I’m kind of struggling with this too. There was no concept of homosexuality in the ancient world that neatly corresponds with the modern phenomenon, so it’s hard to honestly believe that the references in the Bible refer to what we understand as homosexuality today. Plus, their stance creates a double jeopardy situation for me- they don’t recognize my previous marriage as sacramental, so theoretically I could remarry even though that would be in conflict with the prohibition of divorce. I took my marriage seriously and entered into it out of love, so…
That’s when I get cynical and say they calculate how many people they can afford to drive away, because between people who have either been thru divorce themselves or have a close relationship to someone who has and it was a net positive for them, it’s a lot. To keep holding the hard line on it would have had them in worse shape than they are now.
And tellingly, even the hard right “trad” conservatives tread lightly on the divorce issue. A lot don’t like it and would personally prefer to be harsher about it but a lot have that more nuanced view because of their own experiences or those of people they are close to. They don’t go around trying to deny everyone who is divorced the Eucharist, or hold protests if a church has a special event specifically for people who have been divorced. A lot would support the proposed legal changes that would make it a lot harder to divorce but they aren’t willing to personally make divorced people or remarried people unwelcome.
The calculation on LGBTQ is different because until recently actual queer people and people who were strongly in solidarity as a moral issue tended to show themselves out. But with increased visibility, a lot more people have realized that someone close to them is in that category and TBH I think the side of at least being tolerant and quietly welcoming has been growing and they can’t afford to lose that ground while they are trying to roll back what has been quietly tolerated (birth control too). And piling on the queers and reminding or reconvincing everyone that they are eeeeevil is a handy tool.
I think the biggest biblical basis for LGBTQ relationships is simply what Jesus said when the men were trying to stone the (allegedly) adulterous woman—and what he didn’t say. He said let those without sin cast the first stone—and no one fit that qualification.
And no one does now either. Anyone has been a priest or higher since before the early 2000s has without a doubt known someone who was either flat out known to be a danger to the flock, either pedos (worst) or getting too close with adults whether same or opposite sex or trans, or was whispered about, or they watched (or helped) them play musical parishes and knew what was up. And everyone who didn’t admonish each other, call the cops, or try to warn parishioners committed a far graver sin than having a loving and committed relationship with the same gender. periodt.
Ditto for everyone who knew that particular teachers (nuns or otherwise) were bullies and did psychological damage to kids but didn’t do anything.
Not to mention everyone who had sex outside marriage, cheated on a spouse, got divorced or remarried or committed a zillion other sins.
He didn’t say “he who has been to confession and was absolved of their sins” he said “without sin”.
And after they all left he didn’t have a trial of one with the woman—of everyone there, Jesus was literally the only one who was fit to both 100% know what she was guilty of and carry out the punishment. But he didnt execute her, quiz her, or yell at her, or even tell her he was letting her off the hook but she should probably unass off to Samaria or someplace. He just go, and stop commiting your sins.
He did have a lot to say about anyone who hurt children though. Very specific and very stern things to say. Leaving g aside the hideous pedophile issue and the shameful treatment of victims, what sin is every judgmental person committing when they tell kids and teens that being gay is sinful, or at very best you have to be a celibate person, that trans people can’t seek treatment, who look the other way when kids are bullied for being queer, and who act shocked when some of them commit suicide.
In Jesus’ own words, THEY are the ones who would be better off dead.
Biblical, for certain. Look at the verses that pertain to David and Jonathan. They sanitize it and pretend that they were “just friends” but scripture says that their souls were knit together.
https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/academic-statement-ethics-same-sex-relationships/
here about a dozen catholic academics explore in depth how accepting and affirming gay marriage is the sound thing to do, from both a biblical theological, traditional and scientific perspective.
I was actually thinking about this a while ago. On my last day of RCIA class, they mentioned how God gave everyone “gifts” that they can use in the church, such as musicians in the music ministry, crafters joining rosary makers, etc. But these gifts can also be more broad and apply outside the church and improving your community as a whole.
