Homosexuality in geneology?

[SilentKnight]

I also have had many gay friends over the years. They never indicated to me that they were unhappy or struggling with their sexual orientation. I also have a cousin who is gay. She and her partner have been together for about 11 years now and they adopted a child from Russia last year.

My aunt (not her mother thank GOD) said that the child would be better off dead than with my cousin and her partner! I wanted to slap her. If my cousin had not adopted that child he would be dead! He was very sick. They spent literally thousands of dollars to have their son which goes to show that some homosexual couples live Christian lives even if they find it impossible to adhere to what the church teaches about what they are.

One of the marks of maturity is being able to see things for what they are, regardless of initial appearances. A young child thinks, “If I don’t feel physical pain, then it can’t be bad.” Older children may think, “Nothing adverse happened right after I did the act…It must be ok.” The adult thinks, “Ok, I know I can’t see or feel anything wrong just yet, but I know that, long term (and/or objectively), this is not good…”

It is sometimes stated tongue-in-cheek after Pride parades and like events that football-sized hail didn’t fall from the sky, the ground didn’t shake and open up and swallow all the participants and no boils broke out on anyone’s skin. Because there were no immediate adverse experiences, they draw the conclusion that homosexual activity must not be all that bad after all. What sort of reasoning does this sound like viz a viz the options offered above?

In order to qualify for “living a Christian life”, one must live a Christian life – in its entirety. This does not mean that one cannot sin or else he is automatically excommunicated. All of us fall from time to time. That’s what confession is for. It does mean that we are not allowed to “pick and choose”. What God has revealed about the way we should behave, because it is God who is revealing, is non-negotiable. It is all or none. When we make God out to be a liar, we place ourselves at great spiritual risk for obvious reasons.

Thus a homosexual couple like the one you’ve described is, at best, well-intended, otherwise kind-hearted - and very mistaken about the permissibility of their relationship, and, at worst, corrupted spiritually and adopting the child for what are really self-centered rather than selfless ends. Of course, none of us are in any sort of position to judge interior motives. But according to divine revelation, this is how it is.

I take the time to highlight this because I see so much of this happening in our time – people picking and choosing which commandments they are going to follow, which ones suit them and which ones don’t “feel” or “seem” right to their own sensibilities. People insisting that they pray before their show or during their game or whatever all the while sleeping with someone they’re not married to or dancing around on stage all but naked, singing salacious lyrics or engaging in some other type of immoral behavior.

“My ways are not your ways” God reminds us in Scripture. Scripture also says “there is a way that seems right to a man”, but which is, in essence “not approved of” (condemned) by God. I suggest we all keep this in mind and take care to apply ourselves to always seeking truth with a sincere heart, rather live according to our misleading passions and the way that “seems right” to us.

Not to be “overly dramatic”, but the issue is literally one of eternal life and death…

SK

 

[comfort1st]

But because it is not a Catholic marriage, it is not valid.

Aagh!!!
Just because a marriage hasn’t been performed in the Roman Catholic Church does NOT mean it is not valid. The church came onto the scene of marriages/weddings quite late - well after the time of Christ, who personally taught against the arrogance which shines forth from the quote. OK, you may have intended the comment to be associated with gay marriages but that wasn’t part of your statement. Our aim should not be to get people to follow the Pope but to follow Christ, and if that is achieved by them belonging to other churches so be it.

 

[comfort1st]

Everything that is in the CCC must be accepted, even if you do not fully understand it.

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Pre-Enlightenment the church controlled just about everything. Thanks to the Enlightenment we were able to ask questions and explore our beliefs, instead of just accepting what we were told. Naturally, the church didn’t like that - and still doesn’t. It took the Roman Catholic Church 400 years to “apologise” to Galileo, who challenged the notion that the earth was the centre of the universe! We all have the right to ask questions, including the hard ones which the church doesn’t like to have asked.

In the case of homosexuality, just as in the case with Galileo, what is written in scripture, for those without the advantage of 21st century scientific thinking and evidence, is being challenged. I believe that most homosexuals are that way because the huge mix of genes has provided them with a combination which contains significant elements of what we consider to be associated with both genders, and because that combination arises from the multitude of possibilities in our genetic make-up it is highly unlikely to disappear.

Let’s not fall into the trap of saying that what was written thousands of years ago MUST apply today (otherwise a rapist would be required to marry his/her victim and not be allowed to divorce that person - Deut 5:28) but look at the message which was being portrayed.

 

[onetimeposter]

Aagh!!!
Just because a marriage hasn’t been performed in the Roman Catholic Church does NOT mean it is not valid. The church came onto the scene of marriages/weddings quite late - well after the time of Christ, who personally taught against the arrogance which shines forth from the quote. OK, you may have intended the comment to be associated with gay marriages but that wasn’t part of your statement. Our aim should not be to get people to follow the Pope but to follow Christ, and if that is achieved by them belonging to other churches so be it.

