Gay rights activists protest N. California mall

[Cor_Cordis]

Maybe you can tell that to the LGBT crowd.

THIS!

 

[epan]

Sniffing around this topic, I decided to catch up with how some other Christian denominations are dealing with this. I found Archbishop Rowan’s comments interesting (from Wikipedia):

In 2004 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams wrote a letter to Anglican churches worldwide in which he condemned comments by bishops outside the Western world for inciting violence against gay men and women.

“Any words that could make it easier for someone to attack or abuse a homosexual person are words of which we must repent. Do not think repentance is always something others are called to, but acknowledge the failings we all share, sinful and struggling disciples as we are.”

In a 2007 speech to theology students in Toronto, Williams argued that conservatives have failed to consider the wider context of Romans 1:27, which states, “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for error.” Williams pointed out that although St. Paul (the author of this epistle) and his contemporaries viewed homosexual behaviour “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents”, the main thrust of this passage is that humans must not judge one another for being sinful: Romans 2:1 says “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another: for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” Williams admitted that his analysis “does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment”, but called upon conservatives to avoid self-righteousness rather than “happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else”.

While my opinion is that homosexual behavior is considered a sin in scripture, I do appreciate the Archbishop’s reminder.

 

[scipio337]

Here is an argument for the evolutionary utility for homosexuality:

psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu

And here is one arguing against it on evolution / natural selection grounds:

monomaniacy.blogspot.com/2010/12/evolutionary-argument-against.html

Seriously, that first article is about the most unscientific article I’ve ever read. Have you read it? In short, gay alleles make men more feminine (such a nice guy!), and attractive to women, until they get too much gay allele, and turn to the same sex. Also, gay men are inherently better looking than straight ones.

Is so full of weak stereotypes, I’m surprised anyone funded it.

 

[scipio337]

So if society decides that incest is no longer an immoral or sinful thing, then you’re okay with that. Right?

How about pederasty?

How about bestiality?

How about co-ed bathrooms and showers in public schools?

I had asked the question last night, but I don’t think she answered:

Is morality relative, or absolute?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Sniffing around this topic, I decided to catch up with how some other Christian denominations are dealing with this. I found Archbishop Rowan’s comments interesting (from Wikipedia):

While my opinion is that homosexual behavior is considered a sin in scripture, I do appreciate the Archbishop’s reminder.

Yeah.

And speaking of Rowan, his liberal views have created more Catholic converts in recent times than anything else:

Vatican Welcomes Episcopal Converts To Catholic Church

"The Episcopal Church has been rocked in recent years by divisions over doctrine and the role of gays and lesbians in church life. With about 2 million members, the church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and the ongoing disputes have prompted some congregations to align themselves with Anglican bishops overseas.

A moratorium on electing gay bishops was overturned at the Episcopal Church’s national convention in Anaheim in 2009; the next year, Mary Douglas Glasspool became the church’s second openly gay bishop and serves in the Diocese of Los Angeles.

Steenson, in a conference call with reporters Monday, appeared to allude to the issue when asked why he left the church. “It came down to the question of how authority is handled in the church,” said Steenson, who was ordained a Catholic priest in 2009. “Putting challenging theological questions to a vote is not traditionally how we answered questions. Every generation has its issues. We need to take the long view.”

 

[epan]

Seriously, that first article is about the most unscientific article I’ve ever read. Have you read it? In short, gay alleles make men more feminine (such a nice guy!), and attractive to women, until they get too much gay allele, and turn to the same sex. Also, gay men are inherently better looking than straight ones.

Is so full of weak stereotypes, I’m surprised anyone funded it.

I was not defending it. This discussion always gets so bitter and positional, I just thought I would add some other points of view to the mix for people to consider. While the scriptural question seems clear to me, as to morality, I think that some of the other questions which people raise do not always have such clearly cut answers as they sometimes propose.

As for funding, there is a lot of bad research which gets funded because it promises to make a political point. This happens on the left and on the right.

 

[epan]

Yeah.

And speaking of Rowan, his liberal views have created more Catholic converts in recent times than anything else:

Perhaps, but I still appreciate his reminder to be charitable, because I do indeed find myself not being as charitable as I might be, in heated discussions on issues which people feel strongly about. You may not always agree with him, but I am sure that sometimes you might. His writing, actually, can be quite inspirational. He is no dummy. He can be eloquent, at times.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Perhaps, but I still appreciate his reminder to be charitable, because I do indeed find myself not being as charitable as I might be, in heated discussions on issues which people feel strongly about. You may not always agree with him, but I am sure that sometimes you might. His writing, actually, can be quite inspirational. He is no dummy. He can be eloquent, at times.

