S
SMGS127
Guest
Thank you! I look forward to your posts on the topic.
And God bless you and your family
- Status
And God bless you and your family
B
Bookcat
Guest
No because such kissing (chaste boyfriend /girlfriend variety) is something that can be fitting for them and certainly for married couples.
Such kinds of relationships and thus that kind of signs of affection are not for those of the same gender.
Rather:
Disinterested friendships -not relationships of a romantic nature (and avoiding near occasions of such…)
Friendships – without “romantic” overtones. Not “couples”.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV
Kissing in a chaste and modest way like a chaste boyfriend and girlfriend - is what I am going to do with my male friend when we go to the movies! We are going to say - hey how are you -etc.
But my wife I am going to kiss.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Sorry for my terseness - have been limited on time…and now got to run.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I’m sorry; I guess we just disagree on the meaning of the phrases. I see no impediment to Christian perfection by kissing or making out in a chaste manner. I think our current society just has corrupted the concept of kissing so badly.
In Victorian England, married women had things specifically for marriage (sex, rearing children) and then they had tons of physical intimacy (including, yes, making out) with their close female friends to get the needed intimacy. And while THAT arrangement would likely be impossible due to the commitments one makes to one’s spouse, it shows a historical lack of connection between passionate kissing and marriage/sexual interest that has really only shown itself in the last century.
R
Rau
Guest
Does your self-control prevent passionate making-out leading to sex, or does it simply not lead you in that direction? Are you tempted to progress towards sexual stimulation and fulfilment?
S
SMGS127
Guest
Maybe I’m weird? Everyone here seems to have such a different viewpoint on these things.
But my answer would be that my emotional/physical combined attraction alone makes me want to sleep with certain women (which I, of course, exercise self control over on a daily basis anyway). What I am saying is that making out, physical contact, massaging, cuddling, etc. does not intensify it in any way. Making out with a girl would no more tempt me to progress to sex than merely being in a car with a girl who’s mutually attracted to me.
This is why it’s been so confusing to me when people talk about things “leading” to other things. As I said, maybe lesbian relationships evolve so fast that you don’t really have “escalation.” But every action is legitimately separate. My attraction makes me want to make out with my girlfriend, my attraction makes me want to hang out with my girlfriend, my attraction makes me want to sleep with my girlfriend. But all 3 actions are separate, and none of them make me more or less likely to do any of the others. I have as much self control over whether to have sex with a girl 6 months into a relationship as I do the day the relationship starts, and making out is its own action, with its own emotional benefits and bonding experience.
As I said, making out with a girl who has a mutual attraction with me no more “leads” me to sex than hanging out with her or talking to her. My attraction goes from zero to sixty pretty quick after I meet a girl (I’m a very good judge of what kind of girls I get along with and enjoy dating). After that point, nothing I do physically will ever decrease or increase that, and I have a very high degree of self control with what I do in a relationship. My last girlfriend and I began dating 48 hours after we met, for example [although that was helped by the fact that we talked literally the entirety of both days; I’m talking morning to night, like 25+ hours between the two days]. As for an example regarding sex, one of my ex-girlfriends wasn’t comfortable with it, and we never had it while we dated. We just expressed our relationship through other means. There would legitimately be no risk for me of having sex now that I’m Catholic and know the spiritual consequences of it.
So I don’t know; as I said, maybe I’m really weird with my attractions. But I don’t understand how making out in any way ties in with lust, period. I made out with a person, not a sex object. And I never did anything with any girlfriend that we weren’t both comfortable with either.
I hope this helps you understand. If it doesn’t, feel free to ask more questions if you want.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
Yes, I realize that. I just wanted to note that this isn’t the only place such relationships are discussed- there is a whole community of romantic asexuals, and they don’t seem to see any contradiction in having a romantic nonsexual relationship. So you’re definitely not the only person who believes that romance and sex don’t necessarily have to go together. I’ve been thinking about it lately in that context, and your question really reminds me of the sorts of discussions that happen on those forums.
You know, I don’t actually know. The idea that non-marital exclusive relationships are immoral might be another assumption we need to challenge, until we can find some evidence on that front. It seems suspect, but I don’t think that’s a very good reason not to investigate the possibility. If it is wrong, then we should be able to find a reason.
