10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[John21652]

I just saying what i believe, I am not saying its true per definition.

Leviticus teaches that one should stone adulterers and the ten commandments teaches that killing is a mortal sin.
Leviticus was written by a people called the levites (hence the name), not god.
The ten commandments however are dircectly from GOD.
For example Christ tought us that the the Sabbath exists for humanity, not vice-versa
Mark 3:1-6

Man you are one mixed up Dude.

Have you not heard of what many call the very first Ecumenical Council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem? It is described in Acts 15: 1-35. The harshness of the Mosaic law was lifted from the Gentiles. However, then along came St. Paul, who had more to say on the subject. St. Paul went to a whole lot of trouble to tell you about the laws as they did and did not apply to non-Jews. It was he who said faith in Jesus would save and not the “works of the Law” (Ephesians 2:9). Paul wrote of the New Covenant and outlined just what aspects of the old law would still apply.

Contrary to what you say in response to Michelle, St. Paul did indeed speak of ‘homosexuality’. However he didn’t use that word, because it wasn’t yet ‘invented’ and wasn’t used until the 19th century. St. Paul used the words ‘arsenokoitai’ and *‘malakoi’. *The former he seems to have coined, but the latter can be found in the works of Hellenistic authors and particularly in the plays of Aristophanes, who mercilessly derided the passive partners in homosexuality in his plays.

Now all this has been passed on, beginning with Peter, the Rock on whom the Church was to be built, through Apostolic succession, to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has authority on these matters and not you. Your interpretation of this subject, and others, seems to be based on a sola scriptura approach to theological and moral reasoning. That is false doctrine and byb using it you are seperating yourself from the Church. That then leads me to suggest you get over yourself and stop displaying the same hubris that the likes of Luther and Calvin and a whole lot of others were victims of.

 

[damian_clarke]

Does that only happen to gay people? So I assume that when a man picks up a woman for sex that murder doesn’t occur then?

Greater risk of physical violence? Source please, same for disease.

Read the book “And the band played on” It is about how the CDC traced the AIDS virus in the early 1980’s. It has lots of details about the gay lifestyle in the bathhouses of Castro Street. That is my source. I also worked in a hospital where my senior surgeon went through a profound crisis of faith and started to run a sex change service. At one point he was doing one gender reassigment operation a week. So as a young man I met and interacted with many people in a subculture of the gay lifestyle. Once again the incidence of psychiatric illness, infectiious disease and physical injury was very high.

 

[Catholicpotato]

I just saying what i believe, I am not saying its true per definition.

Leviticus teaches that one should stone adulterers and the ten commandments teaches that killing is a mortal sin.
Leviticus was written by a people called the levites (hence the name), not god.
The ten commandments however are dircectly from GOD.
For example Christ tought us that the the Sabbath exists for humanity, not vice-versa
Mark 3:1-6

Leviticus was authored by God through human hands…
The Ten Commandments were written by God through human hands…

Hmmmm Tis amazing the mental gymnastics one will do to try to warp the Bible to their worldview. Perhaps we should warp our worldview to the Bible.

 

[John21652]

Individual homosexuals need to be treated with respect and love. We also need to make it clear that what they are doing is worng. My bigger concern is with the whole gay marketing machine that keeps pushing their agenda on the rest of us. Homophobia is now a term used for anyone who opposes gay marriage. The annual gay pride parade in Johannesburg shows the true colors of the gay movement. Drag queesn and bondage practitioners with genital shaped balloons. What exactly does that have to offer society.
Yet we are the bigots according to the media. We are the ones incapable of love and happiness. It really makes me mad at times.

Well, that’s the “gay lifestyle” being rammed down your throat.

Imagine a similar hetero parade. They’d lock people up for indecency!!

 

[LemonAndLime]

Read the book “And the band played on” It is about how the CDC traced the AIDS virus in the early 1980’s. It has lots of details about the gay lifestyle in the bathhouses of Castro Street. That is my source.