Actually, they are quite right. I, a Roman Catholic, married in a Protestant Church. The Church believes absolutely that I have an invalid marriage and that I have committed a very serious sin.

But…the Church has also decided that if you put your hand up and ask the Bishop for permission before you tie the knot…yay, your marriage is valid if he says OK! That’s a lot of power I tell ya! Makes perfect sense!

 

[SilentKnight]

Actually, they are quite right. I, a Roman Catholic, married in a Protestant Church. The Church believes absolutely that I have an invalid marriage and that I have committed a very serious sin.

But…the Church has also decided that if you put your hand up and ask the Bishop for permission before you tie the knot…yay, your marriage is valid if he says OK! That’s a lot of power I tell ya! Makes perfect sense!

First of all, you’re marriage would not be considered valid because you were (formally anyway) Catholic. Had you and your spouse not been Catholic, there would have been no requirement to be married in the Church. The Church does recognize as valid all marriages that are…“valid” (for lack of a less redundant word), except those contracted by Catholics outside the Church.

Makes perfect sense if one can grasp the concept of living by the rules of the house you live in.

SK

 

[onetimeposter]

First of all, you’re marriage would not be considered valid because you were (formally anyway) Catholic…

Makes perfect sense if one can grasp the concept of living by the rules of the house you live in.

SK

The Church telling me that my marriage is invalid brings this passage from ’ Christianity’s Dangerous Idea’ to mind:

" Those who were searching for the consolation of heaven or the forgiveness of sins could not secure these benefits without the intervention and interposition of the institution of the church, and its authorized ministers. Salvation had been institutionalized."
*
Alister mcGrath*

 

[SilentKnight]

Pre-Enlightenment the church controlled just about everything. Thanks to the Enlightenment we were able to ask questions and explore our beliefs, instead of just accepting what we were told. Naturally, the church didn’t like that - and still doesn’t. It took the Roman Catholic Church 400 years to “apologise” to Galileo, who challenged the notion that the earth was the centre of the universe! We all have the right to ask questions, including the hard ones which the church doesn’t like to have asked.

In the case of homosexuality, just as in the case with Galileo, what is written in scripture, for those without the advantage of 21st century scientific thinking and evidence, is being challenged. I believe that most homosexuals are that way because the huge mix of genes has provided them with a combination which contains significant elements of what we consider to be associated with both genders, and because that combination arises from the multitude of possibilities in our genetic make-up it is highly unlikely to disappear.

Let’s not fall into the trap of saying that what was written thousands of years ago MUST apply today (otherwise a rapist would be required to marry his/her victim and not be allowed to divorce that person - Deut 5:28) but look at the message which was being portrayed.

Comfort,

Don’t be flippant. (Or ignorant.) I appreciate your correcting SHF’s error, but don’t let the penduluum swing too far in the other direction.

“The Church” is perfectly ok with you asking all the questions you want to. There just needs to be a purpose for it, for one thing. And for another, if we’re talking about dogma, you have to realize that just as there are certain immutable laws of nature, so there is an immutable nature to many religious truths. It is not “enlightened” to question gravity’s existence. We need to simply accept it and move on.

While much of the Mosaic Law is “conditional” and no longer binding, there are some truths which remain forever. The fact that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered is one of those. Like it or not, this fact is intuited by most people to begin with and is divinely confirmed for those how have doubts.

Thus, as a few of us have said more than once in this thread, it doesn’t matter how much genes or biology does or doesn’t have to do with it. Did you hear about the girl in, what was it, India the other day that was born with eight limbs? (True story.) Very much biological. And very much abnormal.

“Question Authority”, as the bumper sticker says, yes indeed! “Faith,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us, “seeks understanding.” But do it with a purpose.

Peace to you,

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

The Church telling me that my marriage is invalid brings this passage from ’ Christianity’s Dangerous Idea’ to mind:

" Those who were searching for the consolation of heaven or the forgiveness of sins could not secure these benefits without the intervention and interposition of the institution of the church, and its authorized ministers. Salvation had been institutionalized."
*
Alister mcGrath*

…Ok…I’ll bite…

Alister McGrath…Name sounds familiar, but…That’s all I got. Hit me…

SK

 

[onetimeposter]

…Ok…I’ll bite…

Alister McGrath…Name sounds familiar, but…That’s all I got. Hit me…

SK

users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/

Alister E. McGrath (born January 23, 1953) is a Christian theologian, with a background in molecular biophysics, noted for his work on historical, systematic and scientific theology.

