Your opinion on homosexual relationships

[Andrea_Day]

Check our the blog “Spiritual Friendship”: spiritualfriendship.org/2013/08/09/celibacy-and-healing/

They have some great articles there about what living out the Church’s teaching regarding chastity actually looks like for people who are sexual minorities. And it’s my favorite blog–the articles are practically never boring!

 

[NM505StKate]

So Peter why aren’t you out stoning homosexual people? That is the Law in the bible. Again Jesus said not one letter was to be changed and he was a devout Jew.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We drive and shape the language that is used by Catholics. We may not be able to control the words of others, but we do control out words. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” certainly isn’t going to go down well we attack the person, not the inclination. When an LGBT person defines themselves as their orientation our response shouldn’t be “well, you are disordered/disgusting/whatever” but “No you are a child of God, and you are more than your temptations”.

The catechism clearly states that it is the inclination that is disordered. Homosexuals are no personally disordered any more than you are for any temptations you have. You don’t have the liberty to claim something that the Church has not claimed.

There are LGBT members of the Church who follow her teachings and remain celibate. Are those LGBT also disordered?

You don’t understand that LGBT people don’t view thier actions as temptations. It’s as natural as breathing remember, and breathing isn’t a temptation.

Sugar coat it all you want any meaningful dialogue will have to address sin, and disorder.

 

[Peter_J]

Check our the blog “Spiritual Friendship”: spiritualfriendship.org/2013/08/09/celibacy-and-healing/

They have some great articles there about what living out the Church’s teaching regarding chastity actually looks like for people who are sexual minorities. And it’s my favorite blog–the articles are practically never boring!

Yes, I’ll check it out. Or rather, I already have. And I note that Wesley Hill, who was discussed on CAF recently, is one of the authors.

Believe me, I have nothing against promoting the idea that a person can be homosexual and live chastely.

 

[Peter_J]

You don’t understand that LGBT people don’t view thier actions as temptations. It’s as natural as breathing remember, and breathing isn’t a temptation.

Sugar coat it all you want any meaningful dialogue will have to address sin, and disorder.

If I refrain from making blanket generalizations about people, does that mean I am sugar-coating something?

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t worry about who can marry who or what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Just curious: is there anything (sexual) that people do “in the privacy of their own bedroom” which you as a Catholic would find wrong/immoral/impermissible?

 

[Peter_J]

Okay cool. Please name me five positive LGBTQA+ people in the media at the moment that any LGBTQA+ youth can have as a role model, please.

How could a person who promotes deceptions about the nature of human beings be a positive role model?

Hi goout. I’m not looking to start a conversation, but just as a heads up, but your post gives the impression that you believe all such persons promote deceptions about the nature of human beings. If it wasn’t your intention to make that generalization it might be advisable to clarify.

 

[Tagetes]

It bugs me that many people still equate same-sex attraction with “bedrooms”.

I don’t feel lust towards women. At all. What I’ve felt anytime I’ve fallen in love with a woman, was intense emotional affection, admiring her like she’s a work of art, wanting to talk about silly things that made her or me happy, be there for her if she’s in trouble, take care of her if she’s sick, be the most important people for each other, grow old together…

Yet there are plenty of heterosexual people, whose attraction is exclusively carnal and explicitly illicit. I knew a married woman, who had a lover, who paid her for their encounters. I also knew a priest, who brazenly flirted with or even propositioned women at every parish he was assigned to.

Nevertheless, when heterosexual attraction is spoken about, the emphasis is on love, when homosexual attraction is spoken about, the emphasis is on lust. Even people who admit that heterosexual attraction is not always innocuous, categorize homosexual attraction as lust-only. God, I’ve had people on this forum tell me that they know better whether I lust or not!

I don’t expect the Church to legitimize my hypothetical partnership with a woman, whereof I accepted the impossibility. But I do expect more consideration. My love, while forbidden, is not “a sin of flesh”.

 

[PRmerger]

It bugs me that many people still equate same-sex attraction with “bedrooms”.

I don’t feel lust towards women. At all. What I’ve felt anytime I’ve fallen in love with a woman, was intense emotional affection, admiring her like she’s a work of art, wanting to talk about silly things that made her or me happy, be there for her if she’s in trouble, take care of her if she’s sick, be the most important people for each other, grow old together…

Yet there are plenty of heterosexual people, whose attraction is exclusively carnal and explicitly illicit. I knew a married woman, who had a lover, who paid her for their encounters. I also knew a priest, who brazenly flirted with or even propositioned women at every parish he was assigned to.

Nevertheless, when heterosexual attraction is spoken about, the emphasis is on love, when homosexual attraction is spoken about, the emphasis is on lust. Even people who admit that heterosexual attraction is not always innocuous, categorize homosexual attraction as lust-only. God, I’ve had people on this forum tell me that they know better whether I lust or not!

I don’t expect the Church to legitimize my hypothetical partnership with a woman, whereof I accepted the impossibility. But I do expect more consideration. My love, while forbidden, is not “a sin of flesh”.

It is, indeed, a “sin of the flesh”. It’ just not ONLY a “sin of the flesh”.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet Mother Church in the face of Western straight brethren is not happy with me regardless, just because of who I fall in love with…

Only in the same way that Mother Church is not happy with an adulterer, just because of who he fell in love with…

And in the same way that Mother Church is not happy with an alcoholic, just because of what she chooses to drink…

And in the same way that Mother Church is not happy with the prideful jerk, just because of what he chooses to say…

 

[AClaire11]

It bugs me that many people still equate same-sex attraction with “bedrooms”.

