Homosexuality And Why The Church Is Wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnny760
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MrSylvester said:
And to this whole post, I have to facepalm, I’m sorry.

http://cdimg3.crunchyroll.com/i/spire2/03312008/0/d/6/b/0d6b8a38599b10_full.jpg

David and Jonathan homosexual? False. Just see this apge to see how utterly ridiculous this assertion is: gotquestions.org/David-and-Jonathan.html True the website isn’t Catholic but it gives a very orthodox and catholic answer to this assertion.

Also, if Ruth and Naomi were lesbians, then their relationship must have been very, very, very awkward because Naomi was Ruths mother-in-law. Gosh, what a thing to say. Naomi and Ruth’s story was nothing but a story of loyalty and friendship, not an incestous lesbian coming out story. Don’t be ridiculous.

Also, God in the Old testament did allow polygamy… for the Patriarchs like David, Abraham, Solomon and Jacob. Others like Isaac despite being able to be polygamous were not and clung to a single wife (in this case, Rebecca). But why did God allow ploygamy in the case of the patriarchs in the old testament? He allowed it so that the Jewish race could grow and expand and that there’d be more people around. But instead of the Jewish race being spread by rape ala Ghenghis Khan (whom 8% of the men in Asia and 0.5% of the world’s entire population claim descent from him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_evidence_-_The_Ian_Ashworth_Effect), the jewish race spread in a more civilized way. It was a necessary evil. Surely, 700 wives would have made many children and those children surely would have made many houses.

Also, you take Pauls quote WAY out of context. He said that its better to marry than to burn with passion, as in better to marry to suffer depression over not being able to marry. *But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. *
Click to expand...
I said clearly homoromantic-not sexual, which they were, and it’s not a ridiculous claim.
 
bri89 said:
I said clearly homoromantic-not sexual, which they were, and it’s not a ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...
They were not. Learn the concepts, the language, the figures of speech common to these ancient texts. Stop applying ahistorical assumptions to this time period and to the anthropology of this time period.
 
MrSylvester said:
And to this whole post, I have to facepalm, I’m sorry.

http://cdimg3.crunchyroll.com/i/spire2/03312008/0/d/6/b/0d6b8a38599b10_full.jpg

David and Jonathan homosexual? False. Just see this apge to see how utterly ridiculous this assertion is: gotquestions.org/David-and-Jonathan.html True the website isn’t Catholic but it gives a very orthodox and catholic answer to this assertion.

Also, if Ruth and Naomi were lesbians, then their relationship must have been very, very, very awkward because Naomi was Ruths mother-in-law. Gosh, what a thing to say. Naomi and Ruth’s story was nothing but a story of loyalty and friendship, not an incestous lesbian coming out story. Don’t be ridiculous.

Also, God in the Old testament did allow polygamy… for the Patriarchs like David, Abraham, Solomon and Jacob. Others like Isaac despite being able to be polygamous were not and clung to a single wife (in this case, Rebecca). But why did God allow ploygamy in the case of the patriarchs in the old testament? He allowed it so that the Jewish race could grow and expand and that there’d be more people around. But instead of the Jewish race being spread by rape ala Ghenghis Khan (whom 8% of the men in Asia and 0.5% of the world’s entire population claim descent from him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_evidence_-_The_Ian_Ashworth_Effect), the jewish race spread in a more civilized way. It was a necessary evil. Surely, 700 wives would have made many children and those children surely would have made many houses.

Also, you take Pauls quote WAY out of context. He said that its better to marry than to burn with passion, as in better to marry to suffer depression over not being able to marry. *But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. *
Click to expand...
Bri specifically said they weren’t homosexual so your first two paragraphs are invalid (oh and mother in law isn’t incest as it’s not a blood relationship).
 
Elizabeth502 said:
They were not. Learn the concepts, the language, the figures of speech common to these ancient texts. Stop applying ahistorical assumptions to this time period and to the anthropology of this time period.
Click to expand...
What do you think that the term homoromantic means?
 
bri89 said:
I said clearly homoromantic-not sexual, which they were, and it’s not a ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is and moreover, it is a claim that has not basis in fact and which can only be conceived by looking at ancient relationships from the perspective of 20th Century morality (or lack thereof).
 
