Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to)?

[Mea_Culpa]

You do realize that according to that faulty excuse of a translation, that such a term would imply that “homosexuals”, practicing or not, will not inherit God’s Kingdom. That would seem to go against the pathetic effort towards “clean-up”, many “Christians”, on this forum try to manage. Care to explain? (Or should I say, interpret?)

No interpretation necessary, it is what it is. When it says idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God - what does it mean by idolaters? People who practice idolatry. When it says adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God - what does it mean by adulterers? People who practice adultery. When it says thieves? When it says drunkards? Etc.

If someone is a thief, and then repents and renounces his sin, is he then eligible to inherit the kingdom of God? YES! Even if he feels tempted to steal again, but doesn’t do it, then he is not a thief. Being tempted to do something is not a sin, but acting on that temptation is a sin.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

[Janet_S]

I agree with all that you’ve said, but I think we need to clarify the Church’s response to the first two.

In the Catechism, Church offers no opinion as to the genesis of homosexuality’s pathology, ie, the “nature vs. nurture” issue, if we’re talking about the orientation itself. She hasn’t offered one because She doesn’t know it’s specific origin, ie, why one person has a homosexual orientation, why another doesn’t. It might BE genetic, but that would not make homosexual activity any more morally acceptable. It might BE environmental, but that also would not make homosexuality any more acceptable. There may be a genetic or environmental propensity to alcoholism, but that doesn’t make drunkeness morally licit or acceptable. She affirms that homosexuality is a state that is disordered according to the natural law and She affirms that it is the result of sin, but notice that she doesn’t attribute that sin necessarily to the person laboring under the cross of the disordered orientation. It could be the result of another’s sin. For example, there is a theory that holds that if one has not established a sound and loving bond with the same sex parent, one might have a propensity in latter life to homosexuality (ie, one might seek for that sound and loving bond with a partner of the same gender and express that need in genital activity). What if the failure to develop that bond is not the fault of the child (I rather imagine that it rarely is, though natrually I cannot prove it)? What if it is because that parent was abusive, or cold and emotionally distant or deserted the family? If the suffering child then develops a propensity toward homosexuality, ie, an orientation, whose sin caused it? Certainly, the child is responsible for the actions he or she might then engage it, but we’re talking about the genesis of the disorder at this point, not the actions. I have not trouble believing that homosexual people do not generally choose their orientation. I understand completely that they exercise a choice in undertaking genital activity and I understand that those acts are gravely sinful.

That post you are referring to addresses the propaganda and lies put out by the gay rights movement, not necessarily the teaching of the Church. The Church has never said why people have same sex attractions. That is a question for biologists and social scientists. Whatever the cause, homosexual activity will always be considered sinful by the Church.

Maybe there is a “gay” gene, but to date there is no evidence of one. But that doesn’t stop people from saying “they were born that way.” On the other hand, there are many studies to show homosexual tendencies are influenced by a child’s relationship with his same-sex parent, but you rarely hear about that.

The point of my post was to address the unsubstantiated claims of the gay rights political movement that sees “gayness” as innate, genetic, and immutable trait, and thus has raised gay sex to the level of a civil right. One need not be religious to recognize how ridiculous and unprecedented this tendency is in our modern society. It defies common sense. It is destructive for those people struggling with same sex attraction as well as society as a whole.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Truagape is an obviously pained, young individual. His arguments are those of a desperate soul. In his present mind set, we cannot convince him ("…eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear") of what I believe his heart already knows. Sexual acts outside of holy matrimony is sinful. No need for a lot of discussion, no wriggle room; it is what it is.

In a recent parish discussion group, I mentioned my dismay with the curricula and outside activities I encountered at a visit to Seattle University (Jesuit school) especially the gay/lesbian influence, specifically the inclusion of G/L couples as the norm. A young man at the group asked me what G/L’s were supposed to do in relation to their sexual desires. When I responded they were called to chastity and celibacy, just like any other single person, the young man was shocked. What shocked him was that I thought all unmarried persons were bound to chastity.

