Homosexuality in geneology?

[pathia]

My point is science cannot claim that something is *natural *as in the sense it is consistent with man’s moral nature.

IOW, that something is found in nature does not mean such a thing is ordered as it should be.

Man’s moral nature? I’m sorry, you must live on another planet. As soon as I step away from this terminal and back into reality it will probably take me about 5minutes before I run into someone that will verbally insult me, speak down to me, and spew bile and hatred. There’s about a 75% chance they’ll use the bible to do it too.

At least now they just say words. If I lived decades or maybe a century ago I would have simply been stoned to death when I came of age, if not before.

 

[fix]

Also, you do not know that genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality, and their is not enough proof for you, or anyone, to pontificate on whether or not it is somewhat or wholly caused by genetics. We know that acts are a choice, but the orientation itself and what causes it is still very unclear.

This part of the debate always puzzles me. As Catholics we know we all come from two parents originally. We know God ordained male and female. We know sexual complementarity is ordained by God.

No matter what science finds, or fails to find, science cannot prove homosexual orientation, or inclination, or however you refer to it, was intended as “normal” by the Creator.

All it can show is that it is found in nature.

 

[fix]

Man’s moral nature? I’m sorry, you must live on another planet. As soon as I step away from this terminal and back into reality it will probably take me about 5minutes before I run into someone that will verbally insult me, speak down to me, and spew bile and hatred. There’s about a 75% chance they’ll use the bible to do it too.

At least now they just say words. If I lived decades or maybe a century ago I would have simply been stoned to death when I came of age, if not before.

I have no idea why you responded that way? Did God create man and woman? Did He create man to be with man and woman to be with woman?

If you think He did then please show us some proof?

 

[onaquest]

Sorry, I’m not sure I’m following you…



SK

It’s not really meant to be followed. I’m just throwing it out there. I would be curious to know if there are any developmentally disabled homosexuals out there. Where in my friends , a group of around seventy, there is a clear desire to interact with those of the opposite sex. Outside of our biweekly worship experience together we have a dinner dance once a year and these friends of mine are only interested in dancing with the opposite sex.
This is my only introduction to people with special needs I’ve worshiped with them for six years now and I thought they might be an example of good healthy impulses unhampered by societies embrace of homosexual lifestyle.

I also have friends that are homosexual, I lived in NYC for years and even returning home to Indiana have always had gay couples in my life. All have had traumatic childhoods.

 

[Bennie_P]

Just a side note, I do not believe you are fair to call homosexuals selfish. While I am sure some (or perhaps many) are, there are also many who are honestly trying to be good people…whether or not they are. Also, you do not know that genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality, and their is not enough proof for you, or anyone, to pontificate on whether or not it is somewhat or wholly caused by genetics. We know that acts are a choice, but the orientation itself and what causes it is still very unclear.

Kevin, you are putting more into my words then what I’m saying.

It seems you didn’t like what I said about those that promote Homosexual acts being wrong, so you attack my choice of words.

By the way I don’t recognize the PC term homosexual when it comes to all persons that have Same Sex Attraction. I am attacking the act and the promotion of the acts known as being homosexual in nature, not any one individual. Not all that have SSA act out on their attractions. I know many with issues of SSA and that are true seekers of God’s will.

 

[Bennie_P]

The difference is, Rome, and what was going on and described in the bible was wanton lust, orgies, indiscriminately choosing sexual partners.

That is DANGEROUS even if straight people do it, period. It’s gross, dangerous and life threatening.

The bible doesn’t ever mention anything remotely close to what my partner and I have. We have lived together for half a decade, we are celibate, but we are deeply in love regardless. Sex is not necessary for love.

If you are celbate then what you defending? that is contrary to Church teaching?

 

[pathia]

I have no idea why you responded that way? Did God create man and woman? Did He create man to be with man and woman to be with woman?

If you think He did then please show us some proof?

My point is that you seem to think morality is innate, and people should just ‘get’ it. Yet all the brutality, mocking, assaults, attempted rape and firings were all done by people thinking they were doing their ‘Christian’ duty.

If I went purely on my life’s experiences, I would determine that christianity innately makes you a bad person. Do I actually believe that? Of course not, but it has always what people have used to justify their hatred of me, because I am a living embodiment of sin.

