Changed my views on Homosexuality

[ATraveller]

If you are highly religious with a low sex drive, this should work for you quite well.

Sex drive is an irrelevancy. High sex drive doesn’t mean loss of control. Secular culture for some reason has developed this idea high sex drive=no control though the science doesn’t back up the secular claim.

however the assertion that the Bible is the source of a Godly marriage is a bit weak. A common thread of the role of women in the Bible is that they are either not much better than property valued mainly for virginity or sub-servant.

The Bible is the Word of God regardless of denomination. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy also have Sacred Tradition, which doesn’t recognise same-sex ‘marriage’. Catholicism has the Magisterium, which also eliminates the possibility of same-sex ‘marriage’.
Only because some read those things, e.g. women as property, into Scripture. Again, gymnastics.

 

[joeybaggz]

For example, a single parapalegic or quadrapalegic can’t marry because he can’t consummate his marriage.
Why? So single and celibate men can tell me everything I need to know about sex, marriage and family? They’re certainly not speaking from experience, are they?

By that logic, the only person who can treat an impacted molar is a person with the same condition. The only person who can defend one accused of murder is another murderer. Your contention is ludicrous, and Joe’s response is spot on.

You say that the exhortations of the Magisterium of the Church are not in step with society. Is that the society of epidemic sexually transmitted disease, the society of a 53% divorce rate, the society that forces women and children into poverty because of its one sided divorce laws, the society of the destruction of a million unborn human beings because they are inconvenient. There are plenty of others but I think you get the point.

Regulation means a law that cannot be broken or circumvented. The actions of individuals in sexual circumstances are “guided” by the teachings of the church, but are regulated by the conscience of the individual and his/her relationship with God. The church teaches and guides, and in certain instances, “regulates” but only where a clear and precise teaching by God in His Commandments or Christ in his teaching exists.

 

[joeybaggz]

For example, a single parapalegic or quadrapalegic can’t marry because he can’t consummate his marriage.

By the way, paraplegics or quads can marry. Inability (or lack of desire) to consummante a marriage doesn’t mean it is invalid. If it was, then Mary and Joseph … I think you get the point.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Not intend to be.

It is probably the single most significant thing that gives rise to the difference between the Church’s take on sex vs society’s (or even non-Catholic Christianity’s).

If you are saying that experience is what gives a person a much clearer understanding on what should happen with a certain act, then by your logic, an alcoholic should be the one to figure out how many alcoholic beverages should be consumed in one sitting.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yes, so male-oriented in fact that Orthodox Judaism has run into a little issue concerning prohibiting lesbianism since it is NOT explicitly mentioned in the Law. That issue has been resolved, however, in citing the prohibition against imitating the behavior practiced in Pagan cultures.

Actually, from a cultural-historical viewpoint, non-Orthodox rabbis and scholars have suggested that male effeminacy may not be the central reason for the prohibition against male homosexuality. Rather, it may derive from the motivation to ensure against inter-familial sexual relations, again more characteristic of idolatrous Pagan culture, since it does not explicitly apply to homosexual relations among strangers. However, POSSIBLE homosexual behavior is suggested without divine reproach in the Book of Samuel between Jonathan and David despite Leviticus prohibitions. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which, referring to Leviticus alone, have condemned (male) homosexual behavior vociferously and in no uncertain terms, Judaism has had a more complex, sometimes ambivalent, attitude toward such behavior, not even excepting the entirety of the Orthodox community.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

However, POSSIBLE homosexual behavior is suggested without divine reproach in the Book of Samuel between Jonathan and David despite Leviticus prohibitions.

How is it suggested? I don’t read anything vaguely suggesting it, in the Bible.

 

[theCardinalbird]

However, POSSIBLE homosexual behavior is suggested without divine reproach in the Book of Samuel between Jonathan and David despite Leviticus prohibitions. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2012/were-david-and-jonathan-homosexual-lovers/

 

[Elf01]

The ability to consummate must be there even if the couple does not connsumate.

 

[meltzerboy2]

It depends on the interpretation: either the closest of platonic relationships or a consensual homosexual relationship. The bond of love between Jonathan and David is described as a unison (unity) of body and soul, thus both physical and emotional, and Jonathan disrobes before David. Draw your own conclusions. Is this male bonding, a bromance, or an intimate sexual encounter? The relationship between Ruth and Naomi has also been analyzed by both conservative and liberal scholars.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Please read the link I sent. I think it clears up some stuff

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It depends on the interpretation: either the closest of platonic relationships or a consensual homosexual relationship. The bond of love between Jonathan and David is described as a unison (unity) of body and soul, thus both physical and emotional, and Jonathan disrobes before David. Draw your own conclusions. Is this male bonding, a bromance, or an intimate sexual encounter? The relationship between Ruth and Naomi has also been analyzed by both conservative and liberal scholars.

All those actions are culturally normal among men of thousands of different cultures throughout history. The idea that men would physically and emotionally bond is supposed to be gay? Seriously??? I think you have been brainwashed by our society, which interprets all male affection as gay.

I’m not saying there’s evidence it wasn’t a sexual relationship, but there is certainly no evidence that it was.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Proper condom use, 100%of the time, pretty much eliminates this problem for an individual.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Proper condom use, 100%of the time, pretty much eliminates this problem for an individual.

Cause that’s really intimate.