As I don’t have access to it so I can check your “facts” I reject your source. The AIDs virus was first detected in a gay community, but that doesn’t make it a gay disease.

I also worked in a hospital where my senior surgeon went through a profound crisis of faith and started to run a sex change service. At one point he was doing one gender reassigment operation a week. So as a young man I met and interacted with many people in a subculture of the gay lifestyle. Once again the incidence of psychiatric illness, infectiious disease and physical injury was very high.

Source?

 

[NeedImprovement]

damian clarke;8727055:

… I also worked in a hospital where my senior surgeon went through a profound crisis of faith and started to run a sex change service. At one point he was doing one gender reassigment operation a week. So as a young man I met and interacted with many people in a subculture of the gay lifestyle. Once again the incidence of psychiatric illness, infectiious disease and physical injury was very high.

Source?

Hi damian clarke .

Umm , before you go to any trouble , you might wish to check post # 121 of this thread first.

You’ll discover that it’s okay to say that you’ve been involved in giving CPR to patients and claim authority on the matter without providing any source.

Actually, if you look all through the thread, you’ll find plenty of examples of self-appointed authorities pointing out the only way we are permitted to speak about homosexuals ( but they can’t even agree with each other,:doh2: )– to the point of even rejecting a solid Catholic definition and intellectual approach on the matter. All these (ahem) “authorities” claim to be speaking from personal experience … and I don’t think any one of them has provided a “source” to date.

Your being the only one required to provide a source when almost everyone else claiming themselves to be the ultimate authority from personal experience hasn’t, to date, would actually make you the victim of discrimination …so please don’t feel obliged to give a source at all .

The rest of us will understand .:yup:

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

With all due respect i find that to be completely and utterly ridiculous.
Human interpretation (despite popular belief) is not impeccable.
And i refuse to believe that GOD would burn down a city because it is inhabited by homosexuals, in fact i find the thought alone to be utterly blasphemous.
I believe thesis is just as wrong as Monophysitism.
No offense intended.

"Ezechiel 16:49-50:

Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.

Vainglory, gluttony and idleness are damning in themselves, but together with not helping others it is a fast road to worse, in the Middle East lack of hospitality then was a very grave thing.

Just love.
And for the record the truth is not a democracy.
And even tradition can be wrong.
Just because ppl think it is disgusting or awkward does not make it a sin.
I mean we don’t live in the times of Leviticus anymore and are thus not subject to there blasphemous laws…

Catholics don’t care about Leviticus as the law in the Old Testament are null and void however homosexual acts are condemned in the New Testament so the prohibition is still there, but the obligation to stone them is not

I just saying what i believe, I am not saying its true per definition.

Leviticus teaches that one should stone adulterers and the ten commandments teaches that killing is a mortal sin.
Leviticus was written by a people called the Levites (hence the name), not god.
The ten commandments however are directly from GOD.
For example Christ taught us that the the Sabbath exists for humanity, not vice-versa
Mark 3:1-6

unjust killing is wrong, there isn’t a word in English that perfectly correlates with the Greek so the choices were murder or killing.

St. Paul spoke of adultery.
He spoke of men leaving there wives.
Not homosexual acts.
That is what i believe.

Paul bashed *a lot *of people,

Individual homosexuals need to be treated with respect and love. We also need to make it clear that what they are doing is worng. My bigger concern is with the whole gay marketing machine that keeps pushing their agenda on the rest of us. Homophobia is now a term used for anyone who opposes gay marriage. The annual gay pride parade in Johannesburg shows the true colors of the gay movement. Drag queens and bondage practitioners with genital shaped balloons. What exactly does that have to offer society.
Yet we are the bigots according to the media. We are the ones incapable of love and happiness. It really makes me mad at times.

Transvestites have nothing to do with homosexuality, bondage has nothing to do with homosexuality, the LGBT community kind of picked up all the other deviants, once upon a time they worked with NAMBLA then they realized that throwing them under the bus was more likely to get them what they want, so they did.

