Does Scripture really "condemn" homosexuality?

[Conor7]

Marriage is defined by the Bible as strictly being between one man and one woman.

There are lots of different relationships mentioned in the Bible, but I have yet to find anywhere in the Bible where it strictly defines marriage between one man and woman-- certainly not in the way we understand marriage in modern times.

 

[aidanbradypop]

There are lots of different relationships mentioned in the Bible, but I have yet to find anywhere in the Bible where it strictly defines marriage between one man and woman-- certainly not in the way we understand marriage in modern times.

Yeah I agree with you on this.

 

[edwest2]

I have stated many times that I do not believe in same sex marriage as defined in Scripture. I do not have a problem with same sex civil unions.

Thank you for stating what I have been stating over and over. same sex…sex is the same as opposite sex…sex. Many try to divide the two but at the end of the day they are still the same.

Same sex civil unions are seen as granting homosexual couples second-class status as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Conor7]

Same sex civil unions are seen as granting homosexual couples second-class status as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Peace,
Ed

Civil unions are second class as to marriage. I think it’s important to remind we “religious folk”, myself included, that we do, and should, have a separation between Church and state. Just because we object from a religious stand point doesn’t mean we can’t empathize with the need for equality.

I don’t want the Church of Satan to have a tax-exempt status, but I realize they they are a religion as defined by the law and the law should apply equally to all.

And, not to derail this thread completely, but Christians enjoy a certain amount of privilege in this country and we are fine picking and choosing who is entitled to certain rights while forgetting that one day another group may be picking and choosing for us.

And now I will dismount my soapbox.

 

[livingwordunity]

The “gay” activists came out with their own translation that omits all the parts of the bible that condemn homosexual behavior. That should tell you something.

 

[crenfro]

If interested in talking about it, I would like you to first read this and then comment.

religioustolerance.org/ashford01.htm

Hello. There’s plenty of info on the whole Catholic Answers website which already thoroughly addresses your concern. The Catholic Answers tracts are especially helpful.

I’m confused about what the intended topic is here. Could you clarify please?

God bless you and please pray for me.

 

[Espero]

In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" (1976-A069). Since then, faithful Episcopalians have been working toward a greater understanding and radical inclusion of all of God’s children.
?

I find the view held by Episcopalians much more agreeable personally, but you must understand, the Catholic view on homosexuality won’t change even if we agree that scripture doesn’t condemn same sex relations (or at least so I understand, feel free to correct me).

If it helps the thread at all, I would like to say both my deacon and priest agree that gays deserve love and respect. I think we can all agree on that

I might message you questions about the Episcopal position over topics such as these. They’re quite confusing for me

 

[esieffe]

Same sex civil unions are seen as granting homosexual couples second-class status as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Peace,
Ed

IMHO,
I see SS civil unions as a way to protect couples from predatory relatives after a death, a way to ensure hospital visitation and the stewardship of living wills and durable power of attorneys. It may also satisfy some feeling for the need of commitment for the people involved, yet it does not “denigrate” the institution of marriage in anyone’s mind.

I don’t see it as a second class designation, but it is not a designation that I have to live with either. As many have said, there is nothing wrong with two people who love each other and God, living in chaste. Heterosexuals live with this, so can others. No matter what sin you commit I will always love you and pray for you.

Peace be with you all!

 

[drac16]

Subhanallah…I can’t believe there are people, so perverted in their thinking, that they have actually suggested that King David [peace be upon him] was a homosexual. There seems to be no limit to how far pro-homosexual activists will go. :dts:

 

[Faithdancer]

*In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" (1976-A069). Since then, faithful Episcopalians have been working toward a greater understanding and radical inclusion of all of God’s children.

Along the way, The Episcopal Church has garnered a lot of attention, but with the help of organizations such as Integrity USA, the church has continued its work toward full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians. In 2003, the first openly gay bishop was consecrated; in 2009, General Convention resolved that God’s call is open to all; and in 2012, a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships was authorized, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited.*

So are you saying that homosexuals are somehow less children of God than a heterosexual is?

