Your message to homosexuals about their prospects for love and companionship

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I think the poster was referring to the global health risks of homosexual behavior, not simply the STD risks to which you appear to be referring. It’s a valid point. Whether one believes these health consequences arise from the societal opprobrium often associated with public identification as same-sex attracted (which would be a difficult claim to make) or from the inherently disordered nature of same-sex relationships, the risks to health and happiness are there and should not be breezily discounted.

The smoking and drinking generally starts before they come out, often before they even come out to themselves, combine the smoking and drinking with lacking the pathological desire of most women to be unhealthily thin and you quite easily get higher rates of heart disease. Several of the risk factors for lesbians also affect celibate women, others deriving from discrimination.

Usually when people refer to “dangerous (health wise) area” they are referring to gay men and AIDS, since lesbians have lower rates of HIV/AIDS than heterosexual women we should warn WSM about the dangers of their sexual lifestyle.

On the question raised by the OP, I would suggest that one recognize that there are many deeply-felt forms of attraction that are still inherently wrong, demeaning to the human spirit (of all parties concerned), and should be resisted. One may feel that one may only achieve happiness and fulfillment with a partner who is already married to another person, or to a person who has clearly indicated disinterest, or to someone who is sociopathic, or to someone who is too young, or to someone whose lifestyle choices or self-destructive behavior (drug use, alcoholism, cruelty to children) render them unsuitable, and one may further feel that only such a partner offers the chance for happiness. One should still resist such urges and if no other appropriate partner is available, choose to live a celibate life.

Homosexuality is objectively disordered only insofar as it is a desire for sex with someone of the same sex.

It is a romantic but ultimately juvenile belief, fostered by today’s popular culture, that sexual or simply romantic attraction is an irresistible pull that must be followed for one to achieve fulfillment.

By that standard most of humanity is juvenile although I don’t necessarily disagree.

 

[edwest2]

I think the poster was referring to the global health risks of homosexual behavior, not simply the STD risks to which you appear to be referring. It’s a valid point. Whether one believes these health consequences arise from the societal opprobrium often associated with public identification as same-sex attracted (which would be a difficult claim to make) or from the inherently disordered nature of same-sex relationships, the risks to health and happiness are there and should not be breezily discounted.

On the question raised by the OP, I would suggest that one recognize that there are many deeply-felt forms of attraction that are still inherently wrong, demeaning to the human spirit (of all parties concerned), and should be resisted. One may feel that one may only achieve happiness and fulfillment with a partner who is already married to another person, or to a person who has clearly indicated disinterest, or to someone who is sociopathic, or to someone who is too young, or to someone whose lifestyle choices or self-destructive behavior (drug use, alcoholism, cruelty to children) render them unsuitable, and one may further feel that only such a partner offers the chance for happiness. One should still resist such urges and if no other appropriate partner is available, choose to live a celibate life.

It is a romantic but ultimately juvenile belief, fostered by today’s popular culture, that sexual or simply romantic attraction is an irresistible pull that must be followed for one to achieve fulfillment.

The type of fulfillment being marketed by the media is primarily sexual. Celebrities, especially female, are primarily presented as sex objects to be lusted after, not as whole human beings. Constantly reinforcing the idea that sexual urges, especially among the young, are just too irresistible to bear goes right along with that. The false belief that was spread that your teenager was more likely to have sex than not meant even parents were encouraged to get their daughters on The Pill and for young men to not think twice about using condoms, which leads into some homosexuals believing the same things are out of their control as well.

Even for those who do not believe what the Church tells us, homosexual activity carries risks as well.

Peace,
Ed

 

[on_the_hill]

I was originally going to make a poll, but set choices as responses can be very inaccurate and limiting. So instead, this is completely open-ended: When talking with persons with same-sex attraction, how do you/would you respond to their concerns about their prospects for love and companionship?

Thanks, I appreciate all thoughts.

I got very little advice from my dad, particularly when it came to relationships. The one bit I remember was advice that he got from *his *dad. “I never give advice about who to marry or which house to buy.”

But. If someone with SSA (or is gay–I don’t understand why we differentiate or what the difference is) were to ask me, I suppose I’d say, with sincerity, “I hope you find what you’re looking for. Don’t set your standards too high, and keep an open mind and heart.”

No one ever asks me, anyway. Straight or gay.

 

[edwest2]

I got very little advice from my dad, particularly when it came to relationships. The one bit I remember was advice that he got from *his *dad. “I never give advice about who to marry or which house to buy.”

But. If someone with SSA (or is gay–I don’t understand why we differentiate or what the difference is) were to ask me, I suppose I’d say, with sincerity, “I hope you find what you’re looking for. Don’t set your standards too high, and keep an open mind and heart.”

No one ever asks me, anyway. Straight or gay.

The OP’s question is very important in a time when ‘gay marriage’ is being called a good thing. We should understand what the Church teaches and why. The truth is the truth. No, no one asks the real me my permission, but regarding specific issues/situations, we should not be indifferent.

Best,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

I was originally going to make a poll, but set choices as responses can be very inaccurate and limiting. So instead, this is completely open-ended: When talking with persons with same-sex attraction, how do you/would you respond to their concerns about their prospects for love and companionship?

Thanks, I appreciate all thoughts.

That one can have love and companionship without engaging in sinful behavior. For example:

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=94

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The smoking and drinking generally starts before they come out, often before they even come out to themselves, combine the smoking and drinking with lacking the pathological desire of most women to be unhealthily thin and you quite easily get higher rates of heart disease. Several of the risk factors for lesbians also affect celibate women, others deriving from discrimination.

Usually when people refer to “dangerous (health wise) area” they are referring to gay men and AIDS, since lesbians have lower rates of HIV/AIDS than heterosexual women we should warn WSM about the dangers of their sexual lifestyle.