Does that only happen to gay people? So I assume that when a man picks up a woman for sex that murder doesn’t occur then?

Greater risk of physical violence? Source please, same for disease.

Guys are statistically more prone to physically abusing there spouse than women are, but women are more likely to psychologically/emotionally abuse their spouse than men are. Gays are more likely to be physically abused than heterosexuals, but less likely to be psychologically abused while lesbians are less likely to be physically abused, but more likely to be psychologically abused. Overall abuse is a bit higher, but once you control for alcoholism, other substance abuse and psychological problems the difference becomes negligible. Due to backgrounds and the nature of “the lifestyle” there are a lot less meaningful connections thus increasing mental instability.

Read the book “And the band played on” It is about how the CDC traced the AIDS virus in the early 1980’s. It has lots of details about the gay lifestyle in the bathhouses of Castro Street. That is my source. I also worked in a hospital where my senior surgeon went through a profound crisis of faith and started to run a sex change service. At one point he was doing one gender reassignment operation a week. So as a young man I met and interacted with many people in a subculture of the gay lifestyle. Once again the incidence of psychiatric illness, infectious disease and physical injury was very high.

There isn’t an AIDS virus, it’s actually HIV, also during the 1980’s they would have called AIDS “GRID”.

Well, that’s the “gay lifestyle” being rammed down your throat.

Imagine a similar hetero parade. They’d lock people up for indecency!!

sigh

As I don’t have access to it so I can check your “facts” I reject your source. The AIDS virus was first detected in a gay community, but that doesn’t make it a gay disease.

Source?

Correct, it’s actually from sub-Saharan Africa and the ultimate source is from monkeys

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

Correct, it’s actually from sub-Saharan Africa and the ultimate source is from monkeys.

:hey_bud: Great idea. Let’s blame it on the monkeys! :thumbsup:

 

[HaveCourage]

Those homosexuals has made their own choice in life.

In conscientiously subscribing to the life-identity of being "homosexual? Correct.

However, be aware that the mainstream does not even allow for people with same-sex attraction to KNOW that they have the capability to choose a life identity that is not centered on sexuality (such as being a “human being with same-sex attraction”, instead of being a “homosexual human being”.

But young people are confused.

Absolutely. But when you come to a Catholic forum and find threads like these, whose very title implies that even Catholic people do not recognize the absolute necessity of separating the homosexual attraction from the homosexual identity, then it should not be a surprise as to why they are confused - because there is a huge absence of proper teaching on the manner, and in the meantime, they are getting brainwashed by our culture. The remedy is in every single one of us picking up the cross on this matter, whether it applies to you directly or not, for allowing the absence of proper teaching on this matter, only aids the promotion of society’s corruption.

At this point of time, those homosexuals, in my opinion, their feelings or even their salvation is not of any priority ( may God forgive me for saying this). At this point of time, the whole human race is at stake, future generation is the bet should we allow homosexuality chance our humanity.

Excuse me for sounding abrupt, but you have to come to terms with not referring to people as “homosexual” people, for in that, you mask the difference between homosexual identity (which people conscientiously choose) and homosexual attraction (which people do not conscientiously choose). For that reason, any point of view that you have regarding the topic of homosexuality is also not capable of reflecting the fullness of truth, because you are embedding a contradiction in your own language.

If Catholic people DO NOT come to terms with this, then do not be surprised to see the faith pushed underground, or compromised.

It is as clear as day: the one word “homosexual” is not good enough.

Secondly , you are darn right our future is at stake. but unless we get our act together, we are all part of the problem. There is no greater force upon the Catholic Church than the pro-homosexual movement, which now has youth-turned-adults backing them.

Those who has made the wrong choice, may they repent. If not then, I will still speak the truth. The truth will sounds hard even I try to sugarcoat it (I really don’t mind to sugarcoat it so long it still means the same thing) for none can hide from from the truth with or without sugarcoat.