 

[peduzzi89]

Ok first of all, I must point out, Bennie, that you do not know what causes homosexuality, whether genes or otherwise, unless they’ve made some breakthrough discovery. How dare you presume to understand something so well that you obviously do not. Like so many other ignorant people you assume to say that homosexuality only breeds lust, which is not true. Which is kind of my whole point - sure The Bible says about men lusting after one another, but 2 men can indeed feel about each other the same way that a man can feel about a woman. Whether or not you believe this is immaterial because I have seen it with my own eyes and even felt it myself. Also, Mea Culpa et al could you please READ what I’m actually saying instead of what you think I’m saying? I didn’t say the Bible is completely invalid. I said that you have to think about the context and translation in order to fully understand it. And I said, twice, that the words themselves are not ambiguous - I can read you know. But do you know the original ancient Hebrew, greek or roman words that we now have translated as homosexuality? They point towards men who rape men, male prostitutes, men who abuse young boys, the boys they abuse, and ritual homosexual orgies. I’m sure you would agree that the countless times that the Bible mentions slavery are not a justification for it. Why? Because we analyze it and apply it to modern day life. But with homosexuality you love to revert to literalism to get the point across that you believe to be true.

 

[bullfrog543]

i believe that this is a form of nature perhaps god evolution creation perhaps many to slow down natural reproducing in life for once life sees fit to not SEEK survival since i said these words god new it long before I did he loves all and as we all know we have 6 billion people on these planets choice number one population control by war or natural selection of diformity or same sex id presume this post is going over well and should be posted for the proper authorities to read so the church can change their views on this subject

 

[fix]

My point is that you seem to think morality is innate, and people should just ‘get’ it.

Morality is written on everyone’s heart. It is termed the natural moral law. The problem is not every person is disposed to doing what is right. That does not mean they are not aware of it, they choose to reject it for various reasons.

Yet all the brutality, mocking, assaults, attempted rape and firings were all done by people thinking they were doing their ‘Christian’ duty.

That is no proof the natural law does not exist. It proves people have free will and can choose evil.

If I went purely on my life’s experiences, I would determine that christianity innately makes you a bad person. Do I actually believe that? Of course not, but it has always what people have used to justify their hatred of me, because I am a living embodiment of sin.

I am very confused my this. My point is that simply because science can claim some genetic predispostion exists to some particular inclination is absolutely no proof our Creator ordained that. We live in a fallen world where each of us has a proclivity to act wrongly.

 

[pathia]

I am very confused my this. My point is that simply because science can claim some genetic predispostion exists to some particular inclination is absolutely no proof our Creator oradined that. We live in a fallen world where each of us has a proclivity to act wrongly.

I would never claim that, I can’t even feel the presence of God, so I’m certainly not ever going to try to presume what he thinks. That is where I am coming from. I am not really atheist/agnostic. I believe in God because it makes for a logical creation of the universe, I can’t really see any other way about it really.

Other than that, I have no ‘religion’ anymore, everything else is logic and science.

 

[fix]

I would never claim that, I can’t even feel the presence of God, so I’m certainly not ever going to try to presume what he thinks. That is where I am coming from. I am not really atheist/agnostic. I believe in God because it makes for a logical creation of the universe, I can’t really see any other way about it really.

Other than that, I have no ‘religion’ anymore, everything else is logic and science.

Well, I offer my prayers for you and those close to you.

 

[SirOscar]

I also have friends that are homosexual, I lived in NYC for years and even returning home to Indiana have always had gay couples in my life. All have had traumatic childhoods.

Onaquest, so I am assuming that this “traumatic childhood” that ALL of your gay friends have had is your indication that SSA is not as a result of genetics?

I can obliterate that theory. I have a gay brother & a gay nephew. Most, not all, of the friends that my gay brother has that I have come to know, have had normal, happy, childhoods, wonderful relationships with their parents and still do despite their homosexual orientation. There was absolutely no “trauma” for them. GEE, I wonder what made them gay?

My nephew too, has had a normal childhood, with a normal relationship with both parents. From early childhood, myself and his parents questioned what his sexual orientation was going to be because he displayed mannerism that were compatible to SSA. He is 16, announced he is gay, and really it is no shock to any of us.