I’m not sure WHO is misunderstanding homoromantic but I’m fairly certain that David and Jonathan did NOT have a homoromantic relationship…

Anyway, this is the definition I could find for that particular term:
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homoromantic

If that’s what we’re all thinking it means then I stand with Corki and MrSylvester…
 
bri89 said:
I said clearly homoromantic-not sexual, which they were, and it’s not a ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...
Yes it is a ridiculous claim sprry to say. Just because two men love each other doesn’t mean that its homosexual or homoromantic or homoanything. Love is love. If a men and a woman were to be friends and very close to each other but didn’t want to get married and did not engage in sex, then it cannot be called a hetero-romantic relationship because they are not giving wach other sexual pleasure of any sort. Its love. aI’m going to sound very harsh here but I’m tired and sick of homosexuals calling any type of close relationship that they see as homosexual or lesbian or whatever. Its disgusting. Love is love and no painting or implication is going to change that.

By the way, to the poster who criticized me for my first post: true, maybe I was a bit in my language use but the fact is, we cannot tolerate promiscuity, we cannot tolerate people who harm themselves by pretending to be soemthing they are not and we cannot tolerate people who brainwash children and the general public with their sick depiction of love. I am of course not talking about all homosexuals but only those who try to justify their promiscuity. Tolerance is not a virtue. If we do care for homosexuals, we’d show them the error of their ways and try to lead them from their sins. If we didn’t give a damn about them, we’d let half of them perish in their filthy antics while leaving the other half in the dark about the right way to lead life. A lot of Catholics are misinformed on how to treat homosexuals but two wrongs don’t make a right and Catohlics still have the chance to treat gay people well by being taught about it.
 
nickybr38 said:
I’m not sure WHO is misunderstanding homoromantic but I’m fairly certain that David and Jonathan did NOT have a homoromantic relationship…

Anyway, this is the definition I could find for that particular term:
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homoromantic

If that’s what we’re all thinking it means then I stand with Corki and MrSylvester…
Click to expand...
bad source, how about from the people who invented the term?
asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Homoromantic
 
Yeah, you might want to watch out in using the ‘Urban Dictionary’. I tried it a few times and found some very…unprofessional…definitions resulting. If it’s gotten a bit more reliable in the last year then ‘all the better’.

I’d also be cautious in attempting to build a case around Old Testament biblical prescedent. Without some interpretive help (and frankly, even WITH it), that is one…frightening…series of books. I doubt I could find a horror film with the same shock value. You’ll find the insightful verses and stories too, but there’s a reason you don’t often hear more of its charming tales brought to light.

Bri89 has some merit in his arguments there - one man marrying one woman is hardly something you can claim as being spelled out in the Bible.
 
uh, I don’t want to hijack this thread. I will just say that the bible recounts extraordinary love between two people of the same sex that rivals the romantic devotion of man-woman love. Read how much Jonathan sacrificed for David and the words they exchanged. Ruth’s vow to naomi is also an incredible pledge of love from one human being to another. I’m not implying there was an erotic element in these relationships, although it wouldn’t be remarkable if there was. I don’t think I’m reading to much into it by calling these relationships romantic, but if you’re uncomfortable with that then I don’t know what. Neither of us is necessarily wrong.
 
bri89 said:
uh, I don’t want to hijack this thread. I will just say that the bible recounts extraordinary love between two people of the same sex that rivals the romantic devotion of man-woman love. Read how much Jonathan sacrificed for David and the words they exchanged. Ruth’s vow to naomi is also an incredible pledge of love from one human being to another. I’m not implying there was an erotic element in these relationships, although it wouldn’t be remarkable if there was. I don’t think I’m reading to much into it by calling these relationships romantic, but if you’re uncomfortable with that then I don’t know what. Neither of us is necessarily wrong.
Click to expand...
I, personally, would not use the word romantic simply because of the connotations it now has in our Western society.

There was a time when one could use the word romantic innocently but these days it almost always connotes a kind of relationship that I don’t believe does these people justice.

These days I would be more prone to say that they were family, in the deepest, truest sense despite not being blood bond to each other. And is the love they had for each other and I believe it is a less ambiguous way to approach those relationships.
 
Hi, MrSylvester,

Nice post…👍

You may want to tighten up your last section on parents disowning gay children… but, outside of that, I think you address the issues quite well. 🙂

God bless
MrSylvester said:
The thing is, we know that having SSA is a hige ordeal and it is a cross to bear. But like all crosses, it can be carried if you set your mind to it. You must accept that you have same sex attraction but you mustn’t treat it as something abnormal. You must differentiate between lust and love. If someone is fantasizing sexually about the same sex, he msut control his lust by respecting the merits of that gender. If one simply loves a person because he amdires him as a friend, thats not so much as same sex attraction as it is normal love.