Amen.
However, many same-sex attracted people identify as “homosexual” people, because that is the only option that they have been presented as possible. This is not however the case. They could identify as a unicorn if they truly wanted to. It is their free will that is being exercised. But, they have been taught that they must assume that identity in order to discover truth in their lives. Let me ask you this: How does one discover truth in their lives when the very identity they embrace contains an intrinsic contradiction of truth; the contradiction that sexual attraction (no free choice) and sexual identity (free choice) can be legitimately washed together as non-distinct items?

These people need to know their rights as human beings! When I discovered this freedom in the Lord, by disengaging from one identity and transforming it into the identity of being a child of God (with same-sex attraction), it was as though chains were lifted off me immediately. Guess what - not all people with same-sex attraction WANT to have same-sex attraction, let alone identify as a “homosexual” person! Do your part and refrain from using that intrinsically corrupt term.

Surely one to one approach should be different than speaking in forums.

A person can talk until they are blue in the face, but unless a person is sincerely willing to open their ears, heart, mind, and soul to the Lord, there will be no transformation (and that is not an overnight thing either). For that reason, we must make sure that when talking to homosexual-IDENTIFIED people (that is an example of using a clarifier to the word “homosexual”), we make sure that they know they are safe, loved, and that they will be listened to, provided that it is a fair and honest two-way street of dialogue.

If that is not going to happen, you still have a role to play, and that is this:
a) PRAY PRAY PRAY that God’s graces may flow into you, and that person, such that God’s will may be done. Note that this is way different than praying for someone to be “straight”.
b) Educate your youth, educate your parish, volunteer in your schools, educate your circles of moms, dads, and whoever else you are circulating with.

If you do not do these things, who will?

And yes, I know this is a demanding call.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Man you are one mixed up Dude.

Have you not heard of what many call the very first Ecumenical Council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem? It is described in Acts 15: 1-35. The harshness of the Mosaic law was lifted from the Gentiles. However, then along came St. Paul, who had more to say on the subject. St. Paul went to a whole lot of trouble to tell you about the laws as they did and did not apply to non-Jews. It was he who said faith in Jesus would save and not the “works of the Law” (Ephesians 2:9). Paul wrote of the New Covenant and outlined just what aspects of the old law would still apply.

Contrary to what you say in response to Michelle, St. Paul did indeed speak of ‘homosexuality’. However he didn’t use that word, because it wasn’t yet ‘invented’ and wasn’t used until the 19th century. St. Paul used the words ‘arsenokoitai’ and *‘malakoi’. *The former he seems to have coined, but the latter can be found in the works of Hellenistic authors and particularly in the plays of Aristophanes, who mercilessly derided the passive partners in homosexuality in his plays.

Now all this has been passed on, beginning with Peter, the Rock on whom the Church was to be built, through Apostolic succession, to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has authority on these matters and not you. Your interpretation of this subject, and others, seems to be based on a sola scriptura approach to theological and moral reasoning. That is false doctrine and byb using it you are seperating yourself from the Church. That then leads me to suggest you get over yourself and stop displaying the same hubris that the likes of Luther and Calvin and a whole lot of others were victims of.

No i am not, they said they where right per definition.
I only state my opinion.
And it also seems you are threatening me.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

And from my pov it also seems you are calling me a heretic.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Personally i firmly believe with great fervor that sodomy is rape and not homosexuality.

With all due respect i find that to be completely and utterly ridiculous.
Human interpretation (despite popular belief) is not impeccable.
And i refuse to believe that GOD would burn down a city because it is inhabited by homosexuals, in fact i find the thought alone to be utterly blasphemous.
I believe thesis is just as wrong as Monophysitism.
No offense intended.

I believe it implies lust and not homosexuality.
(Not the same)
And for the record:
I am straight.

Just love.
And for the record the truth is not a democracy.
And even tradition can be wrong.
Just because ppl think it is disgusting or awkward does not make it a sin.
I mean we don’t live in the times of Leviticus anymore and are thus not subject to there blasphemous laws…

Charlemagne II;8726907:

Did your priest tell you you can ignore the teachings of the Church and believe what you want to believe?