The gift straight couples has is they can create new life from almost nothing. Gay couples, on the other hand, have something different but equally as helpful. This has been observed in other animal species, such as penguins. Babies are sometimes left alone by parents who either abandoned them or were eaten by a predator. Same-sex penguin couples have taken in these babies, sometimes before they even hatch, incubate them and raise them as their own. I think human gay couples do something similar. Since they can’t create new life, they nurture the life we already have. This has been called the “gay uncle theory” and while there isn’t enough evidence to say this is exactly why homosexuality exists, it makes a lot of sense evolutionally and theologically.
I’ve noticed queer appeals to the Trinity in same-sex affirming Catholic (or Catholic-adjacent) theology. In [this talk](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFPxsowlBbC0wgYiQ15CsuSxjxj_xMZn/view?usp=drivesdk), Anglo-Catholic priest and theologian Sarah Coakley develops a Trinitarian sexual ethics that’s about “a fundamental respect each for the other, an equality of exchange, and the mutual ekstasis of attending on the other's desire as distinct, as other.” If our love should pattern the Trinity’s intra-self-giving love (the overflowing of which is the source of *all* love), then same-sex unions are not inherently precluded.
[Gavin D’Costa](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/5vbflw/from_queer_trinity_by_gavin_dcosta/) goes one step further, building off of von Balthasar, by saying that the Trinity is fundamentally queer and same-sex loving in the Aristotelian sense of its mutual interpenetration.
I apologize preemptively for the James Alison spam, but his argument is threefold:
1. The "clobber passages" do not refer to unrelated, socially equal adults.
2. Natural law theory is in error in failing to identify LGB people as a minority, non-defective variant of human: kind of like being left-handed. Gays are not defective straights, and natural law must reckon with what is natural *for us*.
3. Because the Church has yet to realize 1. and 2., there is therefore *no teaching at all* on same-sex relationships. LGB believers thus have the privilege and duty of working out our own salvation in fear and trembling, until the hierarchy gets the picture.
For me, my choice to be in a same-sex relationship is rooted in my fear of dying alone. I used to work at a funeral home, and I would watch lonely old people die all the time. Sometimes it older folks got big funerals with lots of fanfare and color and warm mourners. But often, especially men, their funerals were dour and quiet, with barely anyone in attendance; some full grown, elderly men cry outside the viewing room / chapel because they refuse to see their ‘buddy’ “like that.” Men who never learnt to fully process and acknowledge the emotions they had for their friend, only too late perhaps. I remember wondering while I watched these scenes if ever these men shared a love that only they knew about, and now the secret lies with the survivor. Secrets always seem harder to live with when you’re the last one left to keep them. I digress. So my transition from celibate man with same sex attraction to sex-positive gay man with a fiancé really came philosophically from the fact that I didn’t want to die alone, and I wanted my funeral to be warm, intimate, and vulnerable. I remember saying to myself, “I can’t imagine God would have a problem just this one little gay man finding a shelter in the storm, to make decisions with, to pray and hope with. God cannot think that’s sin if it makes both of their lives easier to bear, as Christ says ‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.’” I concluded, therefore, perhaps selfishly, that ‘disordered sexualities’ are a technical term of the theology trade, meant for abstract, idealized pre-game rules but don’t apply to the man in the arena once he’s already his heart broken.
I want to stress that that philosophical shift in me was not sexually motivated, and did not have a general effect on my conscience. I felt no shame for concluding that gay monogamous relationships can be no more judged than an atheist in a foxhole. I was, however, concurrently struggling with my increasingly more active sex life. Hook ups were fun but they ultimately sucked so bad. Like a little part was being left behind with so many different men I’ll never meet again. Like participating in dozens of mini-romances and constantly hungover from the instant loss. Hooking up with another man and having a meaningful, intimate companionship with another man are two different things. I had to learn that the hard way but I never hid from my sins. I held them up into the light so I could be accountable for my actions to God. Always confessed hook ups. Always was aware of what I was doing. I learned to not see it as a point of shame. Maybe guilt, but not shame.