The thing is, the Church views same sex marriage as unnatural as everyone else views incest and polygamy and plyamory as unnatural. Its not discrimination agaisnt people with SSA as it is discrimination agaisnt an evil practice. Gay people aren’t evil because they’re gay, they’re only evil if they are Hitler :rolleyes:. Likewise, being gay doesn’t make one a sinner nor does having attractions towards the same sex make one a sinner. Its when one fantasizes in a dirty way about the same or the other sex that is bad; its when one commits pre-marital sex that you become a sinner.

My argument is that even if you have SSA you’re still a normal person. Gay men don’t need to feel insecure about themselves by dressing in female clothes and pretending to be women, nor do lesbians need to feel insecure about themselves and dress up as men in order to force themselves to adopt a lesbian lifestyle. Since you don’t want that type of lifestyle, good. The same goes to those heterosexual people who choose to not be prostitutes, playboys, strip club attendants etc… so as to not dishonor themselves.

Its true a lot of Catholics don’t know how to react when someone tells them that they’re gay. If I were a Priest, I’d tell my parish that tohugh we cannot tolerate those gay people who are promiscuos with their filthy lifestyle, we should help those who are having difficulty being faithful Catholics. We should tell them to accept that they have same sex attraction and teach them what is moral and what is not. Even if a gay kid were to be promiscous, we shouldn’t disown him but show him the error of his ways; we’d do the same towards girls who are promiscous and yet you rarely hear of a christian father disowning one because of that. Gay children shouldn’t be disowned because they are gay. Well, unless they join a gang or are so insupportably obnoxious nobody, not even their friends can stand them. Thats OK then!

I’m sorry if my post sounds patronizing but thats just the way I speak, sorry.🙂
Click to expand...
 
Homosexuality is a sin, it is specified in both the Old and New Testaments. You may not be evil, but your sinful choices, are. I hold no malice to a man who is homosexual, but I will not support an increase in sinful decisions. If you dislike being told that you are sinning, then that is an issue in your own hands. No man should have to give up good morals because someone holds a sign up and tells them to do so.
 
Since in God’s eyes homosexuals are not to have marriages/boyfriends/girlfriends, do you think that maybe being gay is God’s way of trying to call you to Chastity for some reason? Perhaps to become a priest or nun?
 
PumpkinSeed said:
Since in God’s eyes homosexuals are not to have marriages/boyfriends/girlfriends, do you think that maybe being gay is God’s way of trying to call you to Chastity for some reason? **Perhaps to become a priest **or nun?
Click to expand...
Considering the Vatican’s current position on those with exclusive same sex attractionI’d say no.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Considering the Vatican’s current position on those with exclusive same sex attractionI’d say no.
Click to expand...
Is the church against gay men and lesbians as priests and nuns? I wasn’t aware of that.
I thought they thought that they only had to be called to chastity in which that would keep them in chastity.
 
Hi, PumpkinSeed,

Truly a unique view of what is going on. Tell me, do you have a reference that supports your suggestion?

The very concept of a religious or priestly vocation is really more involved then Chastity. Do you have any personal experience with priests or nuns?

God bless
PumpkinSeed said:
Is the church against gay men and lesbians as priests and nuns? I wasn’t aware of that.
I thought they thought that they only had to be called to chastity in which that would keep them in chastity.
Click to expand...
 
InSearchofGrace said:
You must not be talking about some Catholic posters nor ‘some people’ in this forum. There was only one in this forum who insisted that homosexual orientation or attraction is by itself sinful and that poster is sedevacantist.

Lusting in one’s heart or active lusting is also deemed sinful.

Just because Nicolosi’s method of help did not work for you does not mean it is not useful to everyone seeking therapy and/or management of unwanted homosexual behavior.

I’m glad you found something positive about how the Catholic Church reaches out to the lesbian and gay Catholics, which,* nota bene*, is* not affirming* homosexual acts or will ever support gay ‘marriage’ in her works of mercy and ministries.

Not too long ago, you were in RCIA and joined CAF. You dropped out of RCIA and decided to return to the Episcopalian / Anglican Church, which according to you, honors diversity and accepts pluralism. You stayed in the forum, however, proclaiming your stance that see-saws between criticising the Catholic Church in one breath and supporting the CC in another breath.

Just a month ago following are your exact words / quotes in a related thread.

This is not the first time that your positions are crossed and confusing even within the Episcopalian denomination, as one poster has taken you to task for misrepresenting TEC in the thread “Protestants, has the Reformation run its course?”

Had you stuck with RCIA, you might have been inducted into the faith today. However, hope springs eternal, especially in the spirit of Easter and the message of the Risen Christ. May your journey lead you to the Truth.

And may the original poster, who is so wrong about the Catholic Church and her teachings, find the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
,
Click to expand...
Wow I’ve never been stalked like this before! :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top