I am simply saying they might need to be revised.

I just saying what i believe, I am not saying its true per definition.

Leviticus teaches that one should stone adulterers and the ten commandments teaches that killing is a mortal sin.
Leviticus was written by a people called the levites (hence the name), not god.
The ten commandments however are dircectly from GOD.
For example Christ tought us that the the Sabbath exists for humanity, not vice-versa
Mark 3:1-6

St. Paul spoke of adultery.
He spoke of men leaving there wives.
Not homosexual acts.
That is what i believe.

Can we please restrain ourselves from personal attacks and stay on the issues.
For even the holy father can be mistaken at times.
Like the case of Honorius I who openly thought Monophysitism.
And he was anathematized by name for doing so.
When we believe our shepherds are in error it is our duty to speak out.
In a respectful way of course.

PS:And if i remember correctly john Paul II placed a statue of Buddha over the tabernacle.
Is that not wrong?
I mean no disrespect to his holiness i am merely asking.

No i am not, they said they where right per definition.
I only state my opinion.
And it also seems you are threatening me.

And from my pov it also seems you are calling me a heretic.

Several readers of your posts are reacting along the same line because of your erroneous biblical reading and take on Church teachings. You were admonished, not threatened. You, not anybody else, are placing yourself outside the Church.
,

 

[damian_clarke]

As I don’t have access to it so I can check your “facts” I reject your source. The AIDs virus was first detected in a gay community, but that doesn’t make it a gay disease.

Source?

I never said it was a gay disease. The Book is about the efforts of the CDC back in the ealry 1980’s to try and understand the pathogenesis of the disease. They did not know it was a sexually transmitted virus. They had to trace it through contacts. There is quite a lot in the book about the homosexual subcuture as it exitsed in San Francisco at the time.
As an aside you cannot reject something just because you cannot get hold of the source easily. The Book is quite well known look on Amazon. They also turned it into a movie.
The act of sodomy in itself is unhelathy/
Here is one of the first articles to appear in the surgical literature on this topic.
Social injuries of the rectum.
Sohn N, Weinstein MA, Gonchar J.
Am J Surg. 1977 Nov;134(5):611-2.
PMID: 920891 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related citations

 

[John21652]

No i am not, they said they where right per definition.
I only state my opinion.
And it also seems you are threatening me.

Let me remind you of what Michelleds said to you in post #288 -

Why do you believe that you personally are so much more intelligent or discerning or capable than many centuries of spiritual greats who have proceeded you? You espouse beliefs that are contrary to the Blessed Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict today and all of the Catholic thinkers before them. Do you not fear hubris?

And St. Paul specifically spoke of homosexuality and it is a blatant error to read otherwise. If you are reading so-called progressive Christian theologians, they are merely making hay with the moral relativism of the day.

Now, let me remind you of your response in post #290 -

Can we please restrain ourselves from personal attacks and stay on the issues.
For even the holy father can be mistaken at times.

Now let me remind you of an observation catholicpotato made in post #297 -

Hmmmm Tis amazing the mental gymnastics one will do to try to warp the Bible to their worldview. Perhaps we should warp our worldview to the Bible.

How many more posters here will you need to condemn the way in which you interpret the Catholic faith before you sit up and take notice? Two posters have now accused you of hubristic interpretations of theology and both times you tell us you feel attacked, or threatened. Strange, that someone so sure of his opinions being more correct than even learned Church theologians should have such a thin skin.

I now draw your attention to the Catholic Encyclopedia reference article on Protestanism and its use of Sola Scriptura -

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.

I’d also like to draw your attention to the Catholic Catchism, particularly Part three, Section Two, Chapter Two. I suggest you read it from top to bottom and even go as far as following the references. You need to learn and accept that the Church has authority on this issue; you don’t.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I am only saying what i personally believe.
And Leviticus was written by people who stoned adulterers.
This goes against what Christ said on earth.
Remember: “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

 

[OraLabora]

I am only saying what i personally believe.
And Leviticus was written by people who stoned adulterers.
This goes against what Christ said on earth.
Remember: “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

And then He added to the adulteress “now go and sin no more”.

