Dignity of a "non-practising" homosexual person

[jmcrae]

But the condition does not need to be changed. It is not immoral by itself. Only the behavior is. I know a few too many heterosexuals who are lacking the fullness of human experience as well. It is totally inconsequential whether one is homosexua or heterosexual as long as they don’t practice outside of marriage.

Exactly right - that’s why it’s a disability, and not a moral flaw. Homosexuality only becomes a moral flaw when sex between members of the same sex takes place.

 

[goofyjim]

Exactly right - that’s why it’s a disability, and not a moral flaw. Homosexuality only becomes a moral flaw when sex between members of the same sex takes place.

It’s not even a disability. They are able to function in life just like anyone else. Disability implies that they are not. There is no such thing as a disability in my view. Instead there are challenges. Disability mean someone is unable to do something. Challenge is something that anyone can rise to. A homosexual person has a challenge. He or she can still accomplish heterosexual behavior while experiencing th eattraction and as such has a challenge but not an obstacle to a normal marriage and is not disabled to any degree.

 

[Exalt]

However, the statement quoted above betrays a common misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Yes, the Church calls same-sex attraction disordered. But the term “disordered” is a very specific term in theology. Ordered sexuality is oriented toward intimacy and procreation for the purpose of creating family. Any sexual desire that is not ordered toward the creation of a family is “disordered” - not properly oriented. It does not mean that people with same-sex attraction are sick.

I agree that those who believe homosexuality is a sickness are wrong. However, all I said was that “they(many Catholics) think you’re sick.” See the following response, made by the forum user “Crumpy” for a very good example of this sort of thinking:

Whatever else is said about the issue of homosexuality, I look for a day when it can be treated and this type of discussion becomes obsolete.

 

[KingAlfred]

What is the stance of the Church on someone like myself?

Since I was 13, I have experienced same-sex attraction to boys. I am now well into my 20s, and I feel the same way. I have however never engaged in any same-sex sexual activity. I have done all that is asked by the Catholic Church in resisting this sexual activity, not through my own will, but through the will of God. Yet in spite of this, I still feel that I am looked down upon by the Church and by members of the Church. I do not engage in any “gay lifestyle” whatever that may mean, but yet I do not date girls either in some attempt to conform to expectations.

Many who post here are not familiar with same-sex attraction and believe it to be a sexual perversion, yet I can confirm through my own experience that never once have I desired to engage in sexual acts in a perverted manner with another male. Rather, I would describe it as a deep emotional bond with another soul. I desired close companionship and to be charitable towards them, but never sex from these attractions. In any case, never has sex come to pass. That is why I say it is through God’s will and not my own.

But yet, why treat me in such a hostile manner? Though I have always been involved in the church, I feel my own relationship (with the Church, not with Jesus) is beginning to wear thin. I feel as though I have conformed with their will, despite the obvious contradictions which it has placed upon my heart, and yet my treatment grows increasingly hostile as I grow older. What of my essential dignity as a human being? Do I deserve the presumptuous and snide comments towards myself from individuals who I believe have shown less restraint than myself in their sexual lives?

As long as you abstain, you’re in good standing. Your sexual thoughts and preferences are a matter of confession, between you and your priest. No one else should get involved. It’s none of their business. IMO, human sexuality is such a ‘murky’ subject, one shouldn’t dwell on it too much, but simply try to gain control over it to the best of his ability, in accordance with Church teachings. We can only do our best in managing an instinctual impulse we were created with.

 

[Exalt]

ntrue. “Endorsing” is an incorrect term. Slavery and war were, are and will always be a part of sinful human nature and behavior. Not once can one find a reference that “endorses” slavery or war in Scripture or Catholic theology. This viewpoint is simplistic and naive, not to mention relativistic. One might as well say that practicing homosexuality isn’t as bad as killing someone, so it must be OK.

I actually studied scripture in college. I have a degree in theology from a Catholic school, with a majority of my classes centering on Judeo/Christian scripture. It is indeed true that slavery is sanctioned in the Bible. Just an example:
“Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.” Leviticus 44-46
And your argument is that the Bible is a good basis for moral teaching? On the contrary, slavery in every form is a moral evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth. There is no good reason to hold a man in forced servitude for the rest of his life.