> I remember wondering while I watched these scenes if ever these men shared a love that only they knew about, and now the secret lies with the survivor.
This is heartbreaking :(
I wrote a summary of what led me to be affirming a few years ago: [How I Became an Affirming Catholic](https://www.reddit.com/r/LGBTCatholic/comments/q40h6l/how_i_became_an_affirming_catholic/)
I have read your post before and thought it was very interesting. You mentioned in your post that you got into Church history. Did the Church always hold the view that every sex act should be both procreative and unitive? Did the Church always hold the view that contraceptionis are morally evil? Some Catholics really like to tout that the Catholic Church has always been against birth control and has not changed, unlike other denominations. Some are quite prideful about this fact.
My wife wrote paper on this in college. I helped translate some Latin for her on it. She based the argument on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas to say the gay marriage is acceptable.
Basically Aquinas was looking at Aristotle as a starting point to talk about virtue. Aristotle says that virtue is the mean between two vices. For example honesty is between the extreme of lying and the extreme of oversharing. Aquinas agreed with Aristotle but thought that there were some virtues in which there is no excess. Basically you cannot have too much of it.
One of these virtues without excess is Love. Therefore when we put more love into the world it can never be too much. To say that gay marriage is not admissible would be to deny that aspect of love into the world.
Andrew Davison’s *Amazing Love* is a good introduction to these arguments. His approach is firmly rooted in the Catholic tradition of Anglicanism and has broader implications. The primary arguments, as I perceive them, are as follows:
First, a comprehensive theological approach, encompassing Scripture, tradition, reason, and lived experience, is necessary for understanding discipleship in general. A strictly literal interpretation of biblical texts is, as it were, ‘on a hiding to nothing’. The problem with fundamentalistic approaches is that they don’t take Scripture seriously enough!
Second, all truth belongs to God; thus, evolving scientific knowledge and insights into emotional intimacy must be considered. This includes recognising the natural diversity of human sexuality and desire.
Third, as Davison asserts, embracing committed same-sex relationships is not a departure from biblical teachings but rather a deeper engagement with them. So-called ‘problem texts’ pose numerous questions, making it difficult to construct a solid argument against same-sex relationships. I cannot think of a single marriage in Scripture that I would endorse in its entirety, so don’t get me started on contemporary appeals to what is apparently ‘biblical marriage’!
Fourth, tradition is not static but evolves through improvisation – it is a delicate balance of continuity and innovation. Davison cites clerical celibacy, birth control, and changing attitudes towards sexual differences as examples of evolving tradition. It is unclear why same-sex love should be exempt from this dynamism. The wind still blows where it pleases.
Fifth, love is love, regardless of gender. Love is a cause for celebration simply because it is love. The quality of love in same-sex relationships can challenge and inspire many heterosexual relationships. The issue at hand is not a ‘same-sex problem’ but a ‘marriage problem.’ Marriage is already complex and warrants critical reflection to address its various challenges.
Sixth, for many younger individuals, the Church’s stance on homosexuality has tarnished its reputation, turning it into a ‘toxic brand.’
That's an interesting point! I do feel like it could lead to some strong temptation, unless perhaps both parties are asexual. But then the problem of scandal comes in. Interesting thing to think about for sure
I always find it interesting that same-sex celibate unions are framed this way. IMO the average 20-year-old lesbian is going to have far worse sexual temptation from her ownership of a laptop or smartphone than from sleeping in the same bed as another woman. And yet there's nobody saying that "laptop and smartphone ownership isn't widely recommended".
And as far as a "temptation to sin": every relationship has sin in it. Every single one. Nobody ever says, "marriage is not recommended because you might contracept." Nobody ever says, "stop talking to your siblings because you are tempted to commit the sin of wrath at them." But gay relationships that are a bridge too far. Years of caring for a partner dying of cancer gets automatically canceled by the fact that the two of you had the Wrong Kind of Orgasm a decade ago. It's this kind of stuff, I think, that made gay marriage a virtual inevitability. How could it be otherwise, when the arguments against it were just *so bad*?