…professor of historical theology at Oxford University, and senior research fellow at Harris Manchester College

In September 2008, McGrath will take up the newly-established Chair of Theology, Ministry and Education in the Department of Education and Professional Studies at King’s College, London. He will serve as the academic leader of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture, and be involved in theological research and the professional development of clergy from a range of Christian denominations.

As a former atheist, McGrath is respectful yet critical of the movement. In recent years, he has been especially interested in the emergence of “scientific atheism”…

 

[SilentKnight]

Gotcha…Yeah, I was thinking “Protestant dude”, but wasn’t totally sure…

Anyway:

" Those who were searching for the consolation of heaven or the forgiveness of sins could not secure these benefits without the intervention and interposition of the institution of the church, and its authorized ministers. Salvation had been institutionalized."
*
*

Ummmmm…Yeah! Close to it. As the catechism notes God is, of course, not “bound by” the Sacraments he gives us, but does use them as the norm, and the Sacraments are “institutions.”
Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: in·sti·tu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌin(t)-stə-ˈtü-shən, -ˈtyü-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1: an act of instituting : establishment

2 a: a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture ; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character; also : asylum 4

SK

 

[comfort1st]

Don’t be flippant. (Or ignorant.) I appreciate your correcting SHF’s error, but don’t let the penduluum swing too far in the other direction.

Peace to you,
SK

Thanks Silent Knight.
I wasn’t being flippant, or ignorant, and I have no intention of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. I can’t, however, agree with you on the issue of genetics being irrelevant. Much of the debate about human sexuality quoting various passages from the Bible ignores the scientific evidence which has come to light over the last couple of centuries, just as the debates of the times ignored what Galileo and others were putting forward in their time.

Yes, it’s true that we have biological “accidents” - and they are still children of God. In the same way, if the genetic balance is upset we can have “accidents” which leave someone with the genetalia of one gender but the disposition of the other. They, too, are children of God and should not be shunned by the Church because of their genetic make-up, or our ignorance.

Steven

 

[jean8]

Let it first be known that I am completely against homosexuality. And that I don’t care what anyone says there is no such thing as gay marriage, maybe gay rings and gay sexual interaction but they are not presenting themselves under God so it is not a real matrimony.

My question is what is all the nonsense that I am hearing about people being born homosexual? I believe that this Bible verse would prove that it is completely not true.

“The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of her man this one has been taken. That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become on body. --Genesis 2:22-24”

I got that out of a Catholic Teen Bible. And then I go hearing things about animals being homosexuals too and I really want to know what in the world all of this stuff (nonsense) is about.

Please and Thank You

Homosexuality is a sin. I won’t bother to give you the scriptures you should know where they are.
Are you saying God condemns this sin in his Word and then creates a person to be this way?
I don’t think so.
God gives us the ‘choice’ to choose, if we choose to live a sinful lifestyle , God has clearly warned us ahead of time about the conseguences.
Lying is a sin, stealing, gossiping, We must all repent of our sin.
Living together outside of marriage is a sin. How many people do you know that are in this type of relationship? It’s popular today as you know. Maybe we should all pray for the condition of the world today.

God bless you,
jean8

 

[jean8]

Thanks Silent Knight.
I wasn’t being flippant, or ignorant, and I have no intention of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. I can’t, however, agree with you on the issue of genetics being irrelevant. Much of the debate about human sexuality quoting various passages from the Bible ignores the scientific evidence which has come to light over the last couple of centuries, just as the debates of the times ignored what Galileo and others were putting forward in their time.

Yes, it’s true that we have biological “accidents” - and they are still children of God. In the same way, if the genetic balance is upset we can have “accidents” which leave someone with the genetalia of one gender but the disposition of the other. They, too, are children of God and should not be shunned by the Church because of their genetic make-up, or our ignorance.

Steven

The Binble calls homosexuality a sin, not a gentic disorder.
The Bible ignores? Don’t you think it’s the other way around? Who is ignoring the Word of God?
2Tim.3:16 Rom.1:18-32

God destroyed an entire city because of this sin. Sodom and Gomorrah. Gen.19:4-11,24
Scary, isn’t it!

God bless,
jean8

 

[SirOscar]

Homosexuality is a sin. I won’t bother to give you the scriptures you should know where they are.
Are you saying God condemns this sin in his Word and then creates a person to be this way?
I don’t think so.

Sorry, but LOTS of things can go wrong in the development of a human being. LOTS. It has nothing to do with God allowing anything to happen or creating them to be a certain way. God created humans to be “male or female” did he not? Look up to see how many babies are born with both (male & female) genitalia.

I recommend for you to study up on the development of a baby, from the moment of conception to birth, and you may understand all that can go wrong!

We can’t prove they are born with the predisposition to be gay, but my guess is that they are. Where do you propose it comes from?