Furthermore, your statement that I believe that, “one might as well say that practicing homosexuality isn’t as bad as killing someone, so it must be OK” is not an accurate representation of my pattern of reasoning. I was merely stating that there are no good reasons why homosexual activity is wrong by eliminating the two reasons why people say it’s wrong: that it’s unnatural and against the teachings of the Bible.

You might say that, but that is untrue. This happens in nature in a very few instances. However, such a comparison cheapens the homosexually orientated person, lowering them to the status of a non-person; an animal. The Church refuses to do so, and maintains that all humans have a human dignity

Homosexual behavior does indeed happen in nature and it does indeed serve a vital social role. In dolphin societies, for example: (Short 3-Minute National Geographic video) youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

Furthermore, you said that a comparison “cheapens the homosexually-oriented person, lowering them to the status of a non-person.” That’s not true. Catholics say it’s unnatural. I point out that it is indeed very natural in other animal species, so why couldn’t it be natural in us? Something being “natural” or not is a terrible way of assessing it’s moral validity. Driving a motor vehicle is far more unnatural than homosexuality, and it’s not immoral *because *it’s unnatural.

With the two major reasons for the condemnation of homosexuality disarmed, what do you have left? Not much.

This experience had a profound impact on me for many years. However, I had a conversation with a gay client of mine who’s partner had died about 6 months before. We talked about his loss and he told me I was the first person he had been comfortable speaking to about his grief and loss; they had been together for over 40 years. That experience taught me about the personal dimension of such relationships.

While I fully agree with the Church’s teachings on this matter, I think we all can do a much better job of loving and accepting the sinner, while rejecting the sin

I very much appreciate your comments. Indeed, the relationships gay people have are very real and vibrant, and I appreciate that you took the time to consider your client’s position.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not even a disability. They are able to function in life just like anyone else.

I suppose it could be looked as a disability to function in a nuclear family situation.

Exalt:
I actually studied scripture in college. I have a degree in theology from a Catholic school, with a majority of my classes centering on Judeo/Christian scripture. It is indeed true that slavery is sanctioned in the Bible.

And your argument is that the Bible is a good basis for moral teaching?

And you’re arging that it’s not? As a learned biblical scholar, you also know that Scripture sanctions putting people to death for what today are non-capital moral and legal lapses, such as adultry and murder. Present day morality still considers these things morally wrong, but the civil punishment is less. Your argument seems to be that since slavery was an accepted part of society long ago and isn’t now, that the same blanket statement should be made about homosexual behavior. Wrong.

Studying scripture, you must have come across 1 Cor 6-9, where Paul states that among other things (practicing…implied) homosexuals will not “…inherit the Kingdom of God…”.

Now why would he say such a thing if he was not concerned that such behavior was considered morally wrong, sinful, and put those who were involved in jeopardy of their eternal salvation?

Furthermore, your statement that I believe that, “one might as well say that practicing homosexuality isn’t as bad as killing someone, so it must be OK” is not an accurate representation of my pattern of reasoning. I was merely stating that there are no good reasons why homosexual activity is wrong by eliminating the two reasons why people say it’s wrong: that it’s unnatural and against the teachings of the Bible.

Homosexual behavior does indeed happen in nature and it does indeed serve a vital social role. In dolphin societies, for example: (Short 3-Minute National Geographic video) youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

Furthermore, you said that a comparison “cheapens the homosexually-oriented person, lowering them to the status of a non-person.” That’s not true. Catholics say it’s unnatural. I point out that it is indeed very natural in other animal species, so why couldn’t it be natural in us?

As Regan said, “There you go again”. You don’t seem to recognize that we as humans are different than animals. They do things because they are behaviorally programmed to do them, and have little or no choice in the manner of how they behave. We as humans are capable of and make choices in our behavior. To say that we are enslaved to our biological instinct indeed lowers us all to something less than human.

Something being “natural” or not is a terrible way of assessing it’s moral validity. Driving a motor vehicle is far more unnatural than homosexuality, and it’s not immoral *because *it’s unnatural.

