It is not a dichotomy, but a 3-way choice.
Really? I would have thought that decapitating a man or burning him alive would be worse. I guess this means that gay men are even more depraved than ISIS?
It DOES fail, in the natural law system.
Mutual decapitation or burning, maybe. But one man killing another is not usually mutual.
So if we’re restricting our consideration to the “mutual,” you’re suggesting mutual decapitation or burning is “maybe” more depraved?
Sorry to have upset you about my phrasing. I would say it is more depraved. Allow for the idiosyncracies of the English language, maybe…
Thorolfr;13685115:
But because of human nature, most people are unlikely to abstain from sex even when they can. That’s why public health officials make recommendations based on what they think is more likely to succeed in preventing the spread of disease, not what they realize is unrealistic and is almost certainly not going to happen (i.e. widespread abstinence).
Perhaps, that is if it is a mutual agreement.
Contraception and fornication are not mutually exclusive. One can use contraception while fornicating which would seem to present competing interests as you have laid them out. Should one use contraception if one is going to fornicate so as to avoid being uncharitable to a potential child or should one avoid contraception in such a situation to avoid slighting God? In the interest of clarity, if you are going to discuss the gravity of sinful acts as “exacerbated by circumstance and intention,” and bring up the topics of contraception and fornication, you may want to clarify that you are not discussing them in conjunction.
thistle;13685405:
It’s definitely a plan for avoiding disease, but not a good plan for avoiding spiritual ruin.But because of human nature, most people are unlikely to abstain from sex even when they can. That’s why public health officials make recommendations based on what they think is more likely to succeed in preventing the spread of disease, not what they realize is unrealistic and is almost certainly not going to happen (i.e. widespread abstinence).
SBG - You are correct. They are not mutually exclusive. But, one sin overrides the other, so to speak, provided its intended purpose is adequately guaranteed to be successful.
The quotes have somehow gotten mixed up. The above quote (#31) which has my name belongs to e_c. This happens sometimes because part of a bracket got left off as in number 26 above and in some subsequent posts.
Both are gravely depraved acts. Both are serious abuses of the human body. Both result in the death of souls, objectively speaking - that is to say, if they are morally responsible. I have no way of “ranking” them. Yes, I said that “there is nothing more depraved [than sodomy] that two men could do to each others’ bodies.” Actually, I did say “to each others’ bodies” and it was a bit hyperbolic anyway. It really doesn’t matter which is “worse”, if there’s anybody on earth who could definitively tell you one way or the other, they’re both gravely immoral. Unfortunately, most of the time, in either the case of the murderer or the “lover”, neither one believes that what they are doing is seriously wrong. Their mutual societies tell them what they are doing is good, as Scripture says: “there will come a time when they will call evil good and good evil.” We are living in those times. They have no shame, as one ought to have for any offense against an all-loving and all-holy God. Indeed, they have “pride”. Remember how the President of the United States lit up the residence that he is now occupying, which is a national symbol that belongs to We the People, not him, with the “rainbow colors” on the night that the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision? Those are six very powerful people, one of them considered the most powerful man on earth, who called what is evil, good and lawful.
Why would you have sex with someone if you risk getting AIDS?
I am not clear on how you connect this post to the thread. You say “The major complaint seems to be anal sex”. Where did you see this point?
What you’re saying about HIV is not correct and is outdated. For example, if the person who is infected is taking antiretroviral drugs and has an undetectable viral load, the chance of transmitting the disease is extremely small. If their uninfected partner or spouse is taking these drugs prophylactically, there is almost no chance of passing the infection. That’s why some heterosexual couples where one is infected with HIV are now able to have unprotected sex for the purpose of having a child and this is no longer uncommon.
Playing the Devil’s Advocate, the availability of condoms might encourage gay sex.
They may encourage same sex sexual activity of a particular form…but not gay sex generally IMO.