All this to say we as a Church have failed to instruct our children well. We’ve confused them by hailing the unmarried mom as a heroine for not killing her child, by allowing all night prom parties in hotels with virtually no supervision. We welcome our sons/daughters and their partners in our homes despite the fact they are openly living together.

The message of tolerance and love of the individual has been transformed to mean acceptance of the act.

I fear much of what you say, particularly in the third paragraph, is all too true. My neice and nephew, raised in a Catholic home and very good children, do not understand why I will not watch certain movies with them or allow certain songs to be played on the radio of my car. Let us pray and make reparation for our sins against our children. The Church is impeccable, but those of us in Her have failed miserably in the task of standing against the culture of this world.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That post you are referring to addresses the propaganda and lies put out by the gay rights movement, not necessarily the teaching of the Church. The Church has never said why people have same sex attractions. That is a question for biologists and social scientists. Whatever the cause, homosexual activity will always be considered sinful by the Church.

Maybe there is a “gay” gene, but to date there is no evidence of one. But that doesn’t stop people from saying “they were born that way.” On the other hand, there are many studies to show homosexual tendencies are influenced by a child’s relationship with his same-sex parent, but you rarely hear about that.

The point of my post was to address the unsubstantiated claims of the gay rights political movement that sees “gayness” as innate, genetic, and immutable trait, and thus has raised gay sex to the level of a civil right. One need not be religious to recognize how ridiculous and unprecedented this tendency is in our modern society. It defies common sense. It is destructive for those people struggling with same sex attraction as well as society as a whole.

I absolutely agree. I simply thought we needed to clarify for our young friend, who seems in a great deal of pain, what Holy Mother Church teaches and what She does not. You are quite right.

 

[Dale_M]

I think everyone knows where the Catholic Church stands on the matter of homosexuality. But I do want to address Janet’s claims.

Here are a few of the lies of the gay rights political movement:

that homosexuality is inborn or genetic. This is a lie, there is no evidence of this.

I agree that objective evidence is lacking, but it is quite another thing to call the statement a lie. What evidence do you have that it is a lie?

that homosexuality is a part of one’s nature and is immutable. This is a lie, and there is evidence to the contrary. People in gay life styles are human, so they have free will. No one ever died from lack of sex.

The non-fatality of celibacy doesn’t address whether sexual orientaion is immutable. Yes, people have free will and some claim to have chosen heterosexuality or homosexuality. My guess is that such individuals were either bisexual or actively suppressing their natural inclination. Certainly quite a few “ex-gays” have strayed from their chosen path.

that homosexuality is natural and healthy. Wrong, it’s not. It’s not our religious beliefs but our common sense that tells us sex has a complementary nature to it. To put it more bluntly, the anus and mouth are not copulatory organs.

Anal sex is practiced by less than half of all homosexuals, and although not to my taste, is practiced by some heterosexuals. Were you going to say why you think homosexuality is neither natural nor healthy?

that a union of a man and man is just as healthy and natural (in every way) as a union of a man and woman. Another lie, see above. “Male and female he made them.”

I don’t see how that Bible verse relates to this topic. It is quite obvious that males and females exist, and we believe that God created them.

that those who believe marriage defined only as the union of a man and a woman are bigots and should be treated the same as racists. A lie. Marriage has universally, at all times, in all places, and across all cultures involved the union of man (or men) with women. Acceptance of same sex unions is unprecedented. Anyone with a traditional and universal view of marriage will be subjected to persecution. This will affect religious freedom and our freedom to teach our own children.

Wow, this is a long one. I’m not sure that “the gay rights political movement” views opponents of gay marriage as bigots, although undoubtedly some individuals do.

Since marriage historically has been tied to child-rearing, yes, it has traditionally involved men and women in varying numbers. But the advent of an average life-span which lasts well past the age of child-rearing, as well as the advent of birth control, has decoupled marriage from child rearing. Marriage is as least as much about our human need for companionship as it is for child-rearing - otherwise we would dissolve marriages once children were raised.