Some people argue that if it was a genetic trait, eventually the homosexual would become extinct because homosexuals cannot procreate. If this were true, why is it still around, some 2000 years after Christ? These people have no understanding of genetics, and how complex gene traits are carried in the DNA and manifested in the child.

Scientist are progressing in their ability to rip apart DNA, and isolate genes that carry certain traits. Breast cancer is one of them, and I think it won’t be long before lots of discoveries follow.

I believe that we are spiritual beings in a human body. This spirit is created by God. Genetics does not make up our spiritual being it makes up our physical body.

Whatever our sexual orientation in this physical life, we are spiritually created by God, and all of us, in this regard are loved by Him.

 

[Kevin42]

Kevin, you are putting more into my words then what I’m saying.

It seems you didn’t like what I said about those that promote Homosexual acts being wrong, so you attack my choice of words.

By the way I don’t recognize the PC term homosexual when it comes to all persons that have Same Sex Attraction. I am attacking the act and the promotion of the acts known as being homosexual in nature, not any one individual. Not all that have SSA act out on their attractions. I know many with issues of SSA and that are true seekers of God’s will.

It was not my intention to put words in your mouth, so my apologies. I was merely responding to what I thought you were conveying. If you see some of my other responses earlier in this topic, you’ll see that I am a strong advocate of extreme clarity when discussing homosexuality. People tend to be very sensitive around this issue. Also, people use the terms gay, homosexual, homosexuality and such in so many different ways that it can become difficult to understand where certain individuals are coming from. Again, my apologies for putting words in your mouth, and it seems we are on the same side, and I just misunderstood you. Pax et bonum .

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

NOthe CHRISTIAN church was founded on the teachings of Jesus, who died as a JEW. No church was founded by Him. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be built on Peter, the rock, a married man who denied Christ three times.

The “Roman Catholic Church” - as you call it - does claim that, and guess what? So does Jesus:

*“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” *(Matt. 16:18)

“I will build my church.” Quite clear. So much for your baseless claim that Jesus didn’t found a church. Also see here, where Jesus instructs His disciples to convert the world to Him:

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt. 28: 18-20)

Furthermore, this fact does nothing to belittle or strip away Jesus’ Jewish identity, so don’t imply that it does. The first members of the Catholic Church were Jews, yes.

Thirdly, your distinction between the “CHRISTIAN church” and the Catholic Church is one of name only. The early Christian church’s teachings and practices were closer to those of the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches) than to any other later offshoot.

And by the way, the early church even called itself the “Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, coined the phrase.

Finally, you place undue emphasis on the fact that Peter denied Christ three times. We are all sinners, but that doesn’t stop Christ from using sinners to build His Kingdom:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. (John 21: 15-17)

Sorry, I wanted to leave this subject alone now, but I couldn’t let the claim about Jesus founding the Catholic Church go uncorrected.

Steven

Nor could I let your baseless assertions go uncorrected.

 

[Spirithound]

**Maybe because, in the natural world order, they compliment each other? **

Absolutely, I know and agree that man and woman complement each other. This is the ordered way of attraction. My point is just that psychology governs our attractions (and psychology can either be ordered or disordered).

 

[Bennie_P]

Ok first of all, I must point out, Bennie, that you do not know what causes homosexuality, whether genes or otherwise, unless they’ve made some breakthrough discovery. How dare you presume to understand something so well that you obviously do not. Like so many other ignorant people you assume to say that homosexuality only breeds lust, which is not true. Which is kind of my whole point - sure The Bible says about men lusting after one another, but 2 men can indeed feel about each other the same way that a man can feel about a woman. Whether or not you believe this is immaterial because I have seen it with my own eyes and even felt it myself. Also, Mea Culpa et al could you please READ what I’m actually saying instead of what you think I’m saying? I didn’t say the Bible is completely invalid. I said that you have to think about the context and translation in order to fully understand it. And I said, twice, that the words themselves are not ambiguous - I can read you know. But do you know the original ancient Hebrew, greek or roman words that we now have translated as homosexuality? They point towards men who rape men, male prostitutes, men who abuse young boys, the boys they abuse, and ritual homosexual orgies. I’m sure you would agree that the countless times that the Bible mentions slavery are not a justification for it. Why? Because we analyze it and apply it to modern day life. But with homosexuality you love to revert to literalism to get the point across that you believe to be true.