Coprophagy is natural for many animal species. Your logic assumes that that must be OK too. “Rape” too, is natural in nature. Hmmm…guess if we can morally act like animals, those must be OK as well for humans, eh?

Sniffing each other’s rear ends, etc., the list goes on and on.

Reminds me of a rather rude song lyric by “Bloodhound Gang”: You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

With the two major reasons for the condemnation of homosexuality disarmed, what do you have left? Not much.

Let’s see…I guess if we lower ourselves to animal status and ignore St. Paul, I don’t have much left.

Using the “animals do it, why shouldn’t we” argument, methinks, is insulting to the dignity of the homosexual person, “non-practicing” or not. This argument strips them of reason and self-control. It is a far from being a Christian brother or sister, methinks, to advance any line of thinking that potentially, as per St. Paul, endangers their soul.

 

[taylorc]

Bring gay is not a sin. It’s not a choice. It’s not your fault. Engaging in same sex relations is the sin just like any fornication is a sin. Anyone who treats you differently because of who you are is the one who is sinning. It takes a lot of courage to admit to yourself that you are attracted to the same sex. A lot of people try to convince themselves they are straight and live a lie. This hurts a lot of people. I know this probably isn’t easy, but you can still live a fulfilling life celibate. I’m a straight person who’s celibate, and it’s definitely worth it to live according to God’s law.

 

[Arrowood]

. . . how is a heterosexual man who has a lustful will for women; who frequently has to check his thoughts and resist the temptation for doing impure things such as looking at porn or pleasuring himself; any less disordered with regard to God’s gift of human sexuality than his homosexual brother?

IHMO, it’s not the object of the lustful will that is sinful, but rather the lust in and of itself.

​

As I said in an earlier post, the Church defines “ordered” sexuality as sexuality that is ordered toward familial love. Heterosexual lust is not oriented toward family love, so it is disordered. However, since heterosexual sex is at its roots ordered toward procreation, it could be considered slightly less disordered than homosexual lust (objectively speaking), but it is no less sinful (subjectively speaking).

To some degree you are correct that all lust is sinful. However, not all lust is exactly the same. Heterosexual lust is a matter of degree - making sex more of a priority in our lives than it should be. Homosexual desire is a matter of orientation (i.e. it is by its very nature not oriented toward the creation of family) rather than degree. They are different, but they are equally sinful.

Does that make sense?

 

[StCsDavid]

As I said in an earlier post, the Church defines “ordered” sexuality as sexuality that is ordered toward familial love. Heterosexual lust is not oriented toward family love, so it is disordered. However, since heterosexual sex is at its roots ordered toward procreation, it could be considered slightly less disordered than homosexual lust (objectively speaking), but it is no less sinful (subjectively speaking).

To some degree you are correct that all lust is sinful. However, not all lust is exactly the same. Heterosexual lust is a matter of degree - making sex more of a priority in our lives than it should be. Homosexual desire is a matter of orientation (i.e. it is by its very nature not oriented toward the creation of family) rather than degree. They are different, but they are equally sinful.

Does that make sense?

I see what you’re getting at; however, I would suggest that heterosexual lust for the most part has very little to do with the creation of a family and more towards the possessing of another person and/or the fulfillment of an orientation towards the disordered use of sex . I’m not certain the object of that orientation particularly matters as the end result is much the same. While the homosexual orientation is far less frequent, IMHO, it’s simply a branch of the same disordered convention towards sexuality.

 

[LittleDeb]

I actually studied scripture in college. I have a degree in theology from a Catholic school, with a majority of my classes centering on Judeo/Christian scripture. It is indeed true that slavery is sanctioned in the Bible. Just an example:
“Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.” Leviticus 44-46
And your argument is that the Bible is a good basis for moral teaching? On the contrary, slavery in every form is a moral evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth. There is no good reason to hold a man in forced servitude for the rest of his life.

Exalt, you are championing this poor understanding of Scripture yet again. You and I went toe-to-toe on this back before the great crash of '06. We went line by line on this, in context. Scripture is showing and allowing the use of indentured servitude not chattel slavery. The operative word here is “as chattels.” It means that the death of the note holder does not free the servant from the debt. It is also a protection for those who hold the note not to be murdered by those who want out of the debt. Some of the debts were large enough that indeed someone might be as we say now, “in debt for the rest of their lives.” Please stop waving your degree around until you have a basic understanding of this particular scripture passage.

