K
Karin
Guest
But not all homosexuals are practicing homosexual acts.
So why group them all together? Homosexuals that are chaste are not pormoting a “culture of death”…or are they???
- Status
So why group them all together? Homosexuals that are chaste are not pormoting a “culture of death”…or are they???
B
BlindSheep
Guest
No, they aren’t. However, I think it would not be possible to discuss homosexual acts without discussing the people who engage in them. On this board “homosexuals” is often shorthand for “active homosexuals” and “people with SSA” is used to refer to chaste homosexuals.
K
Karin
Guest
OK got it…so from now I will use SSA and not homosexuals.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Karin:
The two examples aren’t comparable.
In the case of the couple engaging in the Homosexual Act - Scripture and the Teaching of the Church are clear that the act, by its very nature is disordered (against our original unfallen nature), seperating those who engage in it from God and making them unable to receive HIs Mercy, Grace and Love unless they repent of the act. This is and has been the clear teaching of the Church for the last 1970 years and was the teaching of the Jews for over a millenium before that.
In the second case, we aren’t even allowed to speculate about the intent of two people who are married where one has turned out to have been unfertile let alone form any judgments.
We can only conclude that God has called them to adopt unwanted children, or take care of foster children and to advise them that they might wish to begin the procedures for doing on of those.
It is often these people wo feel compelled to use the various means of artificial fertilization in their attempt to “bring their own children into the world”. That means, in spite of the fact they are using sinful means, they are trying to have children.
Your point is simply invalid - Most couples who are cursed with infertility would give anything to be able to have children and to be able to do so without using artificial means which are prohibited by the Church and by God.
We simply aren’t allowed to speculate or to allow our peculation on their motives to enter a conversation on a topic where Scripture is clear about the effects on one’s actions on one’s soul.
In Christ, Michael
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Blind Sheep:
As I seem to recall, those who are staying chaste and are trying to live in accordance with God’s word while battling Same Sex Attraction tend to be in support groups such as Courage Apostolate
couragerc.net/
This is to be differentiated from groups such as Dignity which wants the Church to accept, not those who are trying to live the Gospel with SSA, but the “Gay Lifestyle” and all of its excesses.
I hope the difference between the two groups is clear.
In Christ, Michael
K
Karin
Guest
Traditional Ang:
From a PHYSICAL ASPECT ONLY can we not say that they are the same???
Thank you I understand the “spiritual” aspect but I was asking about the** PHYSICAL** aspect…but neither can transmit life Homosexuals (same sex copulation) and INFERTILE/STERILE couples (heterosexual).
From a PHYSICAL ASPECT ONLY can we not say that they are the same???
K
kaymart
Guest
They are not the same the heterosexual couple might possibly have the 1 percent chance of concieving a baby. The homosexuals can not. Even men with vascetomies and women with tubualigations have been able to concieve. slight chance but has happened, never heard two men or two women having a baby, and this is your “physical answer”.
K
Karin
Guest
well two woman could have a baby**…IVF**
But as to the other (my original question) I see where you are coming from though I have to respectfully disagree .
K
kaymart
Guest
THE SEXUAL ACT OF TWO WOMEN DOES NOT PRODUCE A BABY, SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE PARTS ONLY A JAR OF SPERM. Do you understand that?well two woman could have a baby**…IVF**
But as to the other (my original question) I see where you are coming from though I have to respectfully disagree .
K
Karin
Guest
LOL!!! I never said that the sex act of two woman would produce a child …I said “***two woman could have a baby … IVF.” ***
There really is no need to yell (as implied by your all capital letter post) …** I AM NOT HARD OF HEARING**!
K
kaymart
Guest
Karin said:LOL!!! I never said that the sex act of two woman would produce a child …I said “***two woman could have a baby … IVF.” ***
There really is no need to yell (as implied by your all capital letter post) …** I AM NOT HARD OF HEARING**!
The whole point of the sexual act can not even have a slight chance to produce a child with a same sex couple, an infertile couple can do IVF too. If you throw that into the mix, just like a 2 men can have a surrargate mother. But IVF and surrogracy is a whole other issue and its has nothing to do with the sexual act that produces a child which you keep “egging on” about, you get answers here from myself and others and come up with “What if’s” What do you want to hear? That gay couples and infertile couples are one in the same. Because that’s what you asked and I’m sorry but the two can not compare in the physical or moral sense.