You claim that persons who hold to a traditional view of marriage will be persecuted. What is your evidence for that statement? Why will it affect religious freedom or freedom to teach children?

that all problems experienced by those in the homosexual life style (high suicide rate, alcoholism, depression, early death, STD’s, etc.) are the fault of society, and not an inherent problem with homosexuality itself. A lie. People living the gay life style–at least in America, Canada, and Europe–are a protected class and are still suffering from the effects of active homosexuality. Changing society is not the answer.

What is your evidence for your claim that homosexuality, and not bigotry, is the cause of high suicide, alcoholism, depression etc?
Simply because some laws offer some protection against discrimination and violence doesn’t make that discrimination and violence disappear. Racism didn’t disappear with the protections of the 1960s - that racism is less today is because our culture became less tolerant of it.

 

[Janet_S]

I think everyone knows where the Catholic Church stands on the matter of homosexuality. But I do want to address Janet’s claims.

I agree that objective evidence is lacking, but it is quite another thing to call the statement a lie. What evidence do you have that it is a lie?

The non-fatality of celibacy doesn’t address whether sexual orientaion is immutable. Yes, people have free will and some claim to have chosen heterosexuality or homosexuality. My guess is that such individuals were either bisexual or actively suppressing their natural inclination. Certainly quite a few “ex-gays” have strayed from their chosen path.

Anal sex is practiced by less than half of all homosexuals, and although not to my taste, is practiced by some heterosexuals. Were you going to say why you think homosexuality is neither natural nor healthy?

I don’t see how that Bible verse relates to this topic. It is quite obvious that males and females exist, and we believe that God created them.

Wow, this is a long one. I’m not sure that “the gay rights political movement” views opponents of gay marriage as bigots, although undoubtedly some individuals do.

Since marriage historically has been tied to child-rearing, yes, it has traditionally involved men and women in varying numbers. But the advent of an average life-span which lasts well past the age of child-rearing, as well as the advent of birth control, has decoupled marriage from child rearing. Marriage is as least as much about our human need for companionship as it is for child-rearing - otherwise we would dissolve marriages once children were raised.

You claim that persons who hold to a traditional view of marriage will be persecuted. What is your evidence for that statement? Why will it affect religious freedom or freedom to teach children?

What is your evidence for your claim that homosexuality, and not bigotry, is the cause of high suicide, alcoholism, depression etc?
Simply because some laws offer some protection against discrimination and violence doesn’t make that discrimination and violence disappear. Racism didn’t disappear with the protections of the 1960s - that racism is less today is because our culture became less tolerant of it.

There is no evidence of a gay gene. Actually studies of identical twins to date prove the contrary–that there is no gay gene. If someone is informed that he or she was born gay because of a gay gene, that is a lie because it contradicts what we now know.

And as far as the healthiness (physical and psychiatric) of gay sex, particularly male gay sex, I didn’t think it was necessary to get into details. But in case you’re not aware, here’s an article by a doctor with a lot of supporting references:
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Regarding the connection between the recognition of same sex marriages and religious freedom, what are you surprised about, we’re already seeing the effects today. Look at Boston where Catholic Charities opted out of providing adoption services because they were prohibited by law from refusing adoption to same-sex couples. Look at Calgary, Canada, where a Bishop was charged with two human rights violations because of his outspokenness against same-sex marriage. Look at California where the supreme court determined that same sex marriage was a fundamental human right. Do you think this won’t affect what children are taught in public schools? Should the schools have the right to undermine what parents teach their children? Another thing to consider is the rights of the teachers. What if you’re a teacher who disagrees with the party line and who holds to the universal and traditional view of marriage? Will you have the right to follow your conscience? I’m betting no. The writing is on the wall.

 

[Dale_M]

Janet, thank you for your reply. You’ve given me quite a bit to think about.