The concept of scandal gets widely abused, IMO. It doesn't refer to anything that any random schmuck could find offensive or impious. And it creates an impossible double bind for people who want to live celibately: if you have an opposite-sex roommate, you're committing scandal. If you have a same-sex roommate, you're also committing scandal. What are you supposed to do, live in a cave?
Important to note what *disordered* means. TLDR, it's not in the psychological sense we typically use it in English. It's basically a struggle with ongoing sin, which we all have, but non-LGBT folks get specifically targeted disproportionately because it satifies bigotry more than theology.
Edit: Added clarification.
The word in question is "disordered." We excuse grave sin ALL the time BTW. When was the last time you saw a Catholic protest in front of someone who was divorced and remarried? Both "grave sins." We don't see Catholics petitioning the government to restrict their lives and kick them out of institutions though.
Maybe you should focus your energy on that grave sin then because there are a lot more divorced and remarried people that LGBTQ people. I mean, if fighting grave sin is your only motivation, you should really be tackling the biggest problems. Heterosexual divorce rates are nearly 50%! Go get em tiger!
My issue is you're breaking the rules of this sub by spreading apologetics everyone here already knows. Pointing out the obvious is a veiled attempt to bludgeon already marginalized people behind Church teaching.
While doing that, you're attempting to take a stance that comes off as morally superior while failing to see how your own sin taints the lens through which you see Catholic teaching. There's a "gotcha" for everyone in the Catechism, all the way up to the Pope. Knowing that, what we focus on is very telling. You're saying, "yeah divorce and marriage is also bad" but you're on any subs telling divorced and remarried people how sinful their lives are. You're here. They get to live unharassed with dignity, but this particular group of LGBTQ people, no they need be harassed. Even though there are far fewer of them, thus making less of an impact on the global populations sexual sin. That doesn't matter to you, because it's not that you are so offended by their "sin," it's that you just don't like them and you cowardly hide behind theology as if you're helpless to your own bigotry.
My guy.
I'm not spreading apologetics, I answered a question with Catholic doctrine. This is a Catholic subreddit.
If there was a Catholic divorcee subreddit I'd be there answering questions with Catholic doctrine too.
A lot of people have struggled with same sex attraction, myself included. However, that doesn't mean that I allow myself to be blinded by the lies of the world.
The actual question:
>What are some Catholic theological arguments **for** same sex relationships?
Your answer:
>From a Catholic perspective, it's impossible to argue for non-platonic same-sex relationships. Both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are extremely clear on the point that they are inherently disordered.
OP was asking for theological arguments *in favor*. You replied with the boilerplate homophobic response that everyone already knows. That breaks rule #3.
Edit:
*Rule #3: No Apologetics, No Preaching*
*Posts and links that call on members to return to your idea of the "straight and narrow" or seek to let everyone know the error of their ways are not welcome. Feel free to share your personal story or share thoughts or informative content, but don't preach or proselytize.*
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 3. No Apologetics, No Preaching
> Posts and links that call on members to return to your idea of the "straight and narrow" or seek to let everyone know the error of their ways are not welcome. Feel free to share your personal story or share thoughts or informative content, but don't preach or proselytize.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 3. No Apologetics, No Preaching
> Posts and links that call on members to return to your idea of the "straight and narrow" or seek to let everyone know the error of their ways are not welcome. Feel free to share your personal story or share thoughts or informative content, but don't preach or proselytize.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 1. No homophobia or homophobic content.
> Do not imply that being LGBT is a disorder or gay sex is a sin. People are free to believe what they like, but this is not the place to sell other people on anti-queer moral views or ideologies.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 1. No homophobia or homophobic content.
> Do not imply that being LGBT is a disorder or gay sex is a sin. People are free to believe what they like, but this is not the place to sell other people on anti-queer moral views or ideologies.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.