Why do I get the impression that you are “soft peddling” this disorder? Are you encouraging lesbian behavior?

Homosexuality is objectively disordered only insofar as it is a desire for sex with someone of the same sex.

But when the desire becomes action it is an act of grave depravity. This action is contrary to the natural law. It closes the sexual act to the gift of life. This depraved behavior does not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can it be approved.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Given that lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex for women:

If a woman’s concept of “love and companionship” includes sex with men…I would say that they are entering a dangerous (health wise) area…and better re-evaluate their idea of love and/or companionship.

Interesting…so who needs men…right?

Please explain…womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/lesbian-bisexual-health.html

You are totally missing the point.

Why do I get the impression that you are “soft peddling” this disorder? Are you encouraging lesbian behavior?

No, she isn’t. I believe she is suggesting not using irrelevant health scares to make your point.

But when the desire becomes action it is an act of grave depravity. This action is contrary to the natural law. It closes the sexual act to the gift of life. This depraved behavior does not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can it be approved.

She didn’t say anything to the contrary.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Why do I get the impression that you are “soft peddling” this disorder? Are you encouraging lesbian behavior?

No, she isn’t. I believe she is suggesting not using irrelevant health scares to make your point.

But when the desire becomes action it is an act of grave depravity. This action is contrary to the natural law. It closes the sexual act to the gift of life. This depraved behavior does not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can it be approved.

She didn’t say anything to the contrary.

Bruised Reed would be correct.

 

[on_the_hill]

Is it correct to use the words depravity and depraved? Are they synonymous with gravely disordered or disordered?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No, she isn’t. I believe she is suggesting not using irrelevant health scares to make your point.

My link to the Office on Women’s Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hardly an irrelevant and scary web site. It points out important health issues that lesbians and bisexual women should discuss with their health care professionals. It also states that while some STIs are less likely to be passed from woman to woman through sex (such as HIV)…other STIs are far more common among lesbians and bisexual women and may be passed easily from woman to woman (such as bacterial vaginosis).

Instead of recognizing the risks, Joie wants to minimize or reject them.

She didn’t say anything to the contrary.

That’s right…she didn’t say anything to the contrary. It was what she left out. I simply completed her definition of homosexuality.

 

[Havard]

If someone with SSA (or is gay–I don’t understand why we differentiate or what the difference is)

Oh about that… Just to clarify then, some people on CAF refer to SSA as having the orientation, whereas they often say gay to specifically refer to folks who pursue romantic relationships with members of the same sex. People with SSA would then be a broader distinction, as its also comprised of people who may be chaste.

 

[Rau]

My link to the Office on Women’s Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hardly an irrelevant and scary web site. It points out important health issues that lesbians and bisexual women should discuss with their health care professionals. It also states that while some STIs are less likely to be passed from woman to woman through sex (such as HIV)…other STIs are far more common among lesbians and bisexual women and may be passed easily from woman to woman (such as bacterial vaginosis).

Actually, looking at the site, lesbians did not seem to be at particular health risks from their sexual activity. It seems to be multiple sex partners that present a special danger - for anybody, actually. [Contrasting same sex with opposite sex relationships requires bisexuals to be excluded for obvious reasons]

Some of the risks listed were also risks for single and/or heterosexual women. I think the sight was just trying to be complete.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually, looking at the site, lesbians did not seem to be at particular health risks from their sexual activity. It seems to be multiple sex partners that present a special danger - for anybody, actually. [Contrasting same sex with opposite sex relationships requires bisexuals to be excluded for obvious reasons]

Some of the risks listed were also risks for single and/or heterosexual women. I think the sight was just trying to be complete.

I agree the site was trying to be complete.

But if risks for lesbians are equal to heterosexual women…why separate and distinctive warnings for lesbians. Why not ALL women in general??

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I agree the site was trying to be complete.

But if risks for lesbians are equal to heterosexual women…why separate and distinctive warnings for lesbians. Why not ALL women in general??

Why do they have a separate fact sheet for caregivers?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Why do they have a separate fact sheet for caregivers?

Probably as a public health issue.

 

[Rau]

I agree the site was trying to be complete.

But if risks for lesbians are equal to heterosexual women…why separate and distinctive warnings for lesbians. Why not ALL women in general??

Dunno. Perhaps it follows from a presumption that Lesbians are promiscuous?

 

[1newcatholic]

Dunno. Perhaps it follows from a presumption that Lesbians are promiscuous?

Or perhaps it follows from a presumption that the general public might somehow think that lesbian/gay partnerships were less risky, and the website is emphasizing both to dispel this common myth?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Probably as a public health issue.

I decided to delete my answer because this conversation is way off topic. It’s a good thing to counter misinformation but all of your responses on this thread originated with a negative spin or misunderstanding the poster you are replying to. If you have something constructive and hopeful to add to this thread that would be great.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I have many friends, both gay and straight, and hope all of them find true love, companionship and happiness. As Francis said who am I to judge who another person chooses to be with, and hopefully fall in love with.

That does not mean anything goes or that “free love” is good.

 

[Rau]

Or perhaps it follows from a presumption that the general public might somehow think that lesbian/gay partnerships were less risky, and the website is emphasizing both to dispel this common myth?

I have never heard the idea that gay sex generally is less risky (unless you consider pregnancy a health risk?). I don’t think that view is widely held.

The point in discussion was “lesbian” relationships. Reading the substance of the site - the conclusion one draws is not that lesbian sex is a health risk compared to heterosexual sex.

Rather - Promiscuous sex is more risky than monogamous sex or no sex. Gay men engaging in sodomy is risky. Monogamous lesbian sex…I don’t think this presents special health risks.