Do conservative Christian teachings on homosexuality cause hatred and violence against the LGBT community?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Not at all.

I do not believe, however, that one should indulge in one’s sexual desires outside of the context of marriage.

Fair enough.

What about a man having the desire to have sex with a child?

Do you consider that to be a disordered desire?
Click to expand...
Context
 
o_mlly said:
👍 One might go back further than St. JPII – to Moses and St. Paul.

"A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God (Deuteronomy 22:5).

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them (Leviticus 20:13).

"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 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. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper (Romans 1:26-28).
Click to expand...
Oh dear God! Not Leviticus please
 
Jake_Parker said:
I am aware of Church teaching, and that being sexual with a person of the same sex is considered sinful. I could remain in my relationship and not have sex. However, for my boyfriend, he regards sex as the most intimate part of the relationship, so I won’t keep that from him.

The sin in my life that happens to be more perpetual happens to be “Mortal Sin,” so that is why I have decided to not become Catholic. I am in agreement with the majority of Church teaching, I work hard to live according to Biblical commands, and I try to be a loving person to everyone.
Click to expand...
Sex is intimate, but isn’t there so much more to your relationship than sex? Does he understand why you care about Catholicism?
 
Used2beSherryG said:
I don’t quite get your drift in this post. especially the line about “those gays who leave their church due to it’s stand, as well as become self loathing as a result”. Self loathing as a result of exactly WHAT?? Church teaching has not changed in 2,000 years. The myth of Catholics persecuting homosexuals is just that, a myth. Anyone choosing to live out a life of sexual sin is ostracizing themselves from receiving the sacraments, regardless of their sexual orientation. All that is needed, fortunately is confession, repentance, a firm purpose of amendment, IOW, give up the sin and you practice your faith.
Click to expand...
Self-loathing may result from wanting to be a good Catholic (or Protestant, or Jew, or Muslim, etc.) but thinking and feeling that one is not because of one’s disordered SSA and acting on that drive. These are gay people who do not want to leave the Church but may feel they have to, not necessarily because the Church is directly putting pressure upon them to give up their sinful way of life or to leave, but because THEY feel guilty engaging in that way of life but cannot help themselves. They feel they cannot change either their sexual attraction or their sexual behavior. Thus, the self-loathing that accompanies their sexual identity and behavior.
 
PatrickKennedy said:
Oh dear God! Not Leviticus please
Click to expand...
Yes, this web site properly recognizes the eternal truths in Leviticus. To wit:
"Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its *moral *requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures."
catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
 
o_mlly said:
Yes, this web site properly recognizes the eternal truths in Leviticus. To wit:
"Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its *moral *requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures."
catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Click to expand...
It’s the nature of the way Leviticus is used. That passage pulled out at random and NEVER EVER quoting the passages about shellfish, slavery, mensturation or mixing fibres in clothing. Just explain to me why only the passages pertinent to homosexuality are held up as Holy Writ and the others almost universally ignored by Catholics. Explain that and I will begin to understand. Explain how one passage of Leviticus matters and the next one is fine to ignore
 
PatrickKennedy said:
It’s the nature of the way Leviticus is used. That passage pulled out at random and NEVER EVER quoting the passages about shellfish, slavery, mensturation or mixing fibres in clothing. Just explain to me why only the passages pertinent to homosexuality are held up as Holy Writ and the others almost universally ignored by Catholics. Explain that and I will begin to understand. Explain how one passage of Leviticus matters and the next one is fine to ignore
Click to expand...
I think the previous poster did explain what you are asking by differentiating between the moral requirements, which are eternal, and the ceremonial requirements, which are not permanent.

From the mainly Orthodox Jewish perspective, however, we are not at liberty to make this differentiation by deciding which commandments we are to obey and which we are no longer required to obey. All the commandments carry more or less the same weight, and all are required to maintain one’s moral character and behavior. Most important, they are all commanded by G-d and there are no do-overs by G-d.