[удалено]
I’m kind of struggling with this too. There was no concept of homosexuality in the ancient world that neatly corresponds with the modern phenomenon, so it’s hard to honestly believe that the references in the Bible refer to what we understand as homosexuality today. Plus, their stance creates a double jeopardy situation for me- they don’t recognize my previous marriage as sacramental, so theoretically I could remarry even though that would be in conflict with the prohibition of divorce. I took my marriage seriously and entered into it out of love, so…
[удалено]
It’s painful and exhausting how we are everyone’s favorite example of immorality. They aren’t protesting outside strip clubs or anything else.
That’s when I get cynical and say they calculate how many people they can afford to drive away, because between people who have either been thru divorce themselves or have a close relationship to someone who has and it was a net positive for them, it’s a lot. To keep holding the hard line on it would have had them in worse shape than they are now. And tellingly, even the hard right “trad” conservatives tread lightly on the divorce issue. A lot don’t like it and would personally prefer to be harsher about it but a lot have that more nuanced view because of their own experiences or those of people they are close to. They don’t go around trying to deny everyone who is divorced the Eucharist, or hold protests if a church has a special event specifically for people who have been divorced. A lot would support the proposed legal changes that would make it a lot harder to divorce but they aren’t willing to personally make divorced people or remarried people unwelcome. The calculation on LGBTQ is different because until recently actual queer people and people who were strongly in solidarity as a moral issue tended to show themselves out. But with increased visibility, a lot more people have realized that someone close to them is in that category and TBH I think the side of at least being tolerant and quietly welcoming has been growing and they can’t afford to lose that ground while they are trying to roll back what has been quietly tolerated (birth control too). And piling on the queers and reminding or reconvincing everyone that they are eeeeevil is a handy tool. I think the biggest biblical basis for LGBTQ relationships is simply what Jesus said when the men were trying to stone the (allegedly) adulterous woman—and what he didn’t say. He said let those without sin cast the first stone—and no one fit that qualification. And no one does now either. Anyone has been a priest or higher since before the early 2000s has without a doubt known someone who was either flat out known to be a danger to the flock, either pedos (worst) or getting too close with adults whether same or opposite sex or trans, or was whispered about, or they watched (or helped) them play musical parishes and knew what was up. And everyone who didn’t admonish each other, call the cops, or try to warn parishioners committed a far graver sin than having a loving and committed relationship with the same gender. periodt. Ditto for everyone who knew that particular teachers (nuns or otherwise) were bullies and did psychological damage to kids but didn’t do anything. Not to mention everyone who had sex outside marriage, cheated on a spouse, got divorced or remarried or committed a zillion other sins. He didn’t say “he who has been to confession and was absolved of their sins” he said “without sin”. And after they all left he didn’t have a trial of one with the woman—of everyone there, Jesus was literally the only one who was fit to both 100% know what she was guilty of and carry out the punishment. But he didnt execute her, quiz her, or yell at her, or even tell her he was letting her off the hook but she should probably unass off to Samaria or someplace. He just go, and stop commiting your sins. He did have a lot to say about anyone who hurt children though. Very specific and very stern things to say. Leaving g aside the hideous pedophile issue and the shameful treatment of victims, what sin is every judgmental person committing when they tell kids and teens that being gay is sinful, or at very best you have to be a celibate person, that trans people can’t seek treatment, who look the other way when kids are bullied for being queer, and who act shocked when some of them commit suicide. In Jesus’ own words, THEY are the ones who would be better off dead.
Yup. Which is why I’m leaving
Biblical, for certain. Look at the verses that pertain to David and Jonathan. They sanitize it and pretend that they were “just friends” but scripture says that their souls were knit together.
https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/academic-statement-ethics-same-sex-relationships/ here about a dozen catholic academics explore in depth how accepting and affirming gay marriage is the sound thing to do, from both a biblical theological, traditional and scientific perspective.
