Our Church however has the distinct and unique status as being the one founded by Jesus, not a fallen human being. There is a very interesting chart with the history of various Denominations of Christianity. Many are less than 100 years old.
Are you saying they don’t belong there at all? But then what other criteria separates this group from the rest of us? You really believe that a choice of sex partner distinguishes humans as a unique group from others in the same way that skin color does? This sexual characterization is in complete contradiction to that human being’s biological structure; no offspring can be produced without deviating from this characterization. In biological terms, self-annihilating.
Marriage is about making babies, not love.
The ancients called that friendship.
Irrelevant.
Most professional historians of early Christianity do not believe that the Catholic Church is the one church founded by Jesus Christ. The historical evidence seems to indicate that there were many different competing versions of Christianity with different understandings of who Jesus was and what he taught. Your statement is a statement of faith, not something which most professional historians using modern methods of historical inquiry would find convincing.
This would certainly make a great topic for another thread. I for one would be interested in your claim that “most professional historians…”. It would be great to see your citations or information on that claim.
That’s not Catholic teaching.
Since no one yet knows what causes sexual orientation, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that people with SSA were not born that way. Nor, of course, can it be said with absolute certainty that they were born that way. Also, the biological or psychological causes of SSA (about which the Catholic Church has nothing to say) are separate from questions of morality.
You would be surprised at how close traditional, historical Christian doctrine and the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church align themselves, especially in terms of the topics being discussed on this thread. It would also be important I think to point out the roots of Judaism in early Christianity, specifically with reference to what Jesus believed and taught.
What I understand with all my heart and within the deepest depths of my conscience and soul is if I were a faithful Catholic, I surely wouldn’t need civil law to validate my faith. Nor would I have the need to make myself more secure in my faith by going around proclaiming I’m right on everything. That I absolutely certainly hold the fullness of truth and everyone else is wrong. And then talk about the pride of others.
Perhaps but you miss the point if the CC claims it, it is. And if someone makes a chart well then it must be most definitely is. If you ask Episcopalians, they trace themselves back through apostolic succession and I imagine others claim their faiths are of Christ as well. But those claims are dismissed if the CC doesn’t agree.
Given that children are born without mature sex organs and hormonal influences, it would be difficult to prove anyone is born with an attraction to the same sex. Given that we are born with certain chromosomes and physical features, people are born to be heterosexual, to express their sexuality in a normal way that is appropriate for the way they are made.
You are worshiping your brain waves and making a god of your feelings. And I have no idea why you bring in civil law at all. Completely irrelevant.
Depends on whether one believes in God and whether ones believes in absolute truths. If one believes I both then it would seem quite strange that God would wait 2,000 years to “reveal” to our generation that we’ve had it wrong about homosexuality since Christ founded our church.
Again I think those who prefer relativism hate the idea there might actually be a TRUTH that doesn’t comport with their “deep feelings” as if feelings were ever a reason to come to a conclusion. There are few things more subject to outside forces, to change and to complete relativism than feelings. Those who dismiss the Church haven’t spent the time to read and understand Church teaching. Instead depending on “feelings” to draw conclusions…how’s that working out
What I understand with all my heart and within the deepest depths of my conscience is that there are absolute truths and God didn’t just dump us on the earth and leave us to figure them out for ourselves.
Not everything we are born with as part of our biological or genetic makeup manifests itself in childhood. The statement that we are “born to be heterosexual” is a statement of religious belief not of science and the natural world is far more complex than what we are now able to completely understand or explain.
This same kind of argument could also be used to justify why a black person has no right to marry a white person and vice versa. It might be argued, for example, that just because a black person is in love with and is sexually attracted to a certain white person, they can both control their passions and desires and do not have to act on them and have a choice of what they do with their genitals. Therefore, they have no right to get married and laws banning interracial marriage should not have been struck down by the Supreme Court because every white person has the right to marry another white person and every black person has the right to marry another black person. The right for someone to marry someone regardless of race should therefore not be protected. BTW, racial segregation was long supported by some people with the Bible.
But that is one comparison that is used. See this article:
Merely your opinion and that of others who share it, that a person controls their orientation any more than their gender or race. It’s my opinion people are born with their orientation. Heterosexuals don’t just wake up one day and say alrighty yay I’m choosing to be attracted to the opposite sex today any more than homosexuals choose. But again you have your opinion and I mine. Thorolfr is correct.