He accepts homosexuality as a moral good.

How charitable is he being to Truth?

Does he specifically remind the aggressive LGBT fascists to be charitable to Christians who disagree with them?

 

[bellasbane]

We’re talking about homosexual humans and specifically the dysfunction of homosexuality.

This is what I find confusing about your posts. In what way do you distinguish between homosexual humans and homosexual behavior?

Homosexuality in and of itself is an evolutionary dead-end.

All you have demonstrated is that homosexuality depends entirely upon the intended design of heterosexuality. Thus proving that homosexuality is a deviation from our naturally ordered design.

Homosexuality depends upon heterosexuality exclusively.

Heterosexuality carries on in spite of the deviance of homosexuality.

The CCC defines it this way:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” - 2357

So…

• It does not refer to people with same sex attractions.
• It does not refer to same-sex encounters between people who are mostly heterosexual.
• It does not require the person to be exclusively attracted to the same sex.

So if we map it out, we actually get

1. Same sex sexual relations + predominant same sex attraction = Homosexuality
2. Same sex sexual relations + predominant opposite sex attraction = ???
3. Opposite sex sexual relations + predominant same sex attraction = ???
4. Opposite sex sexual relations + predominant opposite sex attraction = Heterosexuality?

I’m not sure what you would call #3, but I don’t think is should be heterosexuality - not if you are being consistent in applying definitions. #3 can also produce offspring and is not a sin if the two people are married. Furthermore, the same person who participates in #1 can also participate in #3, but can never participate in #4.

This is why I think its important to focus on behavior rather than internal psychological traits such as a person’s sexuality (whether homo or hetero). If you do that, then you don’t risk condemning people for something they can’t help or failing to condemn people for something they can help (e.g. same sex encounters between heterosexual people).

 

[epan]

He accepts homosexuality as a moral good.

How charitable is he being to Truth?

Does he specifically remind the aggressive LGBT fascists to be charitable to Christians who disagree with them?

I don’t think he does. Do you have a source for that claim? I would like to see it, because I have not read or heard anything from him claiming that.

As for aggressive “LGBT fascists”, I’ll just worry about my own behavior, and not theirs. I really believe the the momentum of the past 100 years of women’s liberation, has led us to a point in history where gender distinction has been legally removed from marriage, and that, therefore, the changes in civil law that we are watching before our eyes are not going to be stopped.

I worry more about the things which I can change, than about the things that I don’t believe that I can affect.

 

[epan]

This is what I find confusing about your posts. In what way do you distinguish between homosexual humans and homosexual behavior?

The CCC defines it this way:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” - 2357

So…

• It does not refer to people with same sex attractions.
• It does not refer to same-sex encounters between people who are mostly heterosexual.
• It does not require the person to be exclusively attracted to the same sex.

So if we map it out, we actually get

1. Same sex sexual relations + predominant same sex attraction = Homosexuality
2. Same sex sexual relations + predominant opposite sex attraction = ???
3. Opposite sex sexual relations + predominant same sex attraction = ???
4. Opposite sex sexual relations + predominant opposite sex attraction = Heterosexuality?

I’m not sure what you would call #3, but I don’t think is should be heterosexuality - not if you are being consistent in applying definitions. #3 can also produce offspring and is not a sin if the two people are married. Furthermore, the same person who participates in #1 can also participate in #3, but can never participate in #4.

This is why I think its important to focus on behavior rather than internal psychological traits such as a person’s sexuality (whether homo or hetero). If you do that, then you don’t risk condemning people for something they can’t help or failing to condemn people for something they can help (e.g. same sex encounters between heterosexual people).

I believe the CCC has something to say about adultery and masturbation. By that I mean sexual activity of any sort outside of marriage.

So, it really is not necessary to go to the trouble of making a matrix to define sexuality based on the CCC definition.

Of course, much of the heated debate is a result of differing definitions coming from all directions. So, in that sense, your point is well taken.

In the interest of full disclosure, my biological dad died by the age of 41 from alcoholism. I believe, and my mom believes, that he was tormented by his inability to reconcile his homosexual attractions with his beliefs as a devout Catholic. I have no idea whether he ever acted on those inclinations, but I am quite convinced that his sexual orientation was primarily homosexual.

How this issue is handled, and what is said, can make a big difference. This is one reason that I have a strong interest in this topic. It has great emotional resonance for me, the difficulties that a gay person may encounter in life. I saw it first hand, and lost my dad at the age of 11, as a result. Throughout my adolescence and early adulthood I harbored great anger, much of it toward the Church.