I kid, but I’m being serious. The condom is a safety device that emphasizes pleasure over intimacy in a pretty major way. This is one of the reasons why relatively few gay men use them.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I am just saying there is a reasonable solution to the problem of std transmission.

 

[meltzerboy2]

A very interesting analysis. I am not here to make a biblical case either for or against homosexuality, but just pointing out some of the ambiguities within the Hebrew Bible and some of the teachings of Judaism. The author of the article is coming from a Christian perspective and thus is searching for evidence to support his case. Liberal scholars have done likewise. The very fact that the plain meaning of the text itself seems ambiguous is worth noting. For those who say it is all culturally bound, I agree we must consider that aspect as well. Further, the meaning of homosexuality is open to discussion with regard to how intimate or not such a sexual encounter can be, both according to the Ancients and the Moderns. That is, the verses in question may be expressing a more intimate version of homosexuality than the prohibitions in Leviticus refer to, which are thought, by some, to involve behavior tantamount to non-consensual rape.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

Church doctrine will always follow the Natural Law…
…If that’s the case, why do so many people find themselves attracted to their own gender, while finding the opposite gender repulsive?

I think you probably know the answer.

Life creates anomalies all the time. Some of these assist in the survival of the species and they become mainstream traits of a future, slightly evolved species.

Or the don’t and they die out.

Just because something “is” doesn’t automatically grant it the status of “ought”.

Fine… off with their heads! Homos to the gas chambers!

Too far? Seems to be what some people would like to see…

Anyway, on to the genetics of the thing. If it is a genetic trait, as suggested by evidence that other species also have homosexual couples, then it seems to have a roughly 5% phenotypical expression.
As a leader, I wouldn’t discard 5% of a population of several millions.

Personally, I think Natural Law needs a reinterpreting, to account for the rise in worldwide population and subsequent increase in absolute numbers of people with non purely heterosexual inclinations.

No reinterpretation necessary. Our species now transcends the environment (and has for centuries) and will evolve in ways that may be difficult to predict.

And I wouldn’t be so quick to label homosexuality as a primarily genetic manifestation. The science on that is still very leaky.

Maybe it’s genetic… maybe now the social climate is right for those “afflicted” to admit what they are without fear of retaliation…?
If it’s genetic, then it possibly plays some sort of population control role, which would force philosophers to include a provision for it in the Natural Law.

In the meantime, until we know these things for sure, what’s wrong with granting those people equivalent rights to everyone else?
A marriage is not just about love and procreation… it’s also about inheritances, giving permission for risky procedures when the significant other is in a hospital bed, about sharing responsibility for shared possessions (mortgage?)
Is the fact that these couples can’t procreate reason enough to deny them so many things that most other people end up taking for granted?

 

[Arbovirus]

what’s wrong with granting those people equivalent rights to everyone else?

Because the situations are not equivalent.

Is the fact that these couples can’t procreate reason enough to deny them so many things that most other people end up taking for granted?

No, the reason is two men or two women are not equivalent to one man and one woman. Inheritances, power of attorney, etc can be granted without marriage.

Fine… off with their heads! Homos to the gas chambers!

Too far? Seems to be what some people would like to see…

Who are these phantom persecutors you refer to?

 

[Vonsalza]

By that logic, the only person who can treat an impacted molar is a person with the same condition.

Not necessarily. I just certainly don’t want to be the guys very first patient though.

I’ll let you do that

Your contention is ludicrous…

Not nearly as ludicrous as your false equivalency here.

But lets not rationality get in the way of ideology, right?

You say that the exhortations of the Magisterium of the Church are not in step with society. Is that the society of epidemic…
There are plenty of others but I think you get the point.

And absolutely all of those problems predate the Church. Ergo your marginal analysis lacks the necessary marginal difference.

But again, lets not let rationality stand in the way of ideology.

The church teaches and guides, and in certain instances, “regulates” but only where a clear and precise teaching by God in His Commandments or Christ in his teaching exists.

Sure. And most of the Christians on the planet think the RCC has it wrong.

But that’s not exactly news.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Not intend to be.

It is probably the single most significant thing that gives rise to the difference between the Church’s take on sex vs society’s (or even non-Catholic Christianity’s).

If you are saying that experience is what gives a person a much clearer understanding on what should happen with a certain act, then by your logic, an alcoholic should be the one to figure out how many alcoholic beverages should be consumed in one sitting.

Sure. Education makes knowledge possible.

But I think an ex-alcoholic would probably have better advice than someone who never had the problem, all other things being equal.

He’s been in the “shoes” and can identify in a way the teetotaler simply can’t.

 

[Vonsalza]

Fine… off with their heads! Homos to the gas chambers!

…Oh good lord…

Anyway, on to the genetics of the thing. If it is a genetic trait, as suggested by evidence that other species also have homosexual couples,

Although not nearly at the same rate we see it in people. +1 for “behavioral”.

Maybe it’s genetic… maybe now the social climate is right for those “afflicted” to admit what they are without fear of retaliation…?
If it’s genetic, then it possibly plays some sort of population control role, which would force philosophers to include a provision for it in the Natural Law.

It also forces biologists to explain how a trait continues to exist in the genome when it tends to resist reproduction.

In the meantime, until we know these things for sure, what’s wrong with granting those people equivalent rights to everyone else?’

Sure. In a government where “All men (and presumably women) are created equal”, the nation belongs to the homosexuals just as much as it belongs to the good, devout Catholics.