Autumn Dusk Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 So as another poster pointed out in the opposite sex housemate threads that with homosexuality rampant it may be morally better to have comitted Catholic or christian opposite gender housemates than homosexual same gender housemates. Perhaps because i work at a uni I see homosexual promiscuity as a bigger problem..and more kids wanting to move out of a location because of homosexual sex of their roomate....not hetrosexual sex. The desire to study and not get "hit on" when lounging is supreme....so people choose lifelong friends to share large apts with...with each room becoming a quazi studio apt. Local college attenders parents have been known to rent out rooms to students of both genders with the stipulation of respect. Sure we have moral reletavism...but would a males and females mixed really be worse morally than all males with some gay men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Interesting question. I have no idea. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Dusk Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 thanks for replying...I was about to bump becuase I think the housemate (not roomate) issue has a dynamic side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 [quote name='Autumn Dusk' timestamp='1334532488' post='2418341']Sure we have moral reletavism...but would a males and females mixed really be worse morally than all males with some gay men?[/quote] i don't know..but didn't the instruction about admitting homosexual men to the priesthood have something to do with this? (excuse me if i'm wrong, i'm not clear on the details about that instruction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 but then you get the whole walking around in the undies and knocking on the bedroom door thing all over again calgon take me away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Dusk Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1334696444' post='2419729'] i don't know..but didn't the instruction about admitting homosexual men to the priesthood have something to do with this? (excuse me if i'm wrong, i'm not clear on the details about that instruction.) [/quote] Nope. This is soley related to the other question about housemates. These days sexual attraction isn't socially limited to male-on-female so making rules based on that may be antiquated...not "prudish," but simply not the way the world works anymore...it's like we have a 3rd gender....(or 4 or 5 or 6 if you include lesbian, transexual and bisexual) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) Simply, isn't the basic rule is sex isn't casual, Respect and value yourself, respect and value others. Don't move in with someone hoping to get lucky or if they're hoping to get lucky. And don't expect or assume that is the default behavior of others. Edited April 18, 2012 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Being hit on by gay men? Been there, done that. I laughed at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 [quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1334714044' post='2419931'] Simply, isn't the basic rule is sex isn't casual, Respect and value yourself, respect and value others. Don't move in with someone hoping to get lucky or if they're hoping to get lucky. And don't expect or assume that is the default behavior of others. [/quote] y u so genyus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 [quote name='Autumn Dusk' timestamp='1334532488' post='2418341'] So as another poster pointed out in the opposite sex housemate threads that with homosexuality rampant it may be morally better to have comitted Catholic or christian opposite gender housemates than homosexual same gender housemates. Perhaps because i work at a uni I see homosexual promiscuity as a bigger problem..and more kids wanting to move out of a location because of homosexual sex of their roomate....not hetrosexual sex. The desire to study and not get "hit on" when lounging is supreme....so people choose lifelong friends to share large apts with...with each room becoming a quazi studio apt. Local college attenders parents have been known to rent out rooms to students of both genders with the stipulation of respect. Sure we have moral reletavism...but would a males and females mixed really be worse morally than all males with some gay men? [/quote] I assume you meant both, but do you see more of an issue with gay men than gay women? Just wondering if that could be implied from your initial post or if you meant to include all and only gave an example of one. [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1334696444' post='2419729'] i don't know..but didn't the instruction about admitting homosexual men to the priesthood have something to do with this? (excuse me if i'm wrong, i'm not clear on the details about that instruction.) [/quote] This is the same teaching for all of religious life, is it not? Homosexual men and women (or those who struggle with homosexual tendencies) are not to be admitted into any religious life, if I'm not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 As long as there are boundaries that are clearly stated and respected by all, I don't really see the problem with any of the possible permutations of roommates of differeng genders or sexualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappie Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 It is evident that the people of this age in our culture are very confused about human sexuality. Before we can understand the morality of the many situations that we face we first have to understand the fundamentals, the basics. Our society clearly does not. If we believe God made us and we are made by design, for some purpose, this is a good place to start, understanding purpose. Every human being that comes into existence in the mother's womb has an immortal soul. The man and woman come together in physical delight and a baby is conceived. The man and woman cooperate with God and the three create a being who will live forever. God created the man and woman, and He creates the new soul. In that light this is a sacred activity. The angels do not have this power. Humans have this power and privilege and they exercise it by their will. In our time sex is trivialized. The transmission of life is not seen as holy and children are not valued. We kill them in the womb. We have operations to prevent conception and use chemicals also to frustrate the holy transmission