At the same time, though, the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible, particularly Leviticus, are not uniformly interpreted within Judaism. It is a long and intricate discussion, which I have posted previously, so I will spare you and others the details. Suffice it to say that homosexual behavior is interpreted by some Hebrew scholars and rabbis in several contexts, including the culture of the times, the family compared to strangers, and other criteria. Not all of these criteria are explicitly stated in the Written Torah, but they are filled in by the Oral Torah, which (Orthodox) Jews regard as equally sacred and inspired by G-d.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Sex is intimate, but isn’t there so much more to your relationship than sex? Does he understand why you care about Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Yes, and I understand why he cares about sex. There is more of a foundation to our relationship than sex, that just happens to be the way he really connects most intimately. For me, it’s deep conversation and just spending time alone together. But for me to ask for what I want in regards to intimacy, I believe in also giving what he considers most intimate.
 
One must distinguish acting on one’s desires. Acts vs condition.

Also, one must understand just vs unjust discrimination.

The one’s who claim hate have conflated condition and action to advance the agenda.
 
buffalo said:
One must distinguish acting on one’s desires. Acts vs condition.

Also, one must understand just vs unjust discrimination.

The one’s who claim hate have conflated condition and action to advance the agenda.
Click to expand...
Yet the condition of SSA is described as “disordered.” To me, that doesn’t sound like a very positive foundation on which to build.
 
meltzerboy said:
I think the previous poster did explain what you are asking by differentiating between the moral requirements, which are eternal, and the ceremonial requirements, which are not permanent.

From the mainly Orthodox Jewish perspective, however, we are not at liberty to make this differentiation by deciding which commandments we are to obey and which we are no longer required to obey. All the commandments carry more or less the same weight, and all are required to maintain one’s moral character and behavior. Most important, they are all commanded by G-d and there are no do-overs by G-d.

At the same time, though, the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible, particularly Leviticus, are not uniformly interpreted within Judaism. It is a long and intricate discussion, which I have posted previously, so I will spare you and others the details. Suffice it to say that homosexual behavior is interpreted by some Hebrew scholars and rabbis in several contexts, including the culture of the times, the family compared to strangers, and other criteria. Not all of these criteria are explicitly stated in the Written Torah, but they are filled in by the Oral Torah, which (Orthodox) Jews regard as equally sacred and inspired by G-d.
Click to expand...
If you have a link to the discussion, or know the name of the thread, I would be interested in reading what you’ve written about on homosexual behavior.
 
meltzerboy said:
Yet the condition of SSA is described as “disordered.” To me, that doesn’t sound like a very positive foundation on which to build.
Click to expand...
It is disordered. We must quit the PC and call things what they are.
 
PatrickKennedy said:
It’s the nature of the way Leviticus is used. That passage pulled out at random and NEVER EVER quoting the passages about shellfish, slavery, mensturation or mixing fibres in clothing. Just explain to me why only the passages pertinent to homosexuality are held up as Holy Writ and the others almost universally ignored by Catholics. Explain that and I will begin to understand. Explain how one passage of Leviticus matters and the next one is fine to ignore
Click to expand...
The Leviticus passages that still obtain are not limited to the proscription of homosexual behavior. to wit:
1The LORD said to Moses:
2Speak to the whole Israelite community and tell them: Be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy.* a
3* Each of you revere your mother and father,b and keep my sabbaths.c I, the LORD, am your God.
4Do not turn aside to idols, nor make molten gods for yourselves.d I, the LORD, am your God.
11* You shall not steal. You shall not deceive or speak falsely to one another.h 12You shall not swear falsely by my name, thus profaning the name of your God.i I am the LORD.
13You shall not exploit your neighbor. You shall not commit robbery.
14* You shall not insult the deaf, or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but you shall fear your God. I am the LORD.
15You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your neighbor justly.k
16You shall not go about spreading slander among your people; nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake. I am the LORD.
17* You shall not hate any of your kindred in your heart. Reprove your neighbor openly so that you do not incur sin because of that person.l
18Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your own people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.m
29You shall not degrade your daughter by making a prostitute of her;u otherwise the land will prostitute itself and become full of lewdness. 30Keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary.v I am the LORD.
31Do not turn to ghosts or consult spirits, by which you will be defiled.w I, the LORD, am your God.
32Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the old, and fear your God. I am the LORD.
35Do not act dishonestly in using measures of length or weight or capacity. 36You shall have a true scale and true weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin.* z I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Today no major Christian church requires observance of all 613 precepts of the Old Testament law, ethical and ceremonial, but only the ethical commands such as the Decalogue and command to love God and neighbor.
 
