Homosexuality And Original Sin

[petras52]

I have posted this before and like before you make excuses.

No. That proves nothin. People make life style choices that oppose society all the time. Joining a “Biker Gang” could get someone disowned by a family. Being “Goth” or “Punk” could get someone bullied at school. Many people make choices that stigmatize themselves…because they don’t care.

Zoltan…based on that comment I have to ask you…when you were a teen and started having sexual feelings were they for both sexes? that’s what your comment implies…when I was a teen the “little guy downstairs” made the choice for me and fortunately it was attracted to the opposite sex…no conscious choice on my part, it just happened…why would it be any different for a gay person? they are who they are and maybe God made them that way…

 

[bjryman]

Zoltan…based on that comment I have to ask you…when you were a teen and started having sexual feelings were they for both sexes? that’s what your comment implies…when I was a teen the “little guy downstairs” made the choice for me and fortunately it was attracted to the opposite sex…no conscious choice on my part, it just happened…why would it be any different for a gay person? they are who they are and maybe God made them that way…

---

Zoltan hits on probably the most important issue of all:

Forget about all the definitions, and the debates of acceptance of the Gay lifestyle, and its natural resultant use of sodomy and oral sex.

OUR CHURCH has chosen to state that this full lifestyle (not just orientation) is not acceptable. The fully practicing Gays are the Church’s “biker group” if you will. So, regardless of any other thoughts or defense, the Church decided NO.

This is not much different than the “ante” to join an organization and remain a member in good stead. If you are in the military, there are certain protocol that must be adhered to. If you work for a corporation, most likely there are certain policies and procedures that you must follow to remain employed.

The major difference is that secular membership requirements have nothing to do, in general, with your salvation, etc. We Catholics are taught that what the Church teaches in areas like this DO impact an individual’s salvation, and literally ones permission to fully participate in the Sacraments.

This single key issue is why I remain so vigilent and cautious when I see the Church try to answer every issue ever confronted in terms of faith over the centuries. This top down absolutism and issuing of anathemas finally diminished with the Vatican II Council proceedings and outcome.

Many wonder where the next steps are for the Church as only now are all the outcomes of Vatican II finally in place.

One more point, when other Christian religions who teach essentially the same pathway to salvation through justification and sanctification, accept Gays fully, I must assume the Catholic Church would say they are rotten at the core?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

---

Zoltan hits on probably the most important issue of all:

Forget about all the definitions, and the debates of acceptance of the Gay lifestyle, and its natural resultant use of sodomy and oral sex.

OUR CHURCH has chosen to state that this full lifestyle (not just orientation) is not acceptable. The fully practicing Gays are the Church’s “biker group” if you will. So, regardless of any other thoughts or defense, the Church decided NO.

This is not much different than the “ante” to join an organization and remain a member in good stead. If you are in the military, there are certain protocol that must be adhered to. If you work for a corporation, most likely there are certain policies and procedures that you must follow to remain employed.

The major difference is that secular membership requirements have nothing to do, in general, with your salvation, etc. We Catholics are taught that what the Church teaches in areas like this DO impact an individual’s salvation, and literally ones permission to fully participate in the Sacraments.

This single key issue is why I remain so vigilent and cautious when I see the Church try to answer every issue ever confronted in terms of faith over the centuries. This top down absolutism and issuing of anathemas finally diminished with the Vatican II Council proceedings and outcome.

Many wonder where the next steps are for the Church as only now are all the outcomes of Vatican II finally in place.

One more point, when other Christian religions who teach essentially the same pathway to salvation through justification and sanctification, accept Gays fully, I must assume the Catholic Church would say they are rotten at the core?

…well, not exactly “rotten at the core”…but certainly not enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan…based on that comment I have to ask you…when you were a teen and started having sexual feelings were they for both sexes? that’s what your comment implies…

Sorry you mistook my implication.

My point was that all people make odd choices. That includes people who choose to be gay. There is no validity in the argument that gays would not choose their lifestyle because of family and/or societal rejection.

when I was a teen the “little guy downstairs” made the choice for me and fortunately it was attracted to the opposite sex…no conscious choice on my part, it just happened…why would it be any different for a gay person? they are who they are and maybe God made them that way.

…

Your “little guy downstairs” made no choice. He acted as designed. Your attraction was entirely normal. You were attracted to the opposite sex.

If God made gays that way…why did He bother with opposite sexes???

