Do other Christian denominations accept homosexuality for their own convenience?

[Rosebud77]

Hm

Lots of sweeping generalizations there so it’s difficult to find a point to counter so all I can say is you’re wrong.

Not, it doesn’t. Courage, while not perfect, is an example. It can be a community for people who are LGTQ, as well as a support system and resource. Courage doesn’t compromise Catholic teaching on sexuality. Many Catholics don’t get this teaching right, and I don’t see many very welcoming to those that are LGBT.

Interesting but not what I was suggesting.

According to ??? You? OK.

Cannot fathom your last sentence and you have compeletely missed my point. Why do folk INSIST also on broadcasting their sexuality?

 

[Rosebud77]

Well some churches could do it for more members…sure

But in my honest opinion, they just want the lgbt community to feel God’s love…they have had Christians telling them that they are an abomination and all, and that’s the church way of showing God’s love to them

Problem is that they don’t reeeeally have sound proof that God is against homosexuality. Protestants in many churches interpret scriptures differently-i saw a group of people saying Jesus was praising the gay centurion and didn’t condemn him for his actions and hence, Jesus accepts gay sex. Because interpretations vary, there is bound to be a church that says gay sex is alright, abortions are fine etc they genuinely believe it is that way, and that we all got it wrong, so they want to reach out to people that are discriminated against, because they feel that they are being christ-like by doing so

The Church has infallibility etc so we don’t really see the problem as much as other christian denominations

Maybe define '“discrimination” ?This is not what is happening, and indeed many discriminate against themselves ,

 

[Rosebud77]

Well some churches could do it for more members…sure

But in my honest opinion, they just want the lgbt community to feel God’s love…they have had Christians telling them that they are an abomination and all, and that’s the church way of showing God’s love to them

Problem is that they don’t reeeeally have sound proof that God is against homosexuality. Protestants in many churches interpret scriptures differently-i saw a group of people saying Jesus was praising the gay centurion and didn’t condemn him for his actions and hence, Jesus accepts gay sex. Because interpretations vary, there is bound to be a church that says gay sex is alright, abortions are fine etc they genuinely believe it is that way, and that we all got it wrong, so they want to reach out to people that are discriminated against, because they feel that they are being christ-like by doing so

The Church has infallibility etc so we don’t really see the problem as much as other christian denominations

DId I miss something?

 

[Rosebud77]

The church has no answer about the source of same sex attraction, but only speaks about the behaviour.

 

[Rosebud77]

I’m not a theologian or a specialist in Church history. But if I could play devil’s advocate for a moment…

It seems to me that the Bible forbids a lot of things that modern Christians don’t have a problem with. Pork, shellfish, working on Sunday, etc. I think most striking, usury. Lending for interest was expressly forbidden in Christiandom for centuries before it started becoming acceptable. (As I understand it. I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong) But if some things can be dismissed, or attitudes changed about others, it seems to me that it would make sense that changes in attitudes regarding other subjects (like homosexuality) aren’t in the realm of impossibility.

I know the topics I brought up are used as slogans against anti-homosexual arguments. I’d be very interested to see why you might think they fail. This topic is very interesting to me.

Please, maybe try to learn re the OT dietary and social restrictions in a hot climate and a travelling community, as against the teachings of Jesus? There are many threads on this .

 

[commenter]

There’s some question however as to whether the bible is speaking specifically of what we consider homosexual acts today.

But then you could follow that line of reasoning on everything: we don’t know if adultery meant the same thing in the Bible as for us; we don’t know if prayer meant the same thing in the Bible as for us; we don’t know if Sermon on the Mount, or X, Y, or Z mean the same thing…You reach the point where the Bible means nothing for us. “Love thy neighbor” can be considered as culture-bound (dispensable) as rules against eating pork, if CNN is doing the considering.

The only way we can understand the Bible is in context of Sacred Tradition and a living, current Magisterium. You may say it’s “obvious” the story of the Prodigal Son, or Good Samaritan, applies to us, but since the 1930s secular culture in Europe and now North America has been throwing out lots of “obvious” truths once thought permanent. The mainline churches are now ********so ********subservient to the secular culture, where it goes, they will follow; adjusting scripture as needed.