And please stay on topic.

To the OP: You deserve all the dignity we have to give. I met a dear friend here on CAF who is in the same situation as you are. We are now friends in real life too. (I’ll see about nudging him to come post as he is not on much lately.) Please let go of people in your life who would give you less than your dignity. I have deep admiration for you.

 

[Arrowood]

I see what you’re getting at; however, I would suggest that heterosexual lust for the most part has very little to do with the creation of a family and more towards the possessing of another person and/or the fulfillment of an orientation towards the disordered use of sex . I’m not certain the object of that orientation particularly matters as the end result is much the same. While the homosexual orientation is far less frequent, IMHO, it’s simply a branch of the same disordered convention towards sexuality.

I don’t think our views are different enough to draw out an argument. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I am perhaps drawing too fine a theological bead to be useful to most people.

**One last-ditch effort to explain my point . . .
**One theologian explained it this way: heterosexual fornication could result in the creation of a new human life, which gives the act a chance of redemption (in the sense of good coming out of evil, and in the sense of the fornicating couple possibly coming to recognize the gravity of their act and undergoing some level of conversion). Masturbation, pornography and homosexual sex do not have this potential. Even this theologian agreed that fornication was still just as sinful as these other three sins.

Before I admit you are right. . .
In moral theology, the object of an act is always a primary consideration, but the most important question is what object has been chosen. You are correct that anyone using his or her sexual powers outside of marriage is not seeking (choosing) familial love, so a disordered sexuality is always being chosen. I’ll concede the point based on that excellent argument.

 

[StCsDavid]

**One last-ditch effort to explain my point . . .
**One theologian explained it this way: heterosexual fornication could result in the creation of a new human life, which gives the act a chance of redemption (in the sense of good coming out of evil, and in the sense of the fornicating couple possibly coming to recognize the gravity of their act and undergoing some level of conversion). Masturbation, pornography and homosexual sex do not have this potential. Even this theologian agreed that fornication was still just as sinful as these other three sins.

Ah, well said. The potential for a good, that being the creation of human life, does exist for the heterosexual where it does not exist for the homosexual or one who engages in solo acts of impurity. While the act of fornication itself would be disordered and sinful…the coming together of sperm and egg would be ordered, and by natural law…a good. Very compelling indeed.

 

[kage_ar]

Exalt, you are championing this poor understanding of Scripture yet again. You and I went toe-to-toe on this back before the great crash of '06. We went line by line on this, in context. Scripture is showing and allowing the use of indentured servitude not chattel slavery. The operative word here is “as chattels.” It means that the death of the note holder does not free the servant from the debt. It is also a protection for those who hold the note not to be murdered by those who want out of the debt. Some of the debts were large enough that indeed someone might be as we say now, “in debt for the rest of their lives.” Please stop waving your degree around until you have a basic understanding of this particular scripture passage.

Thank you - I was going to point out the same thing.

Prayers for the OP, and echo the suggestion to seek out Courage.

EWTN Bookmark ran a program with an authro this week, his books may be of some help:

Homosexuality and the Catholic Church by John F. Harvey

The Truth About Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful by John F. Harvey

Also:

The Courage to Be Chaste by Benedict Groeschel

 

[Exalt]

As a learned biblical scholar, you also know that Scripture sanctions putting people to death for what today are non-capital moral and legal lapses, such as adultry and murder. Present day morality still considers these things morally wrong, but the civil punishment is less. Your argument seems to be that since slavery was an accepted part of society long ago and isn’t now, that the same blanket statement should be made about homosexual behavior. Wrong.

You’re not understanding my argument. Some say that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that the Bible condemns it. This implies that all moral teachings in the Bible are true. However, the Bible says that slavery is acceptable. But, the Bible is clearly wrong on that point. So, all moral teachings in the Bible are not necessarily true.

This does not mean that ALL the teachings in the Bible are wrong. All it means is that not EVERY teaching in the Bible is true. One must examine each teaching and determine if it’s good or bad with some outside judgment. Moral teachings do not come from the Bible and that much is clear.