 

[catholic1seeks]

As a homosexual person who also wishes to better follow Christ and understand the teachings of the Church, I have to say something in response to something I keep reading from posts and comments from various Catholics (and others).

Some gay people have a promiscuous lifestyle. It’s true. Some have unsafe sex, some have multiple partners, some have one-night-stands, hookups, and cheat on their partners.

But is that inherent to what being gay means? Being homosexual means having a predominant or exclusive attraction to members of the same sex. This “condition” incorporates a large variety of people. Perhaps some are members of chaste organizations that embrace the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching. Perhaps some live a life of lust and threaten their well being. And then their are other who really do want to unselfishly share a life of love with another person. (Can you believe it?!) I hope everyone can. As much as I want my life to align with Christ and truth, this is a very strong desire and want I have felt drawn to. I want to love another person. My “tendency” is not just a temptation to commit sexual acts. I am drawn to relate to another human person emotionally, tenderly, and authentically.

Living a dangerous or promiscuous sexual life is not inherent to any group. Straight people can have their vices as well, including multiple partners, unsafe sex, and hookups. If disease is more prominent in the gay community, this cannot speak to a truth of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality in itself. It would be arbitrary: At what “point of disease and danger” is too much? After all, the demonstration of disease from gay sex is often given to express the wrongness of homosexual relationships. But what then of disease from straight sex? Should we conclude straight relationships are in itself wrong? I think this argumentation is a very poor one.

I think that a very obvious indication of why many gay people are not living optimally is that meaningful, authentic outlets have not often embraced them. The churches have not always dealt with gay people’s needs, and many churches especially don’t offer a Christian means of love between two homosexual persons. If the Church does not embrace what a homosexual person feels is inherent to their wants, desires, and fulfillment, then they may feel the Church is not at all authoritative. Christianity seems to then be nonsensical. The gay community is often the only place gay people find welcome.

 

[Rau]

…The churches have not always dealt with gay people’s needs, and many churches especially don’t offer a Christian means of love between two homosexual persons. If the Church does not embrace what a homosexual person feels is inherent to their wants, desires, and fulfillment, then they may feel the Church is not at all authoritative. Christianity seems to then be nonsensical. The gay community is often the only place gay people find welcome.

What would you want from the Church? How does the Church impede “Christian love” between 2 persons?

 

[catholic1seeks]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

What would you want from the Church? How does the Church impede “Christian love” between 2 persons?

I said all that with the hope readers of the post would already know that homosexual persons (especially Christians) have a heavy cross if they try to align themselves with church doctrine. Hence, the struggle for many causes them to see the Church’s doctrine as some oppressive system and could cause them to reject Christianity and much of its traditional moral and social implications (like purity, monogamy etc.).

What I want from the Church is not relevant to what I was addressing, which is the idea that all gay relationships are by their nature dangerous, promiscuous, and full of lust.

 

[David_Goliath]

Sorry you mistook my implication.

My point was that all people make odd choices. That includes people who choose to be gay. There is no validity in the argument that gays would not choose their lifestyle because of family and/or societal rejection.

…

Your “little guy downstairs” made no choice. He acted as designed. Your attraction was entirely normal. You were attracted to the opposite sex.

If God made gays that way…why did He bother with opposite sexes???

Zoltan,

Just out of curiosity, what is your education level? What kind of education do you have?

 

[Rau]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I said all that with the hope readers of the post would already know that homosexual persons (especially Christians) have a heavy cross if they try to align themselves with church doctrine. Hence, the struggle for many causes them to see the Church’s doctrine as some oppressive system and could cause them to reject Christianity and much of its traditional moral and social implications (like purity, monogamy etc.).

What I want from the Church is not relevant to what I was addressing, which is the idea that all gay relationships are by their nature dangerous, promiscuous, and full of lust.

Well heck, you point to a serious omission of the Church, but declare that what should be done to correct it “irrelevant”!

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well heck, you point to a serious omission of the Church, but declare that what should be done to correct it “irrelevant”!

I take it you think the Church integrates gay people pretty well into its society.

 

[JimG]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I said all that with the hope readers of the post would already know that homosexual persons (especially Christians) have a heavy cross if they try to align themselves with church doctrine. Hence, the struggle for many causes them to see the Church’s doctrine as some oppressive system and could cause them to reject Christianity and much of its traditional moral and social implications (like purity, monogamy etc.).

What I want from the Church is not relevant to what I was addressing, which is the idea that all gay relationships are by their nature dangerous, promiscuous, and full of lust.