At the moment, I really don’t know. I agree with the other posters that “making out” seems inherently sexual (not that it is, just that that’s how I think of it), but apart from that, I really don’t know why the actions you suggest wouldn’t be acceptable. I’m hesitant to say that they are acceptable, but I can’t think of a good reason why they wouldn’t be.Thank you Kama. I am looking for reasons WHY exclusivity is immoral, WHY romantic bonds are immoral. I find it amazing that people can prepare a thesis defense online defending the Church’s teachings on sex, abortion, and contraception, but when an issue like this is brought up, the response is “you should know why.” Well if it’s so obvious, explain it then! Because I see literally no reason why anything I brought up is immoral, and so far, 90% of the responses against my suggestion have brought up near occasions of sin and scandal. And if those are the only reasons against it, then what I am suggesting becomes perfectly licit, as I would not be putting myself at risk for either
B
Bookcat
Guest
(other that the cultural kiss on the cheek sort of thing …in non near occasion…)
Between two persons of the same gender such would be contrary not only to Christian perfection but to Chastity. Thus to Christian life.
It is not something that can be engage in. There are yes “spiritual consequences” to such.
That is part of the answer you came here seeking. Such yes is sinful.
And two persons of the same gender - are not to “be a couple” or “date” etc…not be “girlfriends” in any kind of couple sense.
Rather what is needed in the lives of those who struggle with such temptations is disinterested friendship and chastity etc as the Catechism notes.
In such a path - in such* friendships* there can be life. And especially Christian life when there is prayer, asceticism, chastity and other virtues and the Sacraments etc.
Let us as Christians always choose the way of true life.
B
Bookcat
Guest
(other that the cultural kiss on the cheek sort of thing …in non near occasion…)
Between two persons of the same gender such would be contrary not only to Christian perfection but to Chastity. Thus to Christian life.
It is not something that can be engage in. There are yes “spiritual consequences” to such.
That is part of the answer you came here seeking. Such yes is sinful.
And two persons of the same gender - are not to “be a couple” or “date” etc…not be “girlfriends” in any kind of couple sense.
Rather what is needed in the lives of those who struggle with such temptations is disinterested friendship and chastity etc as the Catechism notes.
In such a path - in such* friendships* there can be life. And especially Christian life when there is prayer, asceticism, chastity and other virtues and the Sacraments etc.
Let us as Christians always choose the way of true life.
R
Rau
Guest
I think the debate is calling for the rationale to be articulated and explained. Repetition does not contribute further.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Catholic Answers Staff Apologist:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862
B
Bookcat
Guest
S
SMGS127
Guest
I’m not talking about marriage
.Obviously I can’t get married to another girl. I’m not looking to have a marriage or even a marriage-like relationship. I’m just looking to be able to have someone who commits herself to providing a very close exclusive relationship with me and me with her, and for us both to be able to provide emotional intimacy. None of this is forbidden in the Church, as far as I can tell.
Why would you bring in same-sex “marriage” into this conversation?
S
SMGS127
Guest
This is your opinion Bookcat. But you have given no rationale or reason behind it, other than suggesting I would be putting myself in a near occasion of sin.
Again, as far as I can tell, there is no Church teaching that forbids oneself [if single and a member of the laity] from committing non-sexual acts of intimacy with a member of the same sex that bear no lust in any way, shape, or form.
R
Rau
Guest
Would you and girlfriend ever view the arrangement as permanent?I’m not talking about marriage
Obviously I can’t get married to another girl. I’m not looking to have a marriage or even a marriage-like relationship. I’m just looking to be able to have someone who commits herself to providing a very close exclusive relationship with me and me with her, and for us both to be able to provide emotional intimacy. None of this is forbidden in the Church, as far as I can tell.
Why would you bring in same-sex “marriage” into this conversation?
Would you consider both adopting a child?
S
SMGS127
Guest
The adoption question is easy. I highly doubt the Church would allow two women to adopt together. In fact, would be intensely surprised if it ever happened. So I think that would be a clear no. It wouldn’t be right for the child to not have a father anyway.
Would we see it as permanent eventually?
…that’s more tricky. I view the potential relationship as somewhat of a commitment, so I could see it being made into a permanent commitment as well. But again, this would be more in line with the licit usage of civil unions; e.g. the ability to designate the person you trust most in the world with your medical and legal authority, plus inheritance and joint financial issues. But it still wouldn’t be like a marriage. It wouldn’t be designed to raise (or bear) children, obviously. It would just be…a way to have someone to help you power through life. A power partner, if you will. Nothing physically illicit happening, but having such an emotional connection with someone that you would trust them with your entire life if it came down to it and would do anything for them.
Personally, I see this as a licit expression of one’s disordered physical attractions. Turn it into something good and moral. Help lean on each other to keep going in life and help keep each other moral. Would it really be so much of a problem if a relationship like that is permanent?
R
Rau
Guest
You experience a desire to sleep with certain women. What exactly does “sleep with” mean to you? In the common vernacular, it means have sex. Do **you **mean:Maybe I’m weird? Everyone here seems to have such a different viewpoint on these things.