In the long run mainline churches won’t gain members. You may have a generation of older liberals who (still) need a Sunday service, some sense of religious affiliation and “commitment”. But young people won’t feel that need. Why bother? In the long run, the demand to accept and love any group of persons comes from the Bible and Tradition, both of which have been weakened; so this demand to “help” gays itself will fade, too. That’s why Catholic ministries like Courage will remain standing long after Dignity, and various liberal Protestant and secular pro-gay movements have disappeared. Courage isn’t tied to the fickle secular culture.

 

[exnihilo]

Because LGBT people have started coming out since the 1960’s, everyone now knows a friend, family member or co-worker who is gay or lesbian. They can also see that LGBT people are generally good people, no different from heterosexual people.

So when a preacher proclaims how sinful or disordered homosexuality is, the people in the pews notice how detached the preacher is from reality. On top of that, the man in the pulpit smears a friendly co-worker, a good friend or a nice uncle. Would you go to a place where someone insults your family and friends? I wouldn’t. And if the pews become empty, the preacher will be out of a job very quickly.

I think you are right that many have come to see homosexual acts and the lifestyle as being no different from heterosexuals. They see them as equal and thus don’t see it as a sin. Of course they are completely wrong. Once you accept pre-marital sex, contraception and divorce then homosexuals are the same. They tend towards promiscuity, all their sex acts are sterile, and they mostly don’t form lifelong partnerships. But these things are wrong for heterosexuals to do.

The media and university have also been key in getting people to see homosexuals as no different. They do this by withholding information, presenting homosexuals in a positive light and silencing dissent. If homosexuality was presented honestly people would recoil from it.

They put fluoride in our water, same stuff used in anti depressants, which of course makes us numb and passive.

I have always wondered if this contributes to this homosexual explosion in our society.

It is an industrial waste product dumped into our water. It would be hazardous waste if they couldn’t pour it into our water supply. It is illegal since it is forced medication. It’s dosage is completely uncontrolled and unmonitored in the individual. It is a terrible crime.

 

[Padres1969]

But then you could follow that line of reasoning on everything: we don’t know if adultery meant the same thing in the Bible as for us; we don’t know if prayer meant the same thing in the Bible as for us; we don’t know if Sermon on the Mount, or X, Y, or Z mean the same thing…You reach the point where the Bible means nothing for us. “Love thy neighbor” can be considered as culture-bound (dispensable) as rules against eating pork, if CNN is doing the considering.

The only way we can understand the Bible is in context of Sacred Tradition and a living, current Magisterium. You may say it’s “obvious” the story of the Prodigal Son, or Good Samaritan, applies to us, but since the 1930s secular culture in Europe and now North America has been throwing out lots of “obvious” truths once thought permanent. The mainline churches are now ********so ********subservient to the secular culture, where it goes, they will follow; adjusting scripture as needed.

In the long run mainline churches won’t gain members. You may have a generation of older liberals who (still) need a Sunday service, some sense of religious affiliation and “commitment”. But young people won’t feel that need. Why bother? In the long run, the demand to accept and love any group of persons comes from the Bible and Tradition, both of which have been weakened; so this demand to “help” gays itself will fade, too. That’s why Catholic ministries like Courage will remain standing long after Dignity, and various liberal Protestant and secular pro-gay movements have disappeared. Courage isn’t tied to the fickle secular culture.

Maybe, maybe not. But you don’t do what’s right because you’re playing a membership numbers game either. I shouldn’t have to tell a Catholic that.

And we’ll have to disagree that the bible can only be understood in the context of the Catholic Magisterium.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Maybe, maybe not. But you don’t do what’s right because you’re playing a membership numbers game either. I shouldn’t have to tell a Catholic that.

And we’ll have to disagree that the bible can only be understood in the context of the Catholic Magisterium.

Of course we’ll disagree on it, if we didn’t you would be Catholic. However, just because you disagree with our position doesn’t actually give your position any credibility. We’ve provided reasoning and evidence for our positions, you’ve provided opinions. You need to support your position with facts and evidence, simply stating it isn’t enough.

 

[Cheiron]

I think you are right that many have come to see homosexual acts and the lifestyle as being no different from heterosexuals. They see them as equal and thus don’t see it as a sin. Of course they are completely wrong. Once you accept pre-marital sex, contraception and divorce then homosexuals are the same.