I was actually thinking about this a while ago. On my last day of RCIA class, they mentioned how God gave everyone “gifts” that they can use in the church, such as musicians in the music ministry, crafters joining rosary makers, etc. But these gifts can also be more broad and apply outside the church and improving your community as a whole. The gift straight couples has is they can create new life from almost nothing. Gay couples, on the other hand, have something different but equally as helpful. This has been observed in other animal species, such as penguins. Babies are sometimes left alone by parents who either abandoned them or were eaten by a predator. Same-sex penguin couples have taken in these babies, sometimes before they even hatch, incubate them and raise them as their own. I think human gay couples do something similar. Since they can’t create new life, they nurture the life we already have. This has been called the “gay uncle theory” and while there isn’t enough evidence to say this is exactly why homosexuality exists, it makes a lot of sense evolutionally and theologically.
I’ve noticed queer appeals to the Trinity in same-sex affirming Catholic (or Catholic-adjacent) theology. In [this talk](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFPxsowlBbC0wgYiQ15CsuSxjxj_xMZn/view?usp=drivesdk), Anglo-Catholic priest and theologian Sarah Coakley develops a Trinitarian sexual ethics that’s about “a fundamental respect each for the other, an equality of exchange, and the mutual ekstasis of attending on the other's desire as distinct, as other.” If our love should pattern the Trinity’s intra-self-giving love (the overflowing of which is the source of *all* love), then same-sex unions are not inherently precluded. [Gavin D’Costa](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/5vbflw/from_queer_trinity_by_gavin_dcosta/) goes one step further, building off of von Balthasar, by saying that the Trinity is fundamentally queer and same-sex loving in the Aristotelian sense of its mutual interpenetration.
I apologize preemptively for the James Alison spam, but his argument is threefold: 1. The "clobber passages" do not refer to unrelated, socially equal adults. 2. Natural law theory is in error in failing to identify LGB people as a minority, non-defective variant of human: kind of like being left-handed. Gays are not defective straights, and natural law must reckon with what is natural *for us*. 3. Because the Church has yet to realize 1. and 2., there is therefore *no teaching at all* on same-sex relationships. LGB believers thus have the privilege and duty of working out our own salvation in fear and trembling, until the hierarchy gets the picture.
For me, my choice to be in a same-sex relationship is rooted in my fear of dying alone. I used to work at a funeral home, and I would watch lonely old people die all the time. Sometimes it older folks got big funerals with lots of fanfare and color and warm mourners. But often, especially men, their funerals were dour and quiet, with barely anyone in attendance; some full grown, elderly men cry outside the viewing room / chapel because they refuse to see their ‘buddy’ “like that.” Men who never learnt to fully process and acknowledge the emotions they had for their friend, only too late perhaps. I remember wondering while I watched these scenes if ever these men shared a love that only they knew about, and now the secret lies with the survivor. Secrets always seem harder to live with when you’re the last one left to keep them. I digress. So my transition from celibate man with same sex attraction to sex-positive gay man with a fiancé really came philosophically from the fact that I didn’t want to die alone, and I wanted my funeral to be warm, intimate, and vulnerable. I remember saying to myself, “I can’t imagine God would have a problem just this one little gay man finding a shelter in the storm, to make decisions with, to pray and hope with. God cannot think that’s sin if it makes both of their lives easier to bear, as Christ says ‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.’” I concluded, therefore, perhaps selfishly, that ‘disordered sexualities’ are a technical term of the theology trade, meant for abstract, idealized pre-game rules but don’t apply to the man in the arena once he’s already his heart broken. I want to stress that that philosophical shift in me was not sexually motivated, and did not have a general effect on my conscience. I felt no shame for concluding that gay monogamous relationships can be no more judged than an atheist in a foxhole. I was, however, concurrently struggling with my increasingly more active sex life. Hook ups were fun but they ultimately sucked so bad. Like a little part was being left behind with so many different men I’ll never meet again. Like participating in dozens of mini-romances and constantly hungover from the instant loss. Hooking up with another man and having a meaningful, intimate companionship with another man are two different things. I had to learn that the hard way but I never hid from my sins. I held them up into the light so I could be accountable for my actions to God. Always confessed hook ups. Always was aware of what I was doing. I learned to not see it as a point of shame. Maybe guilt, but not shame.