But my answer would be that my emotional/physical combined attraction alone makes me want to sleep with certain women (which I, of course, exercise self control over on a daily basis anyway). What I am saying is that making out, physical contact, massaging, cuddling, etc. does not intensify it in any way. Making out with a girl would no more tempt me to progress to sex than merely being in a car with a girl who’s mutually attracted to me.
This is why it’s been so confusing to me when people talk about things “leading” to other things. As I said, maybe lesbian relationships evolve so fast that you don’t really have “escalation.” But every action is legitimately separate. My attraction makes me want to make out with my girlfriend, my attraction makes me want to hang out with my girlfriend, my attraction makes me want to sleep with my girlfriend. But all 3 actions are separate, and none of them make me more or less likely to do any of the others. I have as much self control over whether to have sex with a girl 6 months into a relationship as I do the day the relationship starts, and making out is its own action, with its own emotional benefits and bonding experience.
As I said, making out with a girl who has a mutual attraction with me no more “leads” me to sex than hanging out with her or talking to her. My attraction goes from zero to sixty pretty quick after I meet a girl (I’m a very good judge of what kind of girls I get along with and enjoy dating). After that point, nothing I do physically will ever decrease or increase that, and I have a very high degree of self control with what I do in a relationship. My last girlfriend and I began dating 48 hours after we met, for example [although that was helped by the fact that we talked literally the entirety of both days; I’m talking morning to night, like 25+ hours between the two days]. As for an example regarding sex, one of my ex-girlfriends wasn’t comfortable with it, and we never had it while we dated. We just expressed our relationship through other means. There would legitimately be no risk for me of having sex now that I’m Catholic and know the spiritual consequences of it.
So I don’t know; as I said, maybe I’m really weird with my attractions. But I don’t understand how making out in any way ties in with lust, period. I made out with a person, not a sex object. And I never did anything with any girlfriend that we weren’t both comfortable with either.
I hope this helps you understand. If it doesn’t, feel free to ask more questions if you want.
- share the same bed for the purposes of sleeping only;
- share the same bed for the purposes of being close, of intimately touching each other, perhaps naked, and sleep;
You have had a number of girlfriends - I assume some have shown a desire to progress, during “making out” (say, in bed) to more and more intimate touches, until they seek out sexual pleasure/climax. Have you observed this? This, I believe, is the typical response.*
R
Rin
Guest
I think we should remember that before the modern sex craze, it was not uncommon for same-sex friends to be seen as “couples”, to show public displays of affection, to raise children together (in the case of having been “made brothers” by the Church), to proclaim their undying love, and even sleep in the same bed, but presumably in a chaste manner.
All this talk of near occasion of sin (and even scandal - but I’ll stay away from it other than to say people should learn minding their own business) seems to imply that gay people should live like if stranded on an island, with no hope of personal (as opposed to sexual) intimacy. The problem is that this increases sexual temptation, instead of lowering it. I see nothing wrong with two members of the same sex living together, being personally intimate, and, actually, even adopting children together - there are many children in need, and no one will ever convince me it’s somehow better for a child to live in an orphanage than together with two adoptive parents of the same sex.
This has been done in the Church earlier; it is ancient practice and very traditional. It is inaccurate to use adelphopoiesis as a precedent for gay marriage, but it is a precedent for same-sex, chaste “families”. If such an alternative was more culturally accepted among Catholics, I think being gay would be a much lighter cross to bear.
As to details of what’s okay and not - couples would be responsible to make their own boundaries - it’s impossible to tell people whether kissing is okay or not. It depends on the people involved. I don’t necessarily see it as a problem - if it was, it would be sinful for unmarried heterosexual couples as well.
All this talk of near occasion of sin (and even scandal - but I’ll stay away from it other than to say people should learn minding their own business) seems to imply that gay people should live like if stranded on an island, with no hope of personal (as opposed to sexual) intimacy. The problem is that this increases sexual temptation, instead of lowering it. I see nothing wrong with two members of the same sex living together, being personally intimate, and, actually, even adopting children together - there are many children in need, and no one will ever convince me it’s somehow better for a child to live in an orphanage than together with two adoptive parents of the same sex.
This has been done in the Church earlier; it is ancient practice and very traditional. It is inaccurate to use adelphopoiesis as a precedent for gay marriage, but it is a precedent for same-sex, chaste “families”. If such an alternative was more culturally accepted among Catholics, I think being gay would be a much lighter cross to bear.
As to details of what’s okay and not - couples would be responsible to make their own boundaries - it’s impossible to tell people whether kissing is okay or not. It depends on the people involved. I don’t necessarily see it as a problem - if it was, it would be sinful for unmarried heterosexual couples as well.
- Status