K
Karin
Guest
NO really
? I know that it was in response to your comment(never heard two men or two women having a baby) …that is all. Not prove that a sexual act between two woman would produce a kid…but prove that two woman could have a baby through IVF(in regards to your comment) .IMHO the sterile/infertile couple and a gay couple physically do compare (they can not produce kids through their sexual act)…morally I never said that they did (compare that is)…because YES morally they DO NOT COMPARE!
K
kaymart
Guest
They do not physically compare and this is the last time I will post on this, because you don’t seem to be listening and only picking out bits and pieces and trying fight and I am not going to play this game with you, ONE LAST TIME, the infertile couple still has a chance of producing a child through the sexual act, even if its only a one percent chance, it still a chance. The homosexual couple has 0 percent chance of ever producing a baby through their sexual act.NO really
IMHO the sterile/infertile couple and a gay couple physically do compare (they can not produce kids through their sexual act)…morally I never said that they did (compare that is)…because YES morally they DO NOT COMPARE!
K
Karin
Guest
And I was done with this several posts ago…when I respectfully stated I had to disagree with you on this! You are the one trying to shove your point of view down my throat…which I respectfully stated I disagree with..period…
I KNOW
!ONCE AGAIN I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS COULD PRODUCE A CHILD THROUGH THEIR SEXUAL ACT…
WHAT I SAID WAS …"THEY COULD HAVE A CHILD THROUGH I.V.F.(ONLY)!!!"
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Karin:
It sounds as if you’re trying to define morality strictly in terms of the physical. I’m not going there.
The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living soul. Gen 2:7
We’re not just physical beings, we’re also spiritual beings created in the image and likeness of God. Any reasonable morality has to take that into account in order to deal with the whole man.
Any morality which does not take that into account does not deal with the whole man.
We’re much much more than physical beings. If that’s all we were, then we would have NO grounds for calling the Holocaust or Slavery “Evil”.
Eventually, ethics and morality aren’t just academic subjects that we try to debate, but they are topics that have to be applied in the real world by real people who are struggling with real issues and who need real direction.
That’s why this discussion can’t go the way you want it to.
I think you might want to ask why you feel the need to push a morality that seems to be based only on the physical and which has to be opposed to Christian Teaching on this issue.
In Christ, Michael
T
Thomas_1985
Guest
the link with homosexuals and the culture of death because its very act is not open to life. a person said something about a couple who is infertle is not open to life or something like that so they are like the homosexual couple physically. I can’t understand that reasoning. an infertile couple is open to life they just can not have children and are not doing anything to stop it.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Gnosis:
Homosexual Acts were defined by Pope John Paul II as being part of the “Culture of Death”. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to talk about Homosexual Acts and relationships in the “Culture of Death” because of Pope JP II’s definition and because of the fact that such acts and relationships seperate those who do them from God and make them unable to receive God’s Grace and Love until they repent of those acts and relationships.
At the same time, it seemed to be logical to talk about SSA in Moral Theology or in Spirituality, depending on the level of challenge people were experiencing, since these don’t necessarily involve the act, just the temptaton, which we all face as redeemed sinners who rely on God’s Grace to deliver us from temptation.
I hope this division makes sense.
In Christ, Michael
B
BlindSheep
Guest
I would say no, because as I already posted, an infertile couple is sterile due to the effects of disease or age; in other words, something going wrong or falling apart from its ideal state of heath; whereas two men or two women can be in perfect health & the prime of life and will not produce children because of their gender; that is, by their very nature rather than some distortion of it.
WHEW How’s that for a run-on sentence?
K
Karin
Guest
First can I state that some people are born sterile (why dont know)…so not all cases of this are due to illness.I would say no, because as I already posted, an infertile couple is sterile due to the effects of disease or age; in other words, something going wrong or falling apart from its ideal state of heath; whereas two men or two women can be in perfect health & the prime of life and will not produce children because of their gender; that is, by their very nature rather than some distortion of it.
WHEW How’s that for a run-on sentence?
As to the rest of it…I AM DONE CHATTING ABOUT IT (sorry for yelling)
B
BlindSheep
Guest
Being born sterile IS an illness, just like being born blind is. I’m using “illness” broadly, to include deformities, disabilities, aging; anything that disrupts the functioning of the body. These things are what you might call “peripheral”, rather than part of the person’s actual basic nature in the way gender is. They are not essential; they are a departure from the normal state and functioning of the body, while gender, either male or female, is a normal aspect of everyone, part of every body’s design.
In a nutshell, an infertile couple can’t concieve because of some impairment of the functioning of one or the other person’s body; gays cannot concieve even when “all systems are go”, because their gender is incompatible.
- Status