Homosexuality and Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Marsh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComputerGeek25 said:
I think you are confusing a few things here…

Scientifically, I’m a guy and I’m into women. However, that doesn’t automatically make it right for me to go practice unchaste, unhealthly behaviour or other acts of pervsion with them, and expect everyone to accept my behaviour as “normal.”

We accept people with SSA, and realize that they have their own unique cross to bear. He love the sinner but hate the sin. This goes for people who practice fornication or adultery with people of the opposite sex as well. There is no double standard.
Click to expand...
I never said it was right to practice unhealthly behaviour and expect everyone to accept this as “normal.” I do understand the stance love the sinner but hate the sin. Since the church will not marry same-sex couples there is only the choice for LGB persons to sin or not show love/bond with their partners when they are in a loving commited relationship with one person. Heterosexuals can marry therefor can show love for/bond with their partners when they are in a loving commited relationship with one person. How can you say there is no doulbe standard?
 
Okay, here is a question/observation to pull this in all directions.

I work with a group of developmentally disabled adults. This is a small group in the midst of a larger group, globally. It is SPRED a Catholic organization that prepares people with special needs, such as down’s syndrome and autism for the sacraments.

Within my state there are no homosexual members. I can’t recall ever meeting a homosexual special needs person. We have a dance every year and the women want to dance with women and the men want to dance with men. Could our friends be onto something?
 
KES said:
This is a biased source. I am sure you know the mission of NARTH.
Click to expand...
Did you even read it and the references? Just reject it because you don’t like the site it is on?

OK - I’ll dig up the original references from other sites if you need.
 
KES said:
How can you say there is no doulbe standard?
Click to expand...
Again, when we are in an unmarried state, we are not supposed to be having “relations” irregardless of what your sexual orientation is.

We are called to be chaste and not tempt others to sin (aka scandal), irregardless of your sexual orientation.

If the church were to say, “if you’re homosexual, so it’s alright to have sex with people of the same sex, go nuts,” we start down a slippery slope.

There is plenty of practical wisdom above and beyond what the church says about this as well.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Again, when we are in an unmarried state, we are not supposed to be having “relations” irregardless of what your sexual orientation is.

We are called to be chaste and not tempt others to sin (aka scandal), irregardless of your sexual orientation.

If the church were to say, “if you’re homosexual, so it’s alright to have sex with people of the same sex, go nuts,” we start down a slippery slope.

There is plenty of practical wisdom above and beyond what the church says about this as well.
Click to expand...
I never said the church should say if you are homosexual you should go nuts. I am saying that if the problem the church has with homosexual acts is that these acts are not within the context of a marriage, than shouldn’t the church allow marriage for sex sex couples as to help them not sin (not tempt others to sin as you said)?
 
KES said:
I never said the church should say if you are homosexual you should go nuts, I am saying that if the issue is because homosexuals are not married than shouldn’t the church allow marriage for sex sex couples as to help them not sin (not tempt others to sin as you said)?
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don’t make a right… The sacrament is only for one man and one woman, not one man and one man, one man and four women or a man and his dog.
 
KES said:
I never said the church should say if you are homosexual you should go nuts. I am saying that if the problem the church has with homosexual acts is that these acts are not within the context of a marriage, than shouldn’t the church allow marriage for sex sex couples as to help them not sin (not tempt others to sin as you said)?
Click to expand...
The point is marriage is a specific institution. It cannot be redefined simply to accomodate some inclination.

Or, simply calling something by another name does not magically transform that thing into what we call it.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Two wrongs don’t make a right… The sacrament is only for one man and one woman, not one man and one man, one man and four women or a man and his dog.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by two wrongs don’t make a right? Please explain without throwing the disgusting words of a man and his dog into it. There is no need for that. That is not what we are talking about.
 
KES said:
What do you mean by two wrongs don’t make a right? Please explain without throwing the disgusting words of a man and his dog into it. There is no need for that. That is not what we are talking about.
Click to expand...
Because the Church defines marriage as one man and one woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other intererptation is wrong.
 
KES said:
What do you mean by two wrongs don’t make a right? Please explain without throwing the disgusting words of a man and his dog into it. There is no need for that. That is not what we are talking about.
Click to expand...
PS - Many of us find the notion of same-sex relations obsurd and disgusting as well.

And, as I said, if we are allowed to redefine any rule, law or regulation, what’s stopping the dog/man scenario from becoming sactioned?
 
The Church does not approve of homosexuality for several reasons, one is that it goes against natural law…this topic has been discussed in several threads so if you want a better explanation you could search the forum. There are experts on the matter that could explain it much better than I.

But the gist is that the purpose of sex is procreative and unitive. It is a sin for anyone to have sex without both aspects as seen by the whole birth control issue. So a homosexual couple will NEVER have the procreative aspect of sex since they do not have the capabilities. Therefore…it is a mortal sin!
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
PS - And, as I said, if we are allowed to redefine any rule, law or regulation, what’s stopping the dog/man scenario from becoming sactioned?
Click to expand...
I am not talking about redifining just any rule or law, I am talking about a specific topic.

What is stopping a dog/man scenario from becoming sactioned?? Sanity and rationalization. The dog is not human and cannot give consent.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Because the Church defines marriage as one man and one woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other intererptation is wrong.
Click to expand...
But why should we keep it that way? That is my question. Would you maybe consider that the church might be wrong on this?
 
Carolinagirl411 said:
The Church does not approve of homosexuality for several reasons, one is that it goes against natural law…this topic has been discussed in several threads so if you want a better explanation you could search the forum. There are experts on the matter that could explain it much better than I.

But the gist is that the purpose of sex is procreative and unitive. It is a sin for anyone to have sex without both aspects as seen by the whole birth control issue. So a homosexual couple will NEVER have the procreative aspect of sex since they do not have the capabilities. Therefore…it is a mortal sin!
Click to expand...
The purpose of sex is procreative and unitive, and must include both aspects each and every time? We could go into a long discussion on infertility within the rehlm of heterosexual marriage…
 
KES said:
I am not talking about redifining just any rule or law, I am talking about a specific topic.
Click to expand...
It seemed, from the implication from the original question about if there’s a scientific reason behind homosexuality, that the Church can now sanction a whole bunch of actions that have been considered wrong since the early times of our Judeo-Christian traditon, for no other reason than to “feel good.” (There’s a mouthful)

Sorry, if I misread/sound harsh…
KES said:
What is stopping a dog/man scenario from becoming sactioned?? Sanity and rationalization. The dog is not human and cannot give consent.
Click to expand...
A bit of sensationalism on my part. Sarcasm translates poorly on the internet.
 
KES said:
The purpose of sex is procreative and unitive, and must include both aspects each and every time? We could go into a long discussion on infertility within the rehlm of heterosexual marriage…
Click to expand...
Again, this topic has been discssed several times on the forums here…

The long and short of it, is that a couple should not frustrate the procreative part of sex, even if one or both parties are infertile.

How old were Abraham and Sarah?
 
KES said:
But why should we keep it that way? That is my question.
Click to expand...
The institution of marriage is older than the Church. It is known from right reason and the natural moral law. The burden is on you to show why on how it may be changed.
Would you maybe consider that the church might be wrong on this?
Click to expand...
The Church speaks as Christ. When is Christ wrong?
 
KES said:
We could go into a long discussion on infertility within the rehlm of heterosexual marriage…
Click to expand...
It would not be long. Unintentional infertility has nothing to do with objective ordering of the marital act.

Part of the problem here is that we have a fundamental disagreement in how marriage is defined and how love is defined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top