Dustin (is that right?) you speak positively of the Episcopalian Church’s liberal attitude toward all things homosexual, yet your listed religious affiliation is “Anglican Catholic.” I’m just curious how that works? I ask because I am attending services (and becoming a deacon) in the Anglican Church of North America, which has split from the Episcopalian Church in American over these same liberalities (and others).

 

[Faithdancer]

Subhanallah…I can’t believe there are people, so perverted in their thinking, that they have actually suggested that King David [peace be upon him] was a homosexual. There seems to be no limit to how far pro-homosexual activists will go. :dts:

It’s all part of the homosexualist agenda, which I believe includes duping as many people as possible into their revisionist “history” in which all great historical figures, including King David, were actually homosexuals. No doubt they will lobby for teaching their alternative “history” as fact in American classrooms before long, to go along with their program of indoctrinating children into homosexuality.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think there are three points on this which affect Christian practice. the first is that whenver sex between two of the same gender is mentioned in the bible it is always condemned. Second whenever marriage is mentioned it is always between a man and woman. Thirdly, this is goes beyond scripture but is equally more important, there has never been a tradition of accepting homosexuality within Christianity until very recently. I wouldn’t say Christianity has accepted it, rather certain liberal groups who are Christian and very mistaken have accepted it.

We moderns want everything to be politically correct, we want to be so tolerant, but reading the bible this way is very dangerous. Did the Judaic culture that Christ lived in ever consider Homosexual marriage? Was this an object of the jews or our own times? It seems that such a concept was never even thought about because marriage was always assumed to be nothing more than the union between man and woman. We should never put our own arguments on to the past, our own ideas and thoughts, we have to try and understand the ancients from their perspective alone and I see no reason to say Homosexual marriage was accepted then as people have accepted it now.

It could be reasoned therefore it was never condemned. But why should that surprise us? Things always need to be clarified, so when the church in modern times has been faced with this problem she has resisted it sticking to the faith once for all given which condemns homosexuality and has always accepted marriage between man and woman as the basis for all marriage.

 

[JHow]

“Gay” is a descriptor. It simply means being attracted to the same gender.

How do you expect someone to come to repentance of their lifestyle if you even rob them of this very basic reality, which is the attraction that, without a miracle, does not ever go away? One can use all sorts of other descriptions (e.g., “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”, “same-sex attraction”), but it’s the same thing: gay.

What do you mean “misses the marks in a lot of ways”?

Not all gay people subscribe to all the ideologies you mention. That’s like saying there’s a small Hispanic sub-population that believes in reclaiming California, so every Hispanic person must believe in its ideology. We, the actual ones who are gay/have same-sex attraction/etc, are not the ones trying to instill an ideology into the word “gay” — it is the religious conservatives that pigeonhole us. And who are you to define what “meaningfully homosexual” is?

Do you even know how much pain even the phrase “intrinsically disordered” is coming from the Church and having to be obedient to it? The word “gay” is morally neutral, and yet you want to make it an anathema.

Yes, there are all sorts of lunatic ideas out there spouted by “activists”. And they get media attention.

I’m sorry if I sound sour and bitter…every time someone makes an argument like this on CAF, I have resisted saying something, but this time, I feel compelled to offer another viewpoint.

If “gay”, a term I did not use in my post BTW, simply meant attracted to same sex (gender is another term I didn’t use) it would not require a long post to refute.

There is clearly so much more that goes into the gay brand than just same sex attraction. We live in a marketing society and I recognize a marketing slogan when I see one.

When you cut through the hype, there is a wide range of behaviors and attitudes that fall under the homosexual umbrella. Many of these attitudes and their underlying assumptions run counter to Catholic teaching - not just the proscriptions against sexual activities.

Suppose for example, two lesbians want to adopt, something Catholic adoption agencies do not advocate. Do you think that it is only the sex that is objected to?