I don’t believe in sin; or at least not in theological concept of sin. It does seem that people nowadays are less concerned about what goes on in other people’s private lives than in the old days. I think that’s a good thing.

They tend towards promiscuity, all their sex acts are sterile, and they mostly don’t form lifelong partnerships. But these things are wrong for heterosexuals to do.

Some gay peope are promiscuous and some aren’t. The Dutch bureau of statistics has some interesting numbers on same sex marriage. After 15 years, 69,6% of lesbian marriages are still intact, compared to 84,5% of marriages between men and 82,1% of marriages between a man and a woman. It seems gay men are just as good and even slightly better than straight couples at preserving the sanctity of marriage.

Here is the source in English: cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/13/lesbian-couples-likelier-to-break-up-than-male-couples

The media and university have also been key in getting people to see homosexuals as no different. They do this by withholding information, presenting homosexuals in a positive light and silencing dissent. If homosexuality was presented honestly people would recoil from it.

Pre-1960’s, homosexuals simply didn’t exist. When a preacher condemned homosexuality, it was always about an abstract Other that most people didn’t even know. People now know homosexuals, thanks to the concept of coming out. A gay man is no longer an abstract being; he’s a co-worker or son or friend. I think heterosexual people do know what homosexuality is about: it’s a form of love.

I seriously doubt people would recoil from homosexuality. Some forms of homosexuality seem to be quite popular. As the old joke goes: “A feminist asked me how I view lesbian relationships. Apparantly, ‘in HD’ was not the right answer.”

 

[Bruised_Reed]

According to ??? You? OK.

Cannot fathom your last sentence and you have compeletely missed my point. Why do folk INSIST also on broadcasting their sexuality?

You wrote;

The crux of acceptance and that dreadful word “inclusive” is that gays Here you might as well say “people” or “human beings” because the rest of the sentence doesn’t just apply to people who are LGBT tend not to think that anything they do is wrong and to take a welcome as a welcome to all they do.

It’s kind of a human condition thing. And you wrote “gays” like it applies to every one of them

I get the impression that you don’t see them as people and judge them because they sin differently from you.

What do you mean by broadcasting their sexuality? Perhaps I can answer that.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

According to ??? You? OK.

Cannot fathom your last sentence and you have compeletely missed my point. Why do folk INSIST also on broadcasting their sexuality?

Which last sentence? If you mean the very last one, I don’t know how to make that any clearer. If it’s the last one on the paragraph above I can expound on that. Most Catholics are not well versed on the Catholic teaching on human sexuality. Some still think being gay is a sin and act as though it’s the “unforgivable sin” just because it’s one sin they are certain they won’t commit. I’ve also encountered people who think that a woman sins if she is raped but didn’t do x, you, or z. Check out the numerous questions about the marital act on this forum, people are told contradictory things.

If Catholics don’t have a grasp on church teaching and their own sinfulness we can be too strident or too lenient. That is why I used Courage as an example. They are in keeping with Catholic teaching and can be a place where people who identify as LGBT can find community even if they can’t anywhere else in a parish.

 

[exnihilo]

It does seem that people nowadays are less concerned about what goes on in other people’s private lives than in the old days. I think that’s a good thing.

I wouldn’t say people are less concerned about other’s private lives. I’d say they are for uninhibited sex. If the topic isn’t sex but what kind of light bulb you can use in your house then people become very concerned.

Some gay peope are promiscuous and some aren’t. The Dutch bureau of statistics has some interesting numbers on same sex marriage. After 15 years, 69,6% of lesbian marriages are still intact, compared to 84,5% of marriages between men and 82,1% of marriages between a man and a woman. It seems gay men are just as good and even slightly better than straight couples at preserving the sanctity of marriage.

There could be lots more to the Dutch data. I don’t know that we can draw such a conclusion. But homosexuals, particularly men, are well known to be more promiscuous. Being in an open relationship, including ‘marriage’, is not uncommon.

Pre-1960’s, homosexuals simply didn’t exist. When a preacher condemned homosexuality, it was always about an abstract Other that most people didn’t even know. People now know homosexuals, thanks to the concept of coming out. A gay man is no longer an abstract being; he’s a co-worker or son or friend. I think heterosexual people do know what homosexuality is about: it’s a form of love.