There is no evidence of a gay gene. Actually studies of identical twins to date prove the contrary–that there is no gay gene. If someone is informed that he or she was born gay because of a gay gene, that is a lie because it contradicts what we now know.

Okay, I guess we agree. I think human behavior is far too complex to be governed by one gene. Even several genes may not account for it. Epigenetics and factors affecting in utero development are possibly involved, but again, we just know so little.

And as far as the healthiness (physical and psychiatric) of gay sex, particularly male gay sex, I didn’t think it was necessary to get into details. But in case you’re not aware, here’s an article by a doctor with a lot of supporting references

Thank you for the lengthy article. I skimmed parts of it, and some of what he says makes sense and other parts sound… well, unfounded. I will get back to you on it.

Regarding the connection between the recognition of same sex marriages and religious freedom, what are you surprised about, we’re already seeing the effects today. Look at Boston where Catholic Charities opted out of providing adoption services because they were prohibited by law from refusing adoption to same-sex couples.

I am not very familiar with that case. I know they received about $1 million in reimbursement for their adoption services. If they had refused government funding could they have continued?

Look at Calgary, Canada, where a Bishop was charged with two human rights violations because of his outspokenness against same-sex marriage.

Canada handles freedom of expression very differently than the US handles freedom of speech. But weren’t the charges against the bishop dropped?

Look at California where the supreme court determined that same sex marriage was a fundamental human right. Do you think this won’t affect what children are taught in public schools? Should the schools have the right to undermine what parents teach their children?

Schools often teach things which parents object to. I guess I am not bothered by the need to teach children that different people believe different things and that this is what we believe and why.

Another thing to consider is the rights of the teachers. What if you’re a teacher who disagrees with the party line and who holds to the universal and traditional view of marriage? Will you have the right to follow your conscience? I’m betting no.

I think the union would support transferring the teacher to a position where s/he would not feel conflicted. But is this such a problem? After all, biology teachers are sometimes required to make statements or teach modules which question evolution. Don’t they manage?

 

[Janet_S]

Janet, thank you for your reply. You’ve given me quite a bit to think about.

Okay, I guess we agree. I think human behavior is far too complex to be governed by one gene. Even several genes may not account for it. Epigenetics and factors affecting in utero development are possibly involved, but again, we just know so little.

Thank you for the lengthy article. I skimmed parts of it, and some of what he says makes sense and other parts sound… well, unfounded. I will get back to you on it.

I am not very familiar with that case. I know they received about $1 million in reimbursement for their adoption services. If they had refused government funding could they have continued?

Canada handles freedom of expression very differently than the US handles freedom of speech. But weren’t the charges against the bishop dropped?

Schools often teach things which parents object to. I guess I am not bothered by the need to teach children that different people believe different things and that this is what we believe and why.

I think the union would support transferring the teacher to a position where s/he would not feel conflicted. But is this such a problem? After all, biology teachers are sometimes required to make statements or teach modules which question evolution. Don’t they manage?

I’m not sure about the Catholic Charities case in Boston. From the article you linked it’s unclear whether they could have continued providing adoption services if they refused the $1,000,000 in reimbursements. Obviously, in the end they didn’t get $1,000,000 reimbursement money anyway since they stopped providing services. So it would be hard to say they came out ahead-- at least financially-- because of their decision.

Regarding Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary, I found a lot of information about him on the internet. Here are a few of the articles I found:
religioustolerance.org/hom_marb45.htm
rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca/

He’s a very courageous man. I’m not sure if he was cleared of both civil rights violations, but he was cleared of at least one of them. I also found this (short) thread about him here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=89260

Bringing frivolous charges against someone is a form of harassment/persecution, even if you are cleared of those charges in the end.

