities between same sex persons. But they did have an interest in marriage because it ensured the continuance of civilization.

In fact, the whole idea of sexual orientation was not invented until recently. It was always recognized that there are men and there are women. People might also engage in various kinds of sexual activities with one or both sexes. But ‘orientation?’ That’s just a social construct based on feelings. Male and female are the only kinds of humans there are, from a sexual standpoint.

 

[frobert]

In fact, the whole idea of sexual orientation was not invented until recently. It was always recognized that there are men and there are women. People might also engage in various kinds of sexual activities with one or both sexes. But ‘orientation?’ That’s just a social construct based on feelings. Male and female are the only kinds of humans there are, from a sexual standpoint.

Do you have any data or other evidence to back up your opinion that sexual orientation is based solely on feelings?

 

[Rau]

Do you have any data or other evidence to back up your opinion that sexual orientation is based solely on feelings?

I think he means “as distinct from the body”.

 

[JimG]

Do you have any data or other evidence to back up your opinion that sexual orientation is based solely on feelings?

It is apparent from human nature and human anthropology and human biology and anatomy that human beings come in only two sexes: male and female. When one speaks of ‘orientation’ one is speaking of psychology not biology or anatomy. And personal feelings, tendencies, emotions, are the basis of psychology. There are two sexes–man and woman. As I said before, “orientation” is a rather recent social construct.

 

[JimG]

Two articles that may shed light on the matter.

Gay Catholics and an Adequate Anthropology

Is Gay Just Another Adjective?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

No, it’s not true that that there was never tolerance for same sex sexual activity. Many societies had no problem whatever with sexual activities between person of the same sex. But those societies, while accepting homosexual relations, still viewed same sex marriage as an absurdity. Or rather, they never even considered such an idea at all, since the primary requirement for marriage has always been sexual complementarity. Persons of the same sex were not and are not ‘marriage material’ because they are not capable of the marital act. That was just common sense.

Societies had no particular interest in sexual activities between same sex persons. But they did have an interest in marriage because it ensured the continuance of civilization.

In fact, the whole idea of sexual orientation was not invented until recently. It was always recognized that there are men and there are women. People might also engage in various kinds of sexual activities with one or both sexes. But ‘orientation?’ That’s just a social construct based on feelings. Male and female are the only kinds of humans there are, from a sexual standpoint.

As long as marriage is primarily about children that argument works, once it devolves into being about love then there is no longer much reason to deny gay couples marriage because they too can love each other.

Two articles that may shed light on the matter.

Gay Catholics and an Adequate Anthropology

Is Gay Just Another Adjective?

The first link misunderstood several basic things such as that they think Ms. Tushnet is ontologizing sexuality which is contrary to the truth which gravely detracts from the article.