o_mlly said:
The Leviticus passages that still obtain are not limited to the proscription of homosexual behavior. to wit:
1The LORD said to Moses:
2Speak to the whole Israelite community and tell them: Be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy.* a
3* Each of you revere your mother and father,b and keep my sabbaths.c I, the LORD, am your God.
4Do not turn aside to idols, nor make molten gods for yourselves.d I, the LORD, am your God.
11* You shall not steal. You shall not deceive or speak falsely to one another.h 12You shall not swear falsely by my name, thus profaning the name of your God.i I am the LORD.
13You shall not exploit your neighbor. You shall not commit robbery.
14* You shall not insult the deaf, or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but you shall fear your God. I am the LORD.
15You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your neighbor justly.k
16You shall not go about spreading slander among your people; nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake. I am the LORD.
17* You shall not hate any of your kindred in your heart. Reprove your neighbor openly so that you do not incur sin because of that person.l
18Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your own people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.m
29You shall not degrade your daughter by making a prostitute of her;u otherwise the land will prostitute itself and become full of lewdness. 30Keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary.v I am the LORD.
31Do not turn to ghosts or consult spirits, by which you will be defiled.w I, the LORD, am your God.
32Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the old, and fear your God. I am the LORD.
35Do not act dishonestly in using measures of length or weight or capacity. 36You shall have a true scale and true weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin.* z I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Today no major Christian church requires observance of all 613 precepts of the Old Testament law, ethical and ceremonial, but only the ethical commands such as the Decalogue and command to love God and neighbor.
Click to expand...
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you”.
It is confusing are quotations such as this ethical and therefore to be observed or ceremonial and can be ignored ?
 
Jake_Parker said:
Yes, and I understand why he cares about sex. There is more of a foundation to our relationship than sex, that just happens to be the way he really connects most intimately. For me, it’s deep conversation and just spending time alone together. But for me to ask for what I want in regards to intimacy, I believe in also giving what he considers most intimate.
Click to expand...
Does asking for what you want offend anything that your friend holds dear?

Can we say the same about what he asks of you?
 
meltzerboy said:
Yet the condition of SSA is described as “disordered.” To me, that doesn’t sound like a very positive foundation on which to build.
Click to expand...
It is described as “objectively disordered”. The alternative opinion to hold is that SSA is a good thing. But how would that be rationalized? How would we conclude that an inclination toward something which is “always wrong to choose” is a good condition?
 
Rau said:
It is described as “objectively disordered”. The alternative opinion to hold is that SSA is a good thing. But how would that be rationalized? How would we conclude that an inclination toward something which is “always wrong to choose” is a good condition?
Click to expand...
This is why I don’t think Church language should be used in an attempt to start dialogue, unless brought up by the other party. The option isn’t saying objectively disordered or holding that homosexuality is a good thing. It is neither good nor bad in itself. It is morally neutral. See the following for information, and please note this isn’t a ‘liberal’ website, it’s EWTN.

ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo14.htm

Objectively disordered just sounds to most like a mental illness. One is not flawed or bad for having homosexual attraction. One simply is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top