I don’t feel lust towards women. At all. What I’ve felt anytime I’ve fallen in love with a woman, was intense emotional affection, admiring her like she’s a work of art, wanting to talk about silly things that made her or me happy, be there for her if she’s in trouble, take care of her if she’s sick, be the most important people for each other, grow old together…

Yet there are plenty of heterosexual people, whose attraction is exclusively carnal and explicitly illicit. I knew a married woman, who had a lover, who paid her for their encounters. I also knew a priest, who brazenly flirted with or even propositioned women at every parish he was assigned to.

Nevertheless, when heterosexual attraction is spoken about, the emphasis is on love, when homosexual attraction is spoken about, the emphasis is on lust. Even people who admit that heterosexual attraction is not always innocuous, categorize homosexual attraction as lust-only. God, I’ve had people on this forum tell me that they know better whether I lust or not!

I don’t expect the Church to legitimize my hypothetical partnership with a woman, whereof I accepted the impossibility. But I do expect more consideration. My love, while forbidden, is not “a sin of flesh”.

Thank you for sharing this. I will keep this in mind going forward.

 

[Tagetes]

^

This is why I feel such overwhelming an urge to take my life everytime straight Catholics decide to discuss my orientation.

Non-celibate: a sinner.
Celibate: a sinner regardless!

Why bother then? :bighanky: If I sin by simply BEING, without even being with someone I love, why deny myself that, if both are sinful? If even lifelong singlehood doesn’t save me from ending up in Hell, then why, before the eternity of suffering, can’t I have a lifetime of happiness? Aside from total strangers being disgusted by who I am?

 

[Peter_J]

My love, while forbidden, is not “a sin of flesh”.

The Church does forbid sins of the flesh, but she does not forbid love. (That’s one reason that I do not support the ex-gay movement.)

 

[PRmerger]

^

This is why I feel such overwhelming an urge to take my life everytime straight Catholics decide to discuss my orientation.

Non-celibate: a sinner.
Celibate: a sinner regardless!

Why bother then? :bighanky: If I sin by simply BEING, without even being with someone I love, why deny myself that, if both are sinful? If even lifelong singlehood doesn’t save me from ending up in Hell, then why, before the eternity of suffering, can’t I have a lifetime of happiness? Aside from total strangers being disgusted by who I am?

Please don’t take your life over people’s discussions over your orientation.

Especially since you’re reading what’s being said in such a wrong way.

You do realize that EVERY SINGLE PERSON that you’re in discussion with is…a sinner, yeah? That’s exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[PRmerger]

If even lifelong singlehood doesn’t save me from ending up in Hell, then why, before the eternity of suffering, can’t I have a lifetime of happiness?

As a word of advice: if someone indulges in a disordered desire, he can never have “a lifetime of happiness”.

No more than any addict thinking he can either abstain, or indulge and “have a lifetime of happiness”.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

^

This is why I feel such overwhelming an urge to take my life everytime straight Catholics decide to discuss my orientation.

Non-celibate: a sinner.
Celibate: a sinner regardless!

Why bother then? :bighanky: If I sin by simply BEING, without even being with someone I love, why deny myself that, if both are sinful? If even lifelong singlehood doesn’t save me from ending up in Hell, then why, before the eternity of suffering, can’t I have a lifetime of happiness? Aside from total strangers being disgusted by who I am?

The Church just expects you to live chastely, which you said you do.

I don’t think attraction is something you control. The Church doesn’t teach that temptations are sins. It never has. You are living chastely. If you do sin, do like the rest of us, confess and move on.

 

[NM505StKate]

Just curious: is there anything (sexual) that people do “in the privacy of their own bedroom” which you as a Catholic would find wrong/immoral/impermissible?

Nope. As long as it is consensual.

 

[goout]

Nope. As long as it is consensual.

Really?

 

[NM505StKate]

Really?

Yes. Consent is key. It is not my place to judge what anyone does behind closed door.

 

[Tagetes]

The Church just expects you to live chastely, which you said you do.

I don’t think attraction is something you control. The Church doesn’t teach that temptations are sins. It never has. You are living chastely. If you do sin, do like the rest of us, confess and move on.

The person above you has just stated, categorically, that even my completely lustless nature

is, indeed, a “sin of the flesh”

and compared me, despite my celibacy, to

an adulterer

an alcoholic

the prideful jerk

See? Even a celibate person, who doesn’t have sex and doesn’t even want to have sex and has never wanted, sins by being in love. If falling in love is already a sin, why do we have to deny ourselves several decades of caring for a loved one? Just because straight people cringe at this thought? When you, collective abstract straight “you”, fall in love with a person you’ll never marry, it’s just “love”. When we do the same, it’s “temptation” and

a disordered desire

I’m just done. I’m fed up with constantly having my nose plunked into my second-classness. I’m fed up with being talked down to. I’m just sitting here remembering how I wrote her birthday cards, how my heart started beating twice faster when she called, how her hand felt in mine, how I walked her to the train station in the midwinter and stood there waving 'til the train disappeared, my toes frozen, my nose runny. And all you people see in it is “sex! lust! sin! abomination! damnation!” I gave up on a hope to share my life with her, but it’s not enough, I’m now expected to hate and foul my feelings for her as well?

Every time I log onto this forum, I have to see a banner with a man and a woman kissing passionately. Everyone is completely fine with it. It isn’t “rubbing sexuality in faces”. But God forbid I casually mention being in love with a woman, not a man! You can deny it all you want, but it is double standards. It is prejudice. It is homophobia. Just stating that same-sex marriage is impossible isn’t, but this attitude definitely is. And if this attitude reflects how God feels about me, then I have no hope for salvation. Ever since my conversion several years ago I’ve been depressed and suicidal. Three guesses why.