Using the “animals do it, why shouldn’t we” argument, methinks, is insulting to the dignity of the homosexual person, “non-practicing” or not. This argument strips them of reason and self-control. It is a far from being a Christian brother or sister, methinks, to advance any line of thinking that potentially, as per St. Paul, endangers their soul.

As Regan said, “There you go again”. You don’t seem to recognize that we as humans are different than animals. They do things because they are behaviorally programmed to do them, and have little or no choice in the manner of how they behave. We as humans are capable of and make choices in our behavior. To say that we are enslaved to our biological instinct indeed lowers us all to something less than human.

What? Some say that homosexuality is unnatural, so it must be wrong. I point out that homosexuality isn’t unnatural. I furthermore point out that something being “unnatural” or not is a terrible way of assessing it’s moral nature.

Am I saying that we should act like animals? No. Am I saying that because homosexuality exists in nature that we must do it? No. ALL I AM SAYING IS THIS: The two major arguments against homosexual activity in human begin don’t make sense when you examine them closely.

To summarize: Homosexuality isn’t unnatural. Furthermore, the “naturalness” of a thing has virtually no bearing on it’s moral character. Also, though homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, the Bible is a terrible way of assessing the moral character of something because the Bible has “got it wrong” on a huge number of other moral questions.

So, what are you left with? Appealing to Paul? Well, that’s right back to the Bible, isn’t it? But as we both know, the Bible is a terrible way of assessing the moral character of something.

How about this: Let’s appeal to love. Two men or two women love eachother very much. They have an intimate, romantic relationship that includes sex. They don’t carry any diseases. Why shouldn’t they engage in that sexual relationship? It makes them happy, it doesn’t do anyone any harm, and there are no good reasons why they shouldn’t. So, I say let them go ahead and do so.

 

[Exalt]

Exalt, you are championing this poor understanding of Scripture yet again. You and I went toe-to-toe on this back before the great crash of '06. We went line by line on this, in context. Scripture is showing and allowing the use of indentured servitude not chattel slavery. The operative word here is “as chattels.” It means that the death of the note holder does not free the servant from the debt. It is also a protection for those who hold the note not to be murdered by those who want out of the debt. Some of the debts were large enough that indeed someone might be as we say now, “in debt for the rest of their lives.” Please stop waving your degree around until you have a basic understanding of this particular scripture passage.

And please stay on topic.

It is on topic and relevant within the context of my post. But it’s not a poor understanding of scripture. I understand the system that the Bible is speaking of here is different than the racially-focused slavery that we are aware of. In regards to your comment about THIS PASSAGE referencing indentured servitude, you’re plainly wrong. Yes, OTHER PASSAGES talk about “slavery” - and upon further inspection we would define it as indentured servitude. And OTHER PASSAGES talk at great length about the ways those indentured servants could work off their debt, with a maximum of 7 years and whatnot. However, THIS PASSAGE is talking about the purchasing of chattel slaves from other nations. It’s really plain, and it’s really easy to understand, LittleDeb.

And besides, my point was merely that the Bible advocates all kinds of terrible things: Including war.

Including, let’s say, the entire destruction of the “Promised Land’s” previous inhabitants before the Israelites got there. If it’s okay for God to grant the Israelites the land of other people, and if it’s furthermore okay for the people to destroy most living people inside those lands, then how is it different from Nazi Germany’s invasion of Europe?

 

[Seatuck]

You’re not understanding my argument. Some say that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that the Bible condemns it. This implies that all moral teachings in the Bible are true. However, the Bible says that slavery is acceptable. But, the Bible is clearly wrong on that point. So, all moral teachings in the Bible are not necessarily true.

This does not mean that ALL the teachings in the Bible are wrong. All it means is that not EVERY teaching in the Bible is true. One must examine each teaching and determine if it’s good or bad with some outside judgment. Moral teachings do not come from the Bible and that much is clear.

What? Some say that homosexuality is unnatural, so it must be wrong. I point out that homosexuality isn’t unnatural. I furthermore point out that something being “unnatural” or not is a terrible way of assessing it’s moral nature.