of life. From this perspective individuals, men and women, become objects of selfish pleasure to which they become addicted. They lose respect for one another and become incapable of true love, for which they are made. A holy act becomes dirty and perverted. This we call sin. We are all products of our culture. If we look at the moral theology forum we see many people confused and struggling with sexual issues. One of the things the contrite soul in need of mercy or its recipient does is promise God to avoid the occasion of sin. That means avoiding putting oneself in a place where temptation is likely to occur. This could easily mean avoiding sharing an apartment with someone of the opposite sex. Mind you ... once shared with a flatmate of the same gender who, I thought would NEVER be so stupid/desperate as to ever be interested in me ... well, I was wrong on that one. Made things very awkward. If you run into no problems in your experience, well and good. But you shouldn't assume it'll work for everyone, or nearly everyone. There are people who jaywalk across busy streets in peak hour and manage not to get hit by traffic as well - doesn't mean they should go around assuming there's nothing dangerous about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 [quote name='cappie' timestamp='1334734618' post='2420094'] It is evident that the people of this age in our culture are very confused about human sexuality. Before we can understand the morality of the many situations that we face we first have to understand the fundamentals, the basics. Our society clearly does not. If we believe God made us and we are made by design, for some purpose, this is a good place to start, understanding purpose. Every human being that comes into existence in the mother's womb has an immortal soul. The man and woman come together in physical delight and a baby is conceived. The man and woman cooperate with God and the three create a being who will live forever. God created the man and woman, and He creates the new soul. In that light this is a sacred activity. The angels do not have this power. Humans have this power and privilege and they exercise it by their will. In our time sex is trivialized. The transmission of life is not seen as holy and children are not valued. We kill them in the womb. We have operations to prevent conception and use chemicals also to frustrate the holy transmission of life. From this perspective individuals, men and women, become objects of selfish pleasure to which they become addicted. They lose respect for one another and become incapable of true love, for which they are made. A holy act becomes dirty and perverted. This we call sin. We are all products of our culture. If we look at the moral theology forum we see many people confused and struggling with sexual issues. One of the things the contrite soul in need of mercy or its recipient does is promise God to avoid the occasion of sin. That means avoiding putting oneself in a place where temptation is likely to occur. This could easily mean avoiding sharing an apartment with someone of the opposite sex. Mind you ... once shared with a flatmate of the same gender who, I thought would NEVER be so stupid/desperate as to ever be interested in me ... well, I was wrong on that one. Made things very awkward. If you run into no problems in your experience, well and good. But you shouldn't assume it'll work for everyone, or nearly everyone. There are people who jaywalk across busy streets in peak hour and manage not to get hit by traffic as well - doesn't mean they should go around assuming there's nothing dangerous about it. [/quote] So, in your opinion, having ho[color=#000000]mosexual roo[/color][color=#000000]m[/color][color=#000000]mates is akin to walking across a busy street at rush hour? In that analogy, gay people are the speeding vehicles, right? Pretty da[/color][color=#000000]mn insulting for so[/color][color=#000000]meone whose post began with a co[/color][color=#000000]m[/color][color=#000000]ment about angels.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1334755451' post='2420155'] So, in your opinion, having ho[color=#000000]mosexual roo[/color][color=#000000]m[/color][color=#000000]mates is akin to walking across a busy street at rush hour? In that analogy, gay people are the speeding vehicles, right? Pretty da[/color][color=#000000]mn insulting for so[/color][color=#000000]meone whose post began with a co[/color][color=#000000]m[/color][color=#000000]ment about angels.[/color] [/quote] I think he was talking about either situation. If you go up two paragraphs, he specifically talks about opposite gender. The post as a whole is talking about sexuality generally, he only mentions homosexuality once, at the end. Did you even read the whole post? Edited April 18, 2012 by Amppax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1334755451' post='2420155'] So, in your opinion, having ho[color=#000000]mosexual roo[/color][color=#000000]m[/color][color=#000000]mates is akin to walking across a busy street at rush hour? In that analogy, gay people are the speeding vehicles, right? Pretty da[/color][color=#000000]mn insulting for so[/color][color=#000000]meone whose post began with a co[/color][color=#000000]m[/color][color=#000000]ment about angels.[/color] [/quote]kujo, where is the insult? It is no different than opposite gender heterosexuals moving in together with the 'danger' of having sexual attraction overcoming their initial intent. I think cappie is making the point that in today's society one can't just assume there will be no attraction complications even if they're the same gender. When crossing a busy street, you use due caution and look both ways. When choosing a roomie, you look both ways. I think it was made clear in the other thread that it's not always the guy in opposite gender roomies. Regardless of gender, if you don't want sexual attraction complications with your roomie, talk about it before it's an issue. Edit to add: As a married man, I had to work out of town for a year and wanted to just rent a room during the week. I answered a number of ads. This was 15 years ago and I was surprised how often the question of homosexuality was raised when it was a male renting out the room. No offense by either party, it came up in the convo. Some were interested in possible 'romance', others just wanted to make sure what their or my 'lifestyle' choice was. Edited April 18, 2012 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts