Living Together, Loving God, in the Living Room

Young men and women that love each other should live together because they love each other.

We should be able to accept that, discuss that, seek relevant information about that culture, behavior and find studies about that relationship.

On another thread it has been constantly brought to my attention that a loving homosexual relaionship in the living room and not in the bedroom should be accepted and discussed. The topics include discussion of:

Gay Culture
Committed Homosexual relationship
Studies of Homosexual behavior

It was stated I am a homosexual in a 14-year faithful and committed relationship with a wonderful Lutheran (yes, wonderful Lutherans do exist!) man.

I believe an understanding of “gay culture” is relevant …in particular–because culture influences thought and thought influences action.

I cannot accept a loving homosexual relationship that is said to be in the living room and not in the bedroom.

Studies of homosexual behavior modern and ancient were thought to be relevant…

A study of the behavior and attitudes of same-sex attracted men at the turn of the 17th century would have little to say to same-sex attracted men now. A study of industrial workplace accidents in 1835 would have little to say regarding the efficacy of industrial safety conditions and precautions that obtain in 2012. The attitudes and daily habits of American women in the Northeast in 1930 are unlikely to prove definitive or broadly characteristic of the generation of women born in 1968. Populations change. Social conditions change. Behaviors change.

My contention is that while behaviors may change the bottom line is that as humans we think and we act. Studies will not change that common fact.

I proposed the following…

Say you are one happy homosexual in a loving relationship and you are the exception.

What is the point in engaging a dialogue about your loving relationship after pointing out that you are the exception to the rule?

The answer was this…

By the way, I’m not an exception. That’s part of the point that you will apparently, and perhaps willfully, keep missing.)

The discussion on the high rate of suicide in homosexuals was not relevant to the discussion of a loving homosexual relationship in the living room and not the bedroom. If I missed the point then having drawn a parallel as noted in the opening I thought it was relevant to bring this discussion to a thread where this could be discussed.

Elizabeth502 posted the following in that thread and I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

(1) Many in the Gay Lobby have said often that they “cannot” be “happy” unless society allows them to be “married” and recognizes those “marriages” as being fundamentally interchangeable with true marriage (heterosexual).

(2) They have gone further in demanding emotional acceptance of their “marriages” and their un"married" relationships as good, wonderful, life-giving, essential to society, etc. (As if such emotional acceptance could be forced.)

(3) They have gone further in lobbying for religious acceptance of their “marriages” and their non"married" relationships – both from religions open to that and from religions fundamentally and permanently opposed to their arrangements.

(4) In doing all the above they have turned responsibility for individual happiness from the individual to society.

(5) All the above also equates the label “marriage” with the state, happiness. In doing so, they fail to understand that there is no such equation.

(6) They connect all the above with “rights,” but there is no government-granted or society-granted right to happiness. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees individual happiness. The Declaration the right to pursue happiness, not to attain happiness, and certainly not the assumption that other people are the source of any individual’s private happiness.

Is living together in a loving relationship, in the living room, acceptable, God’s will for heterosexual or homosexual? What did I miss…?

Is this a long way of asking if a homesexual couple can be OK having a platonic commited relationship? Otherwise I’m not really sure what your point or question really is.


That is a good answer.

Are there any other topics that are as relevant to you as homosexuality?


That is a good question.

I think the dialogue on this discussion, at least for me, is hampered by not being able to discern your perspective.

1.) Are you asking for and willing to entertain a response that is couched in terms of the religious implications of your choices and how they conform to religous standards?

2.) Or are you seeking a response that entertains current societal expectations and hopes for reconcilliation with your lifestyle that will enable you to continue living in the world in the most fulfilling and enriching fashion that you hope to realize in your life and the life of your partner?

I have thoughts on both of these perspectives but they are distinctly different and I would rather understand more clearly the intent of your question to actually speak to what you are interested in discussing.

Your question , as I read it, could embrace both perspectives but you seem to emphasize one side, the here and now of making it all work out in the immediacy of your life, versus the thoughts or concerns for how it might work out in the overal eternal perspective of things.

If we agree or disagree with the topic, the question is relevant if it is being asked. Would you rather that someone live in sin because another does not want to answer the questions concerning it? You don’t have to participate in the thread if you don’t want to. But the response is judgmental in disguise and we know what the bible says about judgement.

He posts excessively on the topic, and the way he’s addressed some homosexual posters is bothersome to me. I’m not being disrespectful. Furthermore, the original post reeks of insincerity.


Sounds like you are on the right track or perhaps there may be more to the relationship.


If you are not sure of the perspective then consider what your perspective is and let me know what that is. You are not bound by my perspective.


You see the posting as homosexuality. I see it as posting Orthodoxy as a bigger umbrella. If something bothers you speak about what bothers you.

Respectfully, your selectiveness. Deo volente offered some pretty thoughtful and engaging objections to your posts, and it seems you merely skimmed them over, and racapitulated them in a way that missed the crucial parts.


You see thoughtful and engaging objection and I see drivel. We all percieve the world though the filters of our mind. Your filters are different than mine. What you see is not what I see and therefore you believe I missed something crucial.

You state in your profile you have religous questions and your favorite quote is…

What you do to the least of my brethren you do to me.
Lay not up for yourselves treasure on earth where moth and rust do corrupt
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God

So then let me say that my thoughts are not new and have been expressed prior to my emerging from the womb, it was stated thus…

11“Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12“Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

…if you have Faith questions as you say then this is a matter of Faith.

Well, personally I’m not one to think a homosexual couples living in a committed relationship is all that bad. Secularly I hold couples, gay or straight to the same basic standards of behavior.

Religiously, I’ve read the Bible passages related to the topic whole topic of homosexuality. Some seem to not really address the topic (e.g. Sodom and Gomorra being about be about hospitality and condemning rape). The Old Testament ones I feel are addressing specific pagan religious activities and/or are buried in lists of other rules or prohibitions we don’t follow or would find abhorrent today. The New Testament has some comments by Paul. But Paul also wrote in an earthy Greek. A number of the key words in these passages appear to be odd slang words not too easily understood today, especially for those trained in classic Greek. In any case the translations of all of these passages have points of contention in them and the orthodoxy is to translate them in a way that is unsupportive of gay relationships….and unorthodox bibles generally don’t sell well. My feelings are basically it either is not a sin or not a sin to get to worked up about.

As for a platonic homosexual relationship, I’m no expert, but the Catholic Church appears more concerned with sexual acts than anything else. Indeed Catholic doctrine seems to accept the state of being gay, but requires celibacy. So I suppose is all boils down to the definaition of celibacy. Websters defines is as:

1: the state of not being married
2 a: abstention from sexual intercourse
b: abstention by vow from marriage

By that definition I guess “living room” relationships aren’t all that bad, but that really depends on how the Catholic church defines celibacy.


So you believe and agree that men and women across the nation should be taught that living together because they love each other and are committed stating that the relationship is in the living room and not in the bedroom is believeable and acceptable.

You would teach your sons and daughters that they should look forward or plan to live together as you believe the relationship will stay in the living room, not in the bedroom and they will be in a loving committed relationship.

Is that what you believe?

It wasn’t drivel. A common objection against homosexuality it that there are self-destructive and licentious patterns of behavior within what is called the gay community. Deo offered explanations as to why this apparent hedonism, destructiveness, and cultural features exist within a larger social context. You say you don’t wan’t to understand, possibly because you would rather just believe that same-sex attraction is inherently wrong and leads to these negative consequences naturally. This is a willed bias.


We disagree. I see drivel. You see something of value. So since you are interested in Faith building allow me to share this…

“Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12“Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”

In the middle east sea snakes look like fish. In the middle east scorpions look like eggs.

A good father guides his children. A father in the middle east would see a child saying “look daddy…pretty fish” however beneath the water is a deadly snake…

A good father in the middle east would see the child saying “look daddy an egg…pretty egg…no child this is a deadly scorpion”…

We are not speaking of nor was posting concerning same sex attraction. The posting goes beyond that into a loving homosexual committed relationship of 14 years with a desire to explain, support, gain acceptance and discuss all the reasons why this is God’s will…

You see that it wasn’t drivel.

I see drivel, a fish, an egg and the reality is that it is neither…:slight_smile:

No, if my son turns out to be gay I would support him living together with another man (getting a civil union or whatever if possible) in the bedroom too. I would simply expect the same standards of the relatonship as if he married a woman.


Thanks for sharing what you believe.

This thread is now closed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit