Homosexuality and Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter PAZZER
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PAZZER

Guest
im not here to change your beleifs on this issue but if we accept the idea of replacment theroy the idea that jesus and the new testerment replace the old testerment then surely there is actually no teaching which come from jesus about homosexuality in the four gospal:shrug: also the idea of gay marriage may seem distant but here is something that i found funny had some good point about it
  1. Being gay is not natural.
    ->Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
  2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
    → in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
  3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
    → People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
  4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all
    → ye cause women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
  5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.
    → And the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed!
  6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
    → Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
  7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children.
    → because straight parents only raise straight children.
  8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
    → In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on entire nations. That’s why we have only one religion in the world.
  9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
    → That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
  10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society.
    → we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
i do accept the fact that children need a father/mother figue in there life but surely they can get this from outside the tradition family
 
Hi - welcome to the forums!

You’ve thrown out a lot that really can’t be fully addressed clearly and consisely. Please try to limit your inquiry to one point about gay marriage and why the Church teaches against it. You’ll probably have more success that way.

Welcome again. See you around here at the forums (hopefully).
 
The Catholic Church does not believe in the “Replacement Theory”. Rather that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament.

Nor does the Catholic Church believe that the four Gospels are the only inerrant word of God. None of the Bible can be ignored.

All of your points are specious and/or nonsensical and not worth considering. Your comparisons are straw-man or ad hominum. Insulting as they are, your points do not, in fact, dignify a response.

Homosexuality is a serious disorder. Marriage has always and in every culture, been between a man and woman. Polygamous cultures never implied that the wives had sex with one another.

This topic has been done to death. Since, by your own admission, you are not here to change minds, you must be here to bait us, mock us and/or scold us.
 
I agree with rpp. 👍

But to give you a response that might be easier for some non-Catholics to understand, see below.

Mat 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The Old Testament foretells the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament.

Prodigal Son1
 
im not here to mock or scold you but could there be an underlineing issue why the old testerament is so against homosexuality

this is namly becuase of the fact that when moses lead the jewish people across the desert it would not be very helpful for building a new a state if around 5% of the men were in realtionship with each other and 5% of the women are in realtionship together. instead of building a family and increase the population of the growing nation.

You may argue the new testerament is against homosexuality but the only signifcant teaching about homosexuality in the new testerment is “do not decieve neither the immoral nor sexual perverts will inhert the kingdom of god”(romans 1 27) If i remeber correctly paul was stopped by jesus from using the sword ie showing that jesus know better than paul
 
PAZZER said:
You may argue the new testerament is against homosexuality but the only signifcant teaching about homosexuality in the new testerment is “do not decieve neither the immoral nor sexual perverts will inhert the kingdom of god”(romans 1 27) If i remeber correctly paul was stopped by jesus from using the sword ie showing that jesus know better than paul
Click to expand...
Jesus does know better than Paul (though this sword thing doesn’t sound familiar)

However Jesus never gave the thumbs up to gay marriage-something that by its very nature cannot exist.

Your funny points were quite funny, however they didn’t exactly prove your point and are quite easily refuted.
 
While I think that some of the original post and second responder do have some rather silly things things in them, I would say this for the church’s position: it for the most part is consistent - even for me, who doens’t allway agree/care for it.

How is it consistent?: I think its most clear especially in the politics of Italy in which these facts are still more clearly seen:

The church has always been against
  1. divorce (I’m not including issues of abuse),
  2. singles adopting,
  3. same sex couples adopting,
  4. sex & children outside of matrimony,
  5. artificial reproductive technologies,
  6. civil unions (gay and straight)
  7. contraception.
  8. abortion.
= all of which are still battles in Italy where the magesterium (I use the word cautiously) holds more direct influenct in politics.

The marriage nuptuals still state the expectation that the parents will bear children joyfully and willingly.

So while I might not buy into the logic of all of it - it is pretty consistent on its own account, I think. That atleast gives me puase.

Just a note: I dont’ find people on this site to be too much into humorous discourse - even if for hyperbole or effect. Maybe TOO SERIOUS ABOUT EVERYTHING 😛
 
LDNCatholic said:
Oh yeah that makes more sense, though I’m not sure what that has to do with homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Nothing that I can see. As I’ve posted already, Jesus said he didn’t come to destroy the law, he came to fulfill it. And, I’ve also posted my opinion that the Old Testament foretells the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old.
 
rpp said:
Nor does the Catholic Church believe that the four Gospels are the only inerrant word of God. None of the Bible can be ignored…
Click to expand...
You beleive that the whole bible is to bee taken into accont but if you were to look at levictcus it is clearly out of touch of what has become to day soceity there is no bases for this in the 21 frist cenetry

for example do you shave a beard?(levitacus 19 27)
Do you eat shell fish (levitcus 11 9-12)
Do you drink wine (levitcuas 10 8-10)(apart from at communion)

well if yes to any of these above then apparently you are sinning and you are unclean according to God(Yahweh)
 
PAZZER said:
You may argue the new testerament is against homosexuality but the only signifcant teaching about homosexuality in the new testerment is “do not decieve neither the immoral nor sexual perverts will inhert the kingdom of god”(romans 1 27) If i remeber correctly paul was stopped by jesus from using the sword ie showing that jesus know better than paul
Click to expand...
1Co 6:9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
1Co 6:10 Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this: That the law is not made for the just man but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine:

Rom 1:27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
 
PAZZER said:
for example do you shave a beard?(levitacus 19 27)
Do you eat shell fish (levitcus 11 9-12)
Do you drink wine (levitcuas 10 8-10)(apart from at communion)
Click to expand...
This addresses number 3 on your list.