Excussssss me, for being a dumb, ignorant Christian, maybe I should take up hunting too.

You are assuming you know me, my experiences, education level, etc… - :whacky:

Calling me names is not going to win me into accepting illogical thinking and reasoning which is controlled by one’s sexual drive - which has been proven to destroy a man’s heart, mind, body and soul, gay or straight… if you are frustrated then something is most likely wrong - in my experience, if I feel frustrated I usually find the problem within myself not others…

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Ok first of all, I must point out, Bennie, that you do not know what causes homosexuality, whether genes or otherwise, unless they’ve made some breakthrough discovery. How dare you presume to understand something so well that you obviously do not.

It’s the gay agenda people that are trying to get everybody to believe that they’re “born that way” - and you’re right, there is no proof of that.

Like so many other ignorant people you assume to say that homosexuality only breeds lust, which is not true.

The CCC 2363 teaches us that “The spouses union achieves the twofold end of marriage; the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values or marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the good of marriage and the future of the family.” Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life” (CCC 2357). There is no procreative aspect to homosexuality, so homosexual acts are merely for the pleasure of the participants, which is lust. Homosexualilty is ONLY about lust, disordered lust.

Which is kind of my whole point - sure The Bible says about men lusting after one another, but 2 men can indeed feel about each other the same way that a man can feel about a woman.

WRONG

Whether or not you believe this is immaterial because I have seen it with my own eyes and even felt it myself. Also, Mea Culpa et al could you please READ what I’m actually saying instead of what you think I’m saying? I didn’t say the Bible is completely invalid. I said that you have to think about the context and translation in order to fully understand it. And I said, twice, that the words themselves are not ambiguous - I can read you know. But do you know the original ancient Hebrew, greek or roman words that we now have translated as homosexuality?

I don’t recall the word “homosexuality” in the Bible. ασχημοσυνην means shameful and it is used to describe the acts men commit with each other in Romans 1:27.

They point towards men who rape men, male prostitutes, men who abuse young boys, the boys they abuse, and ritual homosexual orgies.

Do you have references for this assertion. When Leviticus 18:22 says “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” how does that only refer only to abuse and orgies?

I’m sure you would agree that the countless times that the Bible mentions slavery are not a justification for it. Why? Because we analyze it and apply it to modern day life. But with homosexuality you love to revert to literalism to get the point across that you believe to be true.

References? In Romans 6, Paul speaks of slaves of sin and slaves of God. In Romans 6:19, he says “I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations.” In other words, he is using the concept of slavery because it is a way to get his point across in terms his audience could understand. He is using slavery as an analogy. He doesn’t use homosexuality as an analogy, he is speaking of it directly and condemning it.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

the CHRISTIAN church was founded on the teachings of Jesus, who died as a JEW. No church was founded by Him. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be built on Peter, the rock, a married man who denied Christ three times.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Where do you think the Church came from? It was founded by Jesus Christ, and built by his apostles and their disciples. Read the Acts of the Apostles and the Church Fathers.

If you consider “the Church” to be the body of Christ, the people who are Christians (of any denomination)

The CATHOLIC Church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head of his Church. The Pope, the successor of Peter, is the visible head of the Church on Earth. The 33,000 sects that have broken away from the Church have parts of the Truth, but only the Catholic Church, founded 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ himself, has the fullness of the Truth.

If the Church’s teaching on ANY subject is founded on ancient science which has been shown to be inaccurate because the people of the time didn’t have the where withall to make the necessary discoveries

The Catholic Church’s teachings are inspired by God, not based on ancient science. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in faith or morals.

then not taking on board recent discoveries would invalidate the teaching in that subject. Some people still believe that God created the world in six days about 6000 years ago. I don’t know anyone who takes that claim seriously these days - the scientific evidence is far too strong. One day we might realise the truth about homosexuality and have to admit we were wrong on that issue too.

We might be wrong, but the teaching of the Church is clear and unchanging, and is infallible.

Sorry, I wanted to leave this subject alone now, but I couldn’t let the claim about Jesus founding the Catholic Church go uncorrected.

It doesn’t need correcting, since it’s a fact.

 

[truagape]

And by the way, the early church even called itself the “Catholic Church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, coined the phrase.

Do you mind elaborating about this?