 

[Espero]

It’s all part of the homosexualist agenda, which I believe includes duping as many people as possible into their revisionist “history” in which all great historical figures, including King David, were actually homosexuals. No doubt they will lobby for teaching their alternative “history” as fact in American classrooms before long, to go along with their program of indoctrinating children into homosexuality.

You are joking… right?

 

[JHow]

You are joking… right?

Google “California SB 48”, and remember that these are the same educators that teach the Donner Party as “some people went into the mountains…not all of them made it back”.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Google “California SB 48”, and remember that these are the same educators that teach the Donner Party as “some people went into the mountains…not all of them made it back”.

Maybe some JHow, but not all. You have extremist in every group including Catholicism.

My brother, that happens to be gay, simply wants to be treated as a equal citizen as you and I. Is that too much to ask?

 

[EIF5A]

If “gay”, a term I did not use in my post BTW, simply meant attracted to same sex (gender is another term I didn’t use) it would not require a long post to refute.

There is clearly so much more that goes into the gay brand than just same sex attraction. We live in a marketing society and I recognize a marketing slogan when I see one.

When you cut through the hype, there is a wide range of behaviors and attitudes that fall under the homosexual umbrella. Many of these attitudes and their underlying assumptions run counter to Catholic teaching - not just the proscriptions against sexual activities.

Suppose for example, two lesbians want to adopt, something Catholic adoption agencies do not advocate. Do you think that it is only the sex that is objected to?

Neither Gay nor Same-sex Attraction inherently contain ideology. It’s just a description, not a cause for scandal.

Whether one chooses to act on the attraction or not is a different matter — scandalous.

Fornication, adultery, divorce, pornography — aren’t these “wide range of behaviors and attitudes” prevalent in society? Is this a heterosexual “brand”? It’s considered normal and acceptable and cool to engage in these activities.

One can be gay but still uphold the moral law of God. Being gay, or even using that word, does not mean one is going to fight for same-sex marriage or adoption. A minority position, yes, but still incorrect to assume orientation necessarily means ascribing to some “ideology”. You presume someone to be guilty of advocating for sinful lifestyle because of an unfortunate limitation of and multiple interpretation of neutral words.

The post was lengthy to argue against the idea that Gay/homosexuality is an ideology in itself. Most homosexuals I imagine do, in fact, subscribe to an ideology, but not all.

We make a lot of fuss about “same -sex attraction” as distinct from homosexual acts, but we say little about persons who have taken on a homosexual identity. Homosexuality as idealogy is missing from the discussion, and is more interesting than the acts or attraction.

Identifying as having same-sex attraction or homosexual is different from identifying and sympathizing with ideology of same-sex marriage, gay adoption, etc.

 

[JHow]

Maybe some JHow, but not all. You have extremist in every group including Catholicism.

My brother, that happens to be gay, simply wants to be treated as a equal citizen as you and I. Is that too much to ask?

A gay union is not a marriage, no matter what taxes or benefits the state extends to it. He is /was free in CA to marry another person of the opposite sex (one at a time). That is treating everyone the same.

The real issue here is that too many people fail to see the procreative aspect of marriage as central and essential.

 

[EIF5A]

A gay union is not a marriage, no matter what taxes or benefits the state extends to it. **He is /was free in CA to marry another person of the opposite sex (one at a time). That is treating everyone the same. **

The real issue here is that too many people fail to see the procreative aspect of marriage as central and essential.

[emphasis added]

You cannot be serious.

It’s one thing to believe homosexual acts (including marriage) are immoral and against God’s natural plan for humanity.

Another to be blithely callous.

I see no profit in furthering this discussion anymore…Good day to you…

 

[aidanbradypop]

[emphasis added]

You cannot be serious.

It’s one thing to believe homosexual acts (including marriage) are immoral and against God’s natural plan for humanity.

Another to be blithely callous.

I see no profit in furthering this discussion anymore…Good day to you…

Yeah I agree