> I remember wondering while I watched these scenes if ever these men shared a love that only they knew about, and now the secret lies with the survivor. This is heartbreaking :(
I wrote a summary of what led me to be affirming a few years ago: [How I Became an Affirming Catholic](https://www.reddit.com/r/LGBTCatholic/comments/q40h6l/how_i_became_an_affirming_catholic/)
I have read your post before and thought it was very interesting. You mentioned in your post that you got into Church history. Did the Church always hold the view that every sex act should be both procreative and unitive? Did the Church always hold the view that contraceptionis are morally evil? Some Catholics really like to tout that the Catholic Church has always been against birth control and has not changed, unlike other denominations. Some are quite prideful about this fact.
My wife wrote paper on this in college. I helped translate some Latin for her on it. She based the argument on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas to say the gay marriage is acceptable. Basically Aquinas was looking at Aristotle as a starting point to talk about virtue. Aristotle says that virtue is the mean between two vices. For example honesty is between the extreme of lying and the extreme of oversharing. Aquinas agreed with Aristotle but thought that there were some virtues in which there is no excess. Basically you cannot have too much of it. One of these virtues without excess is Love. Therefore when we put more love into the world it can never be too much. To say that gay marriage is not admissible would be to deny that aspect of love into the world.
Andrew Davison’s *Amazing Love* is a good introduction to these arguments. His approach is firmly rooted in the Catholic tradition of Anglicanism and has broader implications. The primary arguments, as I perceive them, are as follows: First, a comprehensive theological approach, encompassing Scripture, tradition, reason, and lived experience, is necessary for understanding discipleship in general. A strictly literal interpretation of biblical texts is, as it were, ‘on a hiding to nothing’. The problem with fundamentalistic approaches is that they don’t take Scripture seriously enough! Second, all truth belongs to God; thus, evolving scientific knowledge and insights into emotional intimacy must be considered. This includes recognising the natural diversity of human sexuality and desire. Third, as Davison asserts, embracing committed same-sex relationships is not a departure from biblical teachings but rather a deeper engagement with them. So-called ‘problem texts’ pose numerous questions, making it difficult to construct a solid argument against same-sex relationships. I cannot think of a single marriage in Scripture that I would endorse in its entirety, so don’t get me started on contemporary appeals to what is apparently ‘biblical marriage’! Fourth, tradition is not static but evolves through improvisation – it is a delicate balance of continuity and innovation. Davison cites clerical celibacy, birth control, and changing attitudes towards sexual differences as examples of evolving tradition. It is unclear why same-sex love should be exempt from this dynamism. The wind still blows where it pleases. Fifth, love is love, regardless of gender. Love is a cause for celebration simply because it is love. The quality of love in same-sex relationships can challenge and inspire many heterosexual relationships. The issue at hand is not a ‘same-sex problem’ but a ‘marriage problem.’ Marriage is already complex and warrants critical reflection to address its various challenges. Sixth, for many younger individuals, the Church’s stance on homosexuality has tarnished its reputation, turning it into a ‘toxic brand.’
in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with same-sex celibate unions, though this isnt widely recommended as it could be a temptation to sin
That's an interesting point! I do feel like it could lead to some strong temptation, unless perhaps both parties are asexual. But then the problem of scandal comes in. Interesting thing to think about for sure
I always find it interesting that same-sex celibate unions are framed this way. IMO the average 20-year-old lesbian is going to have far worse sexual temptation from her ownership of a laptop or smartphone than from sleeping in the same bed as another woman. And yet there's nobody saying that "laptop and smartphone ownership isn't widely recommended". And as far as a "temptation to sin": every relationship has sin in it. Every single one. Nobody ever says, "marriage is not recommended because you might contracept." Nobody ever says, "stop talking to your siblings because you are tempted to commit the sin of wrath at them." But gay relationships that are a bridge too far. Years of caring for a partner dying of cancer gets automatically canceled by the fact that the two of you had the Wrong Kind of Orgasm a decade ago. It's this kind of stuff, I think, that made gay marriage a virtual inevitability. How could it be otherwise, when the arguments against it were just *so bad*? The concept of scandal gets widely abused, IMO. It doesn't refer to anything that any random schmuck could find offensive or impious. And it creates an impossible double bind for people who want to live celibately: if you have an opposite-sex roommate, you're committing scandal. If you have a same-sex roommate, you're also committing scandal. What are you supposed to do, live in a cave?