Am I saying that we should act like animals? No. Am I saying that because homosexuality exists in nature that we must do it? No. ALL I AM SAYING IS THIS: The two major arguments against homosexual activity in human begin don’t make sense when you examine them closely.

To summarize: Homosexuality isn’t unnatural. Furthermore, the “naturalness” of a thing has virtually no bearing on it’s moral character. Also, though homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, the Bible is a terrible way of assessing the moral character of something because the Bible has “got it wrong” on a huge number of other moral questions.

So, what are you left with? Appealing to Paul? Well, that’s right back to the Bible, isn’t it? But as we both know, the Bible is a terrible way of assessing the moral character of something.

How about this: Let’s appeal to love. Two men or two women love eachother very much. They have an intimate, romantic relationship that includes sex. They don’t carry any diseases. Why shouldn’t they engage in that sexual relationship? It makes them happy, it doesn’t do anyone any harm, and there are no good reasons why they shouldn’t. So, I say let them go ahead and do so.

It does do them harm. Spiritual harm. Their sexual relationship in no way represents the gift in the Eucharist or the relationship in the Trinity. That must be present in the marital act. The sexual act they perform will be completely non generative in form as well as devoid of the marital meaning , therefore a sin. Sin does harm.

 

[Doople]

There are many false churches and false Christians. You note that your relationship with the Church, not Jesus, is strained. I don’t know if this is possible or not, but find another church or other Christians to worship God with. There are many who are willing to accept you as you are.

One thing that bothers me about Christianity (in general) is the glorification of sexual sins. I use glorification in a negative sense here. Every commandment should be followed. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

 

[Newbie2]

You’re not understanding my argument. Some say that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that the Bible condemns it. This implies that all moral teachings in the Bible are true. However, the Bible says that slavery is acceptable. But, the Bible is clearly wrong on that point. So, all moral teachings in the Bible are not necessarily true.

As a biblical scholar, I’m surprised that you don’t seem to take the bible’s reference to slavery in context. It does not say or imply that slavery is correct or good*** in our day and age. So, no, the bible is not “wrong” on that point, that is if one takes the context into account./***COLOR]

This does not mean that ALL the teachings in the Bible are wrong. All it means is that not EVERY teaching in the Bible is true. One must examine each teaching and determine if it’s good or bad with some outside judgment. Moral teachings do not come from the Bible and that much is clear.

Baloney. Moral teachings certainly DO come from the bible. I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve never read it, at least carefully. Sorry, it’s not clear that “moral teachings do not come from the bible”. What is clear is that your blanket statement is simply incorrect. The beatitides, for example, are clearly meant to be moral teachings as are the ten commandments.

What? Some say that homosexuality is unnatural, so it must be wrong. I point out that homosexuality isn’t unnatural. I furthermore point out that something being “unnatural” or not is a terrible way of assessing it’s moral nature.

“Natural” vs. “Unnatural” don’t mean a lot without a specific context and definition. That’s why “disordered” is a much better term, IMHO.

Am I saying that we should act like animals? No. Am I saying that because homosexuality exists in nature that we must do it? No. ALL I AM SAYING IS THIS: The two major arguments against homosexual activity in human begin don’t make sense when you examine them closely.

No, but you seem to be saying that because animals do it, it’s OK to do it too, which I reject. We’re different than animals.

To summarize: Homosexuality isn’t unnatural. Furthermore, the “naturalness” of a thing has virtually no bearing on it’s moral character. Also, though homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, the Bible is a terrible way of assessing the moral character of something because the Bible has “got it wrong” on a huge number of other moral questions.

So, what are you left with? Appealing to Paul? Well, that’s right back to the Bible, isn’t it? But as we both know, the Bible is a terrible way of assessing the moral character of something.

Baloney. “We” don’t know any such thing. You’re very quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater; if something doesn’t make sense to you in scripture, that negates the rest of scripture? I think you either slept through scripture class or are falsifying your credentials.

How about this: Let’s appeal to love. Two men or two women love eachother very much. They have an intimate, romantic relationship that includes sex. They don’t carry any diseases. Why shouldn’t they engage in that sexual relationship? It makes them happy, it doesn’t do anyone any harm, and there are no good reasons why they shouldn’t. So, I say let them go ahead and do so.