I am not sure what is meant by “gay relationships.” Relationships between persons of the opposite sex or the same sex need not be ‘dangerous, promiscuous, or full of lust.’ Quite often people can just be friends.

And of course most person, whatever their affective desires, can find their temptations at odds with Catholic morality, whether they are temptations to contraception, fornication, adultery, pornography, or same sex genital relations. In that respect, everyone is in a struggle with moral standards.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I am not sure what is meant by “gay relationships.” Relationships between persons of the opposite sex or the same sex need not be ‘dangerous, promiscuous, or full of lust.’ Quite often people can just be friends.

And of course most person, whatever their affective desires, can find their temptations at odds with Catholic morality, whether they are temptations to contraception, fornication, adultery, pornography, or same sex genital relations. In that respect, everyone is in a struggle with moral standards.

I think you know what I mean by “gay relationships.” But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I of course mean a romantic relationship.

 

[JimG]

I think you know what I mean by “gay relationships.” But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I of course mean a romantic relationship.

Thanks for the clarification. When it comes to romantic relationships, it seems to me that they should be limited to those seriously considering marriage, for example, engaged couples. Otherwise they can be just a distraction or a temptation. But same sex relationships can not be marital, so for that reason it would seem that romantic relationships with persons of the same sex would be a distraction to true friendship, just as would be romantic relationships between persons of the opposite sex with no intention of marriage.

 

[Humanae_Vitae]

This is something that I’ve never quite understood. Catholics tend to say that people aren’t born with homosexual tendencies. And yet, due to original sin, everyone is born with a natural inclination to sin - to lie, to use violence, to commit adultery, to murder. So why can’t someone be born with a natural inclination to homosexuality as well?

If one accepted that argument, they would naturally then have to accept that homosexual behavior is sinful (ergo, the drive is an inclination to sin).

I doubt anyone wants to defend a homosexual lifestyle by citing original sin, since the implication for what they are defending is a bad one.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Living a dangerous or promiscuous sexual life is not inherent to any group. Straight people can have their vices as well, including multiple partners, unsafe sex, and hookups. If disease is more prominent in the gay community, this cannot speak to a truth of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality in itself. It would be arbitrary: At what “point of disease and danger” is too much? After all, the demonstration of disease from gay sex is often given to express the wrongness of homosexual relationships. But what then of disease from straight sex? Should we conclude straight relationships are in itself wrong? I think this argumentation is a very poor one.

.

Actually it is a very good argument because it is based on facts that effect public health.
Justifying homosexual behavior by comparing it to unsafe sex within the straight community is the poor argument…simply because two wrongs do not make it right.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan,

Just out of curiosity, what is your education level? What kind of education do you have?

Before I take up loads of bandwith by posting my entire resume…could you explain what this information has to do with Homosexuality And Original Sin?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Actually it is a very good argument because it is based on facts that effect public health.
Justifying homosexual behavior by comparing it to unsafe sex within the straight community is the poor argument…simply because two wrongs do not make it right.

They aren’t justifying gay sex, they are just saying your argument is weak.

Gay men are at higher risk for HIV than straight men so it is clear that gay sex is immoral.
Straight women are at higher risk for HIV than lesbian women so it is clear that heterosexual sex is immoral.

 

[Thorolfr]

Gay men are at higher risk for HIV than straight men so it is clear that gay sex is immoral.
Straight women are at higher risk for HIV than lesbian women so it is clear that heterosexual sex is immoral.

This logic makes perfect sense. That means that most sex between two humans is immoral. But HIV disease risks in having sex with animals is probably even lower, so that might be OK

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

They aren’t justifying gay sex, they are just saying your argument is weak.

Gay men are at higher risk for HIV than straight men so it is clear that gay sex is immoral.
Straight women are at higher risk for HIV than lesbian women so it is clear that heterosexual sex is immoral.

Let’s be clear…from a religious standpoint…is gay sex or straight sex immoral?

From a secular standpoint…is gay sex or straight sex a natural behavior?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Actually it is a very good argument because it is based on facts that effect public health.
Justifying homosexual behavior by comparing it to unsafe sex within the straight community is the poor argument…simply because two wrongs do not make it right.

I was not justifying it based on that… ???

If you read my post, you would see that my response was due to my concern that many people use this very reason to argue against gay relationships – as if gay persons are all promiscuous and lustful creatures who are doomed to end up with disease.