There are many cases, even today, of tragic suicides, out of despair over this issue. There are also famous historic examples of tragic loss. Alan Turing comes to mind, who personally saved many lives with his cracking of the German Enigma code machine. He was also the founder of one of the most important theoretical foundations of Computer Science. He invented the mathematics which describes a deterministic machine (a computer). Imagine what he might have accomplished to benefit humanity in the last half of his life.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

This is what I find confusing about your posts. In what way do you distinguish between homosexual humans and homosexual behavior?

“Homosexual” is a passive inclination.

“Homosexuality” is an active participation in those inclinations.

 

[Lochias]

Hi Lochias,

I can see your argument, but what you have proposed would be no different, if you replaced ‘homosexual’ with ‘heterosexual’. You seem to view homosexuality and heterosexuality very differently. Why? It is simply sexual orientation.

Because one has an observable function, and the other does not. Homosexual acts are more prone to inflict damage and disease than heterosexual acts, as well; there’s a reason doctors in California used to reference a series of symptoms called “Gay bowel syndrome.”

I understand that Catholicism has the concept of ‘sin’ and has taught that certain acts are ‘sinful’. But that is an issue for Catholics and not the wider world.

Morality predates the Church. It is an issue for all of humanity.

We have laws for that. Just because the Catholic Church says something is wrong does not make it so. It is just an opinion. They don’t have any legal authority.

So recourse to observable knowledge, logic, history, and study of other cultures means nothing to you? The good created by following the Catholic Church’s moral codes and dictums means nothing to you? Millions of people all over the world disagree with you.

It is interesting on these forums how many Catholics use references to ‘murder’ or ‘paedophilia’ or other horrific acts when discussing homosexuality, but not when discussing heterosexuality. Is that latent homophobia? - it is a disturbing trend on these forums.

No, because heterosexual sex is not innately sinful. You cannot compare homosexual sex and heterosexual sex as equal. They are not, and they never will be, physically, mentally or spiritually.

To say anything else is to willfully embrace a lie.

There is no proof that homosexual acts are not a sin.

First of all, you are wrong. There is proof that homosexual acts ARE a sin. Study the Catholic Church’s teachings in order to learn why. Secondly, you cannot first tell me that what the Church teaches is an opinion, and THEN also tell me that what the Church teaches matters.

That sentence does not make sense. The church decides what is a sin.

Wrong again. God decides what is a sin. You need to re-learn your theology.

It is their ball. That does not mean an act is wrong. In the light of the Scottish Cardinal having to step down, it makes me wonder how many of the conclave are gay and how many have had sex with other men. Statistically, it must be a few.

That does not invalidate the Church’s teachings on how homosexual acts are sinful.

I don’t see how that affects their decision-making skills and feel their sex lives are nobody’s business.

Maybe, maybe not. When homosexual activists demand that I see their actions as right and wholesome, and lobby to ensure that my future children will be taught, against my will, that homosexual sex is ok, they have made it my business.

Their mistake.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I don’t think he does. Do you have a source for that claim?

What exactly does he mean when he says Christians must confront their own ‘disgust’ over homosexuality?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I believe the CCC has something to say about adultery and masturbation. By that I mean sexual activity of any sort outside of marriage.

Does the Catechism describe either one of those as:

a “grave depravity”?

“intrinsically disordered”?

“objectively disordered”?

 

[bellasbane]

“Homosexual” is a passive inclination.

“Homosexuality” is an active participation in those inclinations.

And what about same-sex encounters between people who are not homosexual? Seems to me that this should be a major concern given the new “normal”.

 

[epan]

What exactly does he mean when he says Christians must confront their own ‘disgust’ over homosexuality?

Thanks. I will take a look. My interpretation of what I have read and heard from him, is that he does not support homosexual acts, but he does promote charity towards gay people. I’ll look at your source.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

And what about same-sex encounters between people who are not homosexual? Seems to me that this should be a major concern given the new “normal”.

How exactly is someone not same-sex inclined when they take part in same-sex activities?

 

[Lochias]

How exactly is someone not same-sex inclined when they take part in same-sex activities?

Yeah, I’d like to hear the response on this one.

 

[bellasbane]

Does the Catechism describe either one of those as:

a “grave depravity”?

“intrinsically disordered”?

“objectively disordered”?

I believe masturbation is classified in exactly the same way as homosexuality.

Adultery is certainly a grave evil (being one of the big 10) and is often compounded by ABC. In which case it may actually be worse then homosexuality.