 

[Kevin42]

Just so everyone is clear (which I think we all are, but just to be sure) homosexual acts are a sin and a homosexual orientation is not. Using the term “homosexuality” can be rather vague, so I just want to be sure everyone is being clear so that we can avoid any further unnecessary arguments.

 

[SilentKnight]

Steven,

I can’t, however, agree with you on the issue of genetics being irrelevant. Much of the debate about human sexuality quoting various passages from the Bible ignores the scientific evidence which has come to light over the last couple of centuries, just as the debates of the times ignored what Galileo and others were putting forward in their time.

Yes, it’s true that we have biological “accidents” - and they are still children of God. In the same way, if the genetic balance is upset we can have “accidents” which leave someone with the genetalia of one gender but the disposition of the other. They, too, are children of God and should not be shunned by the Church because of their genetic make-up, or our ignorance.

First of all - Absolutely. I totally agree with you. (With what you said in the second paragraph.)

As for the first paragraph - As I and a number of others have been pointing out multiple times in this thread now (Did you jump in late and not read these posts, or do you just disagree with them?), how much genetics is involved in a homosexual orientation simply does not matter. It is entirely irrelevant.

For the record,* I* happen to believe that biology does play some sort of role in one’s orientation. Whether it’s 2% of the issue or 20% or 100%, I don’t know, and I have a feeling the percentage actually varies (as everything else does) among people. And it doesn’t matter.

I’m continuing to see some misunderstanding on both sides of the aisle. Here. Let me try reposting this…

(To be cont.)

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Just so everyone is clear (which I think we all are, but just to be sure) homosexual acts are a sin and a homosexual orientation is not. Using the term “homosexuality” can be rather vague, so I just want to be sure everyone is being clear so that we can avoid any further unnecessary arguments.

Some distinctions aren’t that big a deal. This one is. Thank you for “recalibrating”.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Originally quoted by Joe 5859:

I’m not sure why this topic elicits such heated debate. From a moral standpoint, whether SSA is the result of genetics, or environment, or a combination of the two (it doesn’t have to be
either/or" after all), it really doesn’t matter. The acts are considered gravely disordered and ought not to be committed.

However, we cannot really judge a particular individual’s culpability for such acts (as with any sin). It’s really no more complicated than that.

**Silent Knight’s response: **

Exaaaaactly. That’s the message a couple of us have been trying to get across for a while now in this thread, to no avail apparently.

Presumably the belief is that if homosexuality has a biological component to it, then that automatically infers that homosexuality is normative and immutable. (“See? That’s the way God made me.”) If it does not, this would infer that it is, instead, a strict matter of free choice and not an intrinsic aspect of someone’s identity and this then makes it a moral issue.

The obvious problem with this analysis is all the biological abnormalities that exist in nature, some of which predispose people to certain immoral actions. People with Turret’s syndrome, for example, are prone to spontaneously swear and tic. People with Fetal Alcohol syndrome tend to have shorter “fuses” than others, etc. These things are not “normal”. They are not something to be “proud” of, but healed to the extent that this is possible. To the extent that it is not, those who suffer from them must do the best they can to overcome the abnormal tendencies (swearing, lashing out at people, etc.).

And on the flip side of the coin, just because something is a choice doesn’t automatically mean it’s a moral issue either. If my preference is for chocolate ice cream and yours is for vanilla…obviously it doesn’t really matter.

Sexuality does matter (obviously). Very much so. And regardless of its source (nature, nurture, or neither - or both), the choice must still be made to act in accordance with true love, which is defined by and can only be defined by God, who has made it very clear that homosexual activity is not a manifestation of authentic love.

SK

 

[onetimeposter]

** the choice must still be made to act in accordance with true love, which is defined by and can only be defined by God, who has made it very clear that homosexual activity is not a manifestation of authentic love.

SK**

I know of two homosexuals. They have been together for 30 years and they were married two years ago.

Sure seems like authentic love to me and not just a romp in the hay as so many who condemn homosexuality choose to believe.

 

[SilentKnight]

Are you saying God condemns this sin in his Word and then creates a person to be this way?
I don’t think so.

Ok. First, in the interest of being an Equal Opportunity Corrector, I just wanted to point out, Jean, that just because a person is a certain way doesn’t mean that they were designed by God to be all of the things they are. In other words, the girl born with eight limbs. That’s undeniably biological and not a matter of any sort of choice. Was she born with eight limbs because God “crafted” her that way? No. She ended up with eight limbs because of a biological malfunction.

The evidence that I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot) suggests that there is a biological component to sexual orientation. Fine. But I’m actually going to use your own post to finish my reply:

God gives us the ‘choice’ to choose, if we choose to live a sinful lifestyle , God has clearly warned us ahead of time about the conseguences.

Lying is a sin, stealing, gossiping, We must all repent of our sin