 

[burnside]

The link below may be of interest.Peter Tatchell is a guy who was not satisfied when the UK Government lowered the Gay age of consent from 18 years to 16 years.He wanted it down to 14 years.
In addition,in a TV Debate quite recently,he was warning us about
all these Polish Conservative Catholics moving to the UK and bringing their prejudices about Gays with them.Apparently,
employers think the Poles are good workers.Gay Peter likes to dish it out but didn’t like it when an Evangelical woman said,“i suppose you had a mother”!!! The link i am providing is about the
outrage he caused among Northern Ireland Protestants when he claimed William of Orange was bisexual.
theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2410641.0.outrage_gay_william_of_orange_claims.php

 

[Dale_M]

Janet, I guess I am not going to do much of a reply to Dr. Diggs’ article. He seems to play loose with the facts in a couple places, such as talking about a shortened life span for gay men while buried in the endnotes he admits that the study’s result is outdated. But in order to fully assess his document I would have to drive to a university library and look up all these different studies he cites… and honestly, the issue isn’t that important to me.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet, I guess I am not going to do much of a reply to Dr. Diggs’ article. He seems to play loose with the facts in a couple places, such as talking about a shortened life span for gay men while buried in the endnotes he admits that the study’s result is outdated. But in order to fully assess his document I would have to drive to a university library and look up all these different studies he cites… and honestly, the issue isn’t that important to me.

That’s fair enough. Most of us don’t have unlimited time to study everything. It’s been a pleasure discussing this with you, and I appreciate your courtesy even though we see things differently…

Regarding the section of the Diggs article you referred to in your last post, he cites a respectable study from Canada that concludes homosexual men have a shorter life expectancy than all men in general:
ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol26/issue3/index.dtl

In the endnotes he states that in the 10-year time period since the Canadian study came out, the death rate from HIV had decreased. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you object that he didn’t put this information in the body of his article and instead “buried” it in the endnotes. I can see your point; however, I wouldn’t conclude just because of that that he is playing loose with the facts. Still, you’re entitled to your opinion. But active homosexual men are still suffering and dying from HIV. The HIV death rate may have gone down from the 1990’s to the 2000’s, but it hasn’t disappeared. The June 2003 issue of The American Journal of Public Health discusses how HIV rates are climbing again. (Most of this issue is dedicated to HIV and you can find it here):
ajph.org/content/vol93/issue6/aindex.shtml

Let’s not be afraid to take an honest look at this issue. Honesty usually isn’t very popular, and it’s never popular when it comes to the issue of gayness or gay rights.
wjla.com/news/stories/0508/517023_video.html?ref=newsstory

Still, when objective facts clearly contradict modern myths–myths like the gay gene, the immutability of “gayness,” and the healthiness of a gay life style-- it becomes impossible to ignore.

And if active homosexuals were honest about their experiences, they would tell you this too–about the promiscuity and the health risks. They may not say it publicly, and they sure don’t want anyone else saying it, but they know it. And, they should know it since they are the ones suffering the most from its effects.

 

[pathia]

And if active homosexuals were honest about their experiences, they would tell you this too–about the promiscuity and the health risks. They may not say it publicly, and they sure don’t want anyone else saying it, but they know it. And, they should know it since they are the ones suffering the most from its effects.

I have no health problems from being gay, I’ve been happily living with my partner for six, almost seven years now. The only health problems I have are the congenital problems I have had from birth. I don’t know any promiscuous gays, I know they exist, but they certainly don’t exist in my social circle. I’ve had exactly one partner my whole life, and that’s a heck of a lot less than most straight people!

I was in therapy to ‘cure’ my problem for over ten years. Christian based and secular. None of it worked, I tried from the simple to the absurd in aversion therapy, all it did was make me suicidal All six (Though only four of which could really be considered ‘serious’) of my attempts were right after I tried therapy, the first of which when I was EIGHT! Luckily I stink at killing myself.

 

[juliamajor]

Do you hate the sin of fornication, of adultery of despising sisters and brothers, of injustice, of negligence ,of murder, of covetting of dishonoring those around you, of blasphemy,of theft,of not treating everyone equally?