Six words many conveniently leave out when discussing Jesus’s take on sin.

And on this specific topic, they conveniently leave out:

19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.

20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;

21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools

23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies.

25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

**26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.**

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips

30 and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

31 They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

(Romans 1 19:32)

Seems plain as night and day to me: God, through St Paul’s pen, condemns homosexual acts.

Which brings us back to our original topic, how do we help the stray sheep return? How do we dialogue with them and make them burn for love for God and His Church? How do we go about our commandment to love them, in full light of the fact that they, like us, are sinners?

 

[LemonAndLime]

I never said it was a gay disease. The Book is about the efforts of the CDC back in the ealry 1980’s to try and understand the pathogenesis of the disease. They did not know it was a sexually transmitted virus. They had to trace it through contacts. There is quite a lot in the book about the homosexual subcuture as it exitsed in San Francisco at the time.
As an aside you cannot reject something just because you cannot get hold of the source easily. The Book is quite well known look on Amazon. They also turned it into a movie.
The act of sodomy in itself is unhelathy/
Here is one of the first articles to appear in the surgical literature on this topic.
Social injuries of the rectum.
Sohn N, Weinstein MA, Gonchar J.
Am J Surg. 1977 Nov;134(5):611-2.
PMID: 920891 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related citations

The vagina can also be injured during sexual intercourse, as can the penis - so what’s your point?

And yes, I can reject it. I cannot check what you are claiming myself without paying money. It is against forum rules on the news forum to post an article that others have to pay to read (as they cannot read it themselves to make their own opinion) so using the same logic I think its unfair for you to say “Yeah, it says it in the book, I’m not gonna post an extract, but you have to go and read it yourself.” As you are the one making the assertions, the onus is on you to provide the proof.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hi damian clarke .

Umm , before you go to any trouble , you might wish to check post # 121 of this thread first.

You’ll discover that it’s okay to say that you’ve been involved in giving CPR to patients and claim authority on the matter without providing any source.

Actually, if you look all through the thread, you’ll find plenty of examples of self-appointed authorities pointing out the only way we are permitted to speak about homosexuals ( but they can’t even agree with each other,:doh2: )– to the point of even rejecting a solid Catholic definition and intellectual approach on the matter. All these (ahem) “authorities” claim to be speaking from personal experience … and I don’t think any one of them has provided a “source” to date.

Your being the only one required to provide a source when almost everyone else claiming themselves to be the ultimate authority from personal experience hasn’t, to date, would actually make you the victim of discrimination …so please don’t feel obliged to give a source at all .

The rest of us will understand .:yup:

He is required to provide a source to back up his assertion, that he has made throughout this thread, that homosexuality is linked with high levels of mental illness, etc.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

And then He added to the adulteress “now go and sin no more”.

Six words many conveniently leave out when discussing Jesus’s take on sin.

And on this specific topic, they conveniently leave out:

(Romans 1 19:32)

Seems plain as night and day to me: God, through St Paul’s pen, condemns homosexual acts.

Which brings us back to our original topic, how do we help the stray sheep return? How do we dialogue with them and make them burn for love for God and His Church? How do we go about our commandment to love them, in full light of the fact that they, like us, are sinners?

-27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity-

This clearly states these men where already in a relationship so the thing St Paul objected to was the fact they abandoned there wives and betrayed THERE nature.

-26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural-

That is not very specific now is it?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Lemon

**He is required to provide a source to back up his assertion, that he has made throughout this thread, that homosexuality is linked with high levels of mental illness, etc. **

Do you need a source to back up the assertion that mother-son or father-daughter incest is linked to a high level of mental illness?

Why does common sense ever need a source other than itself?