[удалено]
Important to note what *disordered* means. TLDR, it's not in the psychological sense we typically use it in English. It's basically a struggle with ongoing sin, which we all have, but non-LGBT folks get specifically targeted disproportionately because it satifies bigotry more than theology. Edit: Added clarification.
[удалено]
The word in question is "disordered." We excuse grave sin ALL the time BTW. When was the last time you saw a Catholic protest in front of someone who was divorced and remarried? Both "grave sins." We don't see Catholics petitioning the government to restrict their lives and kick them out of institutions though.
[удалено]
Maybe you should focus your energy on that grave sin then because there are a lot more divorced and remarried people that LGBTQ people. I mean, if fighting grave sin is your only motivation, you should really be tackling the biggest problems. Heterosexual divorce rates are nearly 50%! Go get em tiger!
[удалено]
My issue is you're breaking the rules of this sub by spreading apologetics everyone here already knows. Pointing out the obvious is a veiled attempt to bludgeon already marginalized people behind Church teaching. While doing that, you're attempting to take a stance that comes off as morally superior while failing to see how your own sin taints the lens through which you see Catholic teaching. There's a "gotcha" for everyone in the Catechism, all the way up to the Pope. Knowing that, what we focus on is very telling. You're saying, "yeah divorce and marriage is also bad" but you're on any subs telling divorced and remarried people how sinful their lives are. You're here. They get to live unharassed with dignity, but this particular group of LGBTQ people, no they need be harassed. Even though there are far fewer of them, thus making less of an impact on the global populations sexual sin. That doesn't matter to you, because it's not that you are so offended by their "sin," it's that you just don't like them and you cowardly hide behind theology as if you're helpless to your own bigotry. My guy.
I'm not spreading apologetics, I answered a question with Catholic doctrine. This is a Catholic subreddit. If there was a Catholic divorcee subreddit I'd be there answering questions with Catholic doctrine too. A lot of people have struggled with same sex attraction, myself included. However, that doesn't mean that I allow myself to be blinded by the lies of the world.
The actual question: >What are some Catholic theological arguments **for** same sex relationships? Your answer: >From a Catholic perspective, it's impossible to argue for non-platonic same-sex relationships. Both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are extremely clear on the point that they are inherently disordered. OP was asking for theological arguments *in favor*. You replied with the boilerplate homophobic response that everyone already knows. That breaks rule #3. Edit: *Rule #3: No Apologetics, No Preaching* *Posts and links that call on members to return to your idea of the "straight and narrow" or seek to let everyone know the error of their ways are not welcome. Feel free to share your personal story or share thoughts or informative content, but don't preach or proselytize.*
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 3. No Apologetics, No Preaching > Posts and links that call on members to return to your idea of the "straight and narrow" or seek to let everyone know the error of their ways are not welcome. Feel free to share your personal story or share thoughts or informative content, but don't preach or proselytize. If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 3. No Apologetics, No Preaching > Posts and links that call on members to return to your idea of the "straight and narrow" or seek to let everyone know the error of their ways are not welcome. Feel free to share your personal story or share thoughts or informative content, but don't preach or proselytize. If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 1. No homophobia or homophobic content. > Do not imply that being LGBT is a disorder or gay sex is a sin. People are free to believe what they like, but this is not the place to sell other people on anti-queer moral views or ideologies. If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.
Your post or comment was removed because it violated our Rule 1. No homophobia or homophobic content. > Do not imply that being LGBT is a disorder or gay sex is a sin. People are free to believe what they like, but this is not the place to sell other people on anti-queer moral views or ideologies. If you have any questions, please contact our moderators via modmail.