It existed but it had to be kept underground. Most people probably didn’t know an open homosexual simply because it was hidden. You are right that many have reasoned that since they know a homosexual and they are otherwise seemingly a good person, then homosexuality must be good. Of course that is not very good reasoning. Lots of people are otherwise good except the particular vice they have. Most adulterers are probably nice people. That is nice to everyone except their spouse.

 

[Padres1969]

There could be lots more to the Dutch data. I don’t know that we can draw such a conclusion. But homosexuals, particularly men, are well known to be more promiscuous. Being in an open relationship, including ‘marriage’, is not uncommon.

Speaking of backing up statements with facts, care to provide any that back this assertion?

 

[MaryT777]

Would being warmly welcomed into a Church as a gay or lesbian with same sex attraction but asked to be celibate and not marry be acceptable to your gay and lesbian friends?. It’s been my experience that those with SSA want not only to be welcomed but told gay marriage and relationships with partners even while not married are acceptable.

Mary.

 

[HelenRose]

Would being warmly welcomed into a Church as a gay or lesbian with same sex attraction but asked to be celibate and not marry be acceptable to your gay and lesbian friends?. It’s been my experience that those with SSA want not only to be welcomed but told gay marriage and relationships with partners even while not married are acceptable.

Mary.

The Church does not tell a heterosexual couple who are having marital relations that their behavior is acceptable. They are welcome to come to Church but they are not to receive the sacraments. It is the same for those who have same sex attraction. Many leave the Church for that reason. They do not accept the teachings of the Church. And fortunately, in this time and age, they are free to do so.

This is a journey for both heterosexual and homosexuals individuals. Yes, they should come to Church, be welcomed and learn why certain behaviors are not in God’s plan for them. God has a plan for each and every soul. It may take awhile for single men and women to understand this may mean making sacrifices that seem difficult indeed. But the plan will bring them greater joy and peace.

 

[Cheiron]

The Church does not tell a heterosexual couple who are having marital relations that their behavior is acceptable. They are welcome to come to Church but they are not to receive the sacraments. It is the same for those who have same sex attraction. Many leave the Church for that reason. They do not accept the teachings of the Church. And fortunately, in this time and age, they are free to do so.

This is a journey for both heterosexual and homosexuals individuals. Yes, they should come to Church, be welcomed and learn why certain behaviors are not in God’s plan for them. God has a plan for each and every soul. It may take awhile for single men and women to understand this may mean making sacrifices that seem difficult indeed. But the plan will bring them greater joy and peace.

But it’s not only about behaviour, is it? Because you said earlier:

I have an idea that marriage for those with same sex attraction is simply putting a bandage over a very serious condition. …] Whatever the cause is, accepting this condition as normal will close down research to find a cause and a cure.

 

[commenter]

And we’ll have to disagree that the bible can only be understood in the context of the Catholic Magisterium.

You omitted my reference to Sacred Tradition. There were millions of Christians who did not recognize a “magisterium” but who, for many centuries did not exactly obey but coincided (?) with the magisterium on sexual issues, including homosexual behavior. They were taking for granted not only Scripture, but a certain template for interpreting Scripture.

Going forward, I suspect the great majority of Protestant and Anglican churches will move farther from the “template” of Sacred Tradition in terms of sexuality, and everything else. They will quote the Bible in such a way as to support the secular trends. I predict only the RCC and EO will uphold the “template” based on the Natural Law and Sacred Tradition. I predict there will be a lot fewer Christians in 30 years, but almost all of them will belong to RCC or EO.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think it’s to drive up membership…I think it’s simply easier.

Think of how much easier Catholicism would be if only. If only the Church were pro-choice. If only the Church ordained women. If only the Church embraced gay marriage. If only the Church allowed birth control. If only if only if only. Think of how many more members we’d have then.

Yeah. That’s worked so well for the ELCA and TEC. They’ve been bleeding membership of decades.

Jon

 

[Lea101]

Maybe define '“discrimination” ?This is not what is happening, and indeed many discriminate against themselves ,

Getting kicked out by their parents when they come out, being told that they are gross, being bullied in school, being called slurs, being beaten up/killed, religious people telling them that they are going to hell, people wanting them to be jailed etc

Just because it is being increasingly accepted does not mean that the lgbt community does not face discrimination