1Ti 5:23 Do not still drink water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thy frequent infirmities.

Joh 2:2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.
Joh 2:3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
Joh 2:4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.
Joh 2:5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
Joh 2:6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece.
Joh 2:7 Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
Joh 2:8 And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it.
Joh 2:9 And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calleth the bridegroom,
Joh 2:10 And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine. And you say: He hath a devil.
Luk 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking. And you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.

This addresses number 2 on your list.

Luk 11:39 And the Lord said to him: Now you, Pharisees, make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter: but your inside is full of rapine and iniquity.
Luk 11:40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make also that which is within?
Luk 11:41 But yet that which remaineth, give alms: and behold, all things are clean unto you.

Act 11:6 Into which looking, I considered and saw fourfooted creatures of the earth and beasts and creeping things and fowls of the air.
Act 11:7 And I heard also a voice saying to me: Arise, Peter. Kill and eat.
Act 11:8 And I said: Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth.
Act 11:9 And the voice answered again from heaven: What God hath made clean, do not thou call common.
 
im not trying to refernece point 3 on my own list but im trying to point out when this was written the book had other ideas that today we would consider stupid to say the least as there are many peopel who eat shell fish and some who eat it as part of there stable diet.

What i am trying to say is that if people choose to beleive in the whole of the bible then surely they can not choose which thing to follow.

For example you can not condon homosexuality in levitcuas if you have gone against levitcus in another way becuase in Gods eyes it maybe consider the same
 
PAZZER said:
im not trying to refernece point 3 on my own list but im trying to point out when this was written the book had other ideas that today we would consider stupid to say the least as there are many peopel who eat shell fish and some who eat it as part of there stable diet.

What i am trying to say is that if people choose to beleive in the whole of the bible then surely they can not choose which thing to follow.

For example you can not condon homosexuality in levitcuas if you have gone against levitcus in another way becuase in Gods eyes it maybe consider the same
Click to expand...
Well while you may have a point, Catholics follow the Church’s interpretations on scriptures. This is a Catholic forum. The majority of people here are not going to agree with your view of homosexuality. Below, please see the Church’s teaching referencing homosexuality.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Chastity and homosexuality

2357
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I was posting verses from the New Testament because of your argument that homosexuality must be alright because there’s nothing against it in the New Testament. Every point I have addressed with scriptures so far, also has scriptures in the Old Testament referencing the same subjects. I did not post them as you seemed to imply that our beliefs were solely based on Old Testament scriptures.

May the peace of the Lord be with you.

Prodigal Son1
 
I hear your frustration, and I understand your points. I even sympathize with many of them.

The important thing here is to understand the difference between civil and sacramental marriage. Only couples who can totally, faithfully, and fruitfully join in one flesh can have a sacramental marriage. If they cannot, then the marriage cannot be consummated. Without a start, there is nothing.

By its very definition, homosexual sex is not fruitful. Oral, anal, mastrubatory, and other non-vaginal sex is also not fruitful. It’s not okay to ejaculate while doing those things either. There are actually many more “no’s” for heterosexuals than for homosexuals in the church. :tsktsk:

At the height of the AIDS crisis, I was at Juilliard. Dancers, actors, and musicians were dropping like flies. I witnessed horrible behavior on the part of their parents. These parents forbade their sons from seeing their lovers in their last months of life. The parents had the legal right to do this as blood relatives (who had disowned their sons 5-10 years before for being gay). 😦 Only when their sons were dying did they do anything, and then it wasn’t loving, it was cruel, humiliating, and spiteful. Believe me, I understand and sympathize with your stance.

It’s just not Catholic tradition, it’s not the command of God, it’s not scriptural, it’s not His plan.

I live in Massachusetts. We have gay marriage and all is well. We have THE LOWEST DIVORCE RATE IN THE COUNTRY. :dancing: This could be because the love of the Red Sox has taught us to love with delayed gratification. I dunno.

I struggle with this teaching too.:confused:
 
I have two points to make.
  1. We do not know that Jesus did not address it. The Gospels only record a small portion of what Jesus said and did.
  2. It had already been accepted that homosexual acts were immoral. Perhaps Jesus did not feel it was necessary to reiterate it.
 
PAZZER said:
You beleive that the whole bible is to bee taken into accont but if you were to look at levictcus it is clearly out of touch of what has become to day soceity there is no bases for this in the 21 frist cenetry

for example do you shave a beard?(levitacus 19 27)
Do you eat shell fish (levitcus 11 9-12)
Do you drink wine (levitcuas 10 8-10)(apart from at communion)

well if yes to any of these above then apparently you are sinning and you are unclean according to God(Yahweh)
Click to expand...
You do know that the ceremonial law is no longer in effect? The moral law stands. This is known from Scripture and Tradition.
 
PAZZER said:
What i am trying to say is that if people choose to beleive in the whole of the bible then surely they can not choose which thing to follow.

For example you can not condon homosexuality in levitcuas if you have gone against levitcus in another way becuase in Gods eyes it maybe consider the same
Click to expand...
I am not trying to be insulting but each time I see this argument I find it facile. Do you think the Church simply reads the bible, finds contradictions, and then ignores them? As if no one has ever discovered this contradiction before?

Point being it is not a contradiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top