 

[Janet_S]

I have no health problems from being gay, I’ve been happily living with my partner for six, almost seven years now. The only health problems I have are the congenital problems I have had from birth. I don’t know any promiscuous gays, I know they exist, but they certainly don’t exist in my social circle. I’ve had exactly one partner my whole life, and that’s a heck of a lot less than most straight people!

I was in therapy to ‘cure’ my problem for over ten years. Christian based and secular. None of it worked, I tried from the simple to the absurd in aversion therapy, all it did was make me suicidal All six (Though only four of which could really be considered ‘serious’) of my attempts were right after I tried therapy, the first of which when I was EIGHT! Luckily I stink at killing myself.

I can’t comment on the details of your life since I know nothing of them. If you are an active gay male who is not promiscuous and who has no physical or psychological problems due to your life style, I’m glad to hear it.

What do you think of Fr John Harvey, the founder of the Courage movement? I have heard him twice when he was a guest on Fr Groeschel’s show, Sunday Night Live. I was very impressed with his insight, compassion, and holiness.

 

[pathia]

I can’t comment on the details of your life since I know nothing of them. If you are an active gay male who is not promiscuous and who has no physical or psychological problems due to your life style, I’m glad to hear it.

What do you think of Fr John Harvey, the founder of the Courage movement? I have heard him twice when he was a guest on Fr Groeschel’s show, Sunday Night Live. I was very impressed with his insight, compassion, and holiness.

I’m not male first of all, but I’m not exactly female either. Courage won’t even speak to me, they don’t help people with my particular ‘affliction’ as they like to call it. I am alone even in their number. As with most catholics they basically ignore me and pretend I don’t exist. Folks here will talk to me, sure, but in reality it’s a whole nother ballgame.

 

[Janet_S]

I’m not male first of all, but I’m not exactly female either. Courage won’t even speak to me, they don’t help people with my particular ‘affliction’ as they like to call it. I am alone even in their number. As with most catholics they basically ignore me and pretend I don’t exist. Folks here will talk to me, sure, but in reality it’s a whole nother ballgame.

They won’t even speak to you? You can’t join Courage even if you agree to practice chastity in accordance with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality?
couragerc.net/TheFiveGoals.html

 

[pathia]

They won’t even speak to you? You can’t join Courage even if you agree to practice chastity in accordance with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality?
couragerc.net/TheFiveGoals.html

They have nothing to say with me, because I do not share the exact same burden as they do. I am not saying they are ignoring me, they are just not applicable to me, given my external situation. You do not go to a brain surgeon for a stomach problem, it does not mean the brain surgeon is a bad doctor.

 

[urban-hermit]

Do you hate the sin of fornication, of adultery of despising sisters and brothers, of injustice, of negligence ,of murder, of covetting of dishonoring those around you, of blasphemy,of theft,of not treating everyone equally?

Yes I do, although those are not the topic of this thread.

 

[mysitar]

If they don’t share the same beliefs as i do, if I don’t know about it (meaning I can’t hear my homosexual neighbors doing the act - hypothetical by the way), and it’s not actually harming anyone else not involved, then I really could care less. There’s other issues to be concerned about, like child rapists. And murderers.

Now if the homosexual act was being done to a child, then that be a problem. This goes for either gender. I can tell you that I know of female homosexual sex offenders. Yet, I know of other homosexuals who are great people who just want to be able to love who they love.

Of course, any sexual act on a child is extremley harmful and should be delt with.

Bottom line: so long as they do not harm innocent children or rape anyone else for that matter, it’s not really my business.

And since I’ve been asked this before, I’ll confirm it: yes, I am a Catholic. I just seen so much in my life (and yes, I’m aware of my age), that I know my heart, and know what I think is right. I think it’s wrong to get involved in others’ business when they don’t share your beleifs (i’m straight by the way)

 

[mysitar]

sorry for the massive rant, i guess that you want my yes or no opinion:

indifferent.