Sure, let’s appeal to love. I would love my homosexual bretheren enough to make it clear that their behavior very clearly puts their eternal destiny in jeopardy.

Sure, if it makes them happy and if it doesn’t do them any harm and there are no good reasons why they shouldn’t, they should go ahead and do it. Trouble is…it does do them harm, and there are good reasons why they shouldn’t. As to whether or not it makes them happy, I dunno. I’ll give you one out of three, but not as justification for accepting the practice.

Bungee-jumping would probably make my kids happy, but they’ll never be allowed to do it on my watch.

Don’t carry any diseases? Friend, you seem to know as little about infectious and others disease as you know about scriptural context.

 

[Exalt]

As a biblical scholar, I’m surprised that you don’t seem to take the bible’s reference to slavery in context. It does not say or imply that slavery is correct or good*** in our day and age. So, no, the bible is not “wrong” on that point, that is if one takes the context into account.

***…Moral teachings certainly DO come from the bible. I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve never read it, at least carefully. Sorry, it’s not clear that “moral teachings do not come from the bible”. What is clear is that your blanket statement is simply incorrect. The beatitides, for example, are clearly meant to be moral teachings as are the ten commandments.

So, you say that the Bible endorses slavery as it existed in the 10-9th century B.C.E., but this doesn’t mean or imply that slavery is okay now. So, why not apply this type of thinking to homosexuality? If you’re going to pick and choose what you believe, why not assess homosexuality on it’s own, away from Biblical condemnation or endorsement.

If you don’t like my example of slavery, how about war? Is it just for people to invade another nation (that posed no pressing danger), kill all it’s inhabitants, and then burn the city to the ground? I think it’s pretty clear that this is abhorrent human behavior and ought to be condemned. Yet, God commanded Joshua to invade the city of Jericho and murder everyone inside. Of course, if a city is burned to the ground today, we would call that terrorism and genocide and it would be (justly) condemned. So, we’re applying some outside moral reasoning to scripture.

Do we really acquire our morality from scripture? I think that on the contrary, scripture merely a reflection of the morality of that isolated period of time, and our morality has evolved since then. Should scripture dictate our morals today? I don’t think there’s any good reason that it should. Just as we look on the Biblical teachings on Slavery, Women, and war as outdated, barbaric, and not suited for the modern era - I think we need to look critically on the teaching of homosexuality.

Baloney. “We” don’t know any such thing. You’re very quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater; if something doesn’t make sense to you in scripture, that negates the rest of scripture? I think you either slept through scripture class or are falsifying your credentials.

A degree in theology isn’t catechism class. It’s about scholarly research that’s done objectively. You don’t read a passage in class and then hear a lecture about how it fits into God’s plan for salvation. On the contrary, you read a passage and ALL you do is discuss theories as to it’s historical context. That’s the whole point of scholarly biblical studies.

Anyway, I think that the text is fascinating (why else would I have majored in it?). However, it’s about as useful for discerning modern morality as Homer’s The Illiad. Looking to a two melinnea text for direction on modern questions of morality is about as useful as reading tea leaves.

Sure, let’s appeal to love. I would love my homosexual bretheren enough to make it clear that their behavior very clearly puts their eternal destiny in jeopardy.

Sure, if it makes them happy and if it doesn’t do them any harm and there are no good reasons why they shouldn’t, they should go ahead and do it.

Trouble is…it does do them harm, and there are good reasons why they shouldn’t. As to whether or not it makes them happy, I dunno. I’ll give you one out of three, but not as justification for accepting the practice.

Okay, so what are the good reasons why they shouldn’t?

You’ve mentioned saving their eternal soul, so I’d like some evidence for why homosexuality will risk thier eternal soul any more so than heterosexuality.

 

[Exalt]

It does do them harm. Spiritual harm. Their sexual relationship in no way represents the gift in the Eucharist or the relationship in the Trinity. That must be present in the marital act. The sexual act they perform will be completely non generative in form as well as devoid of the marital meaning , therefore a sin. Sin does harm.

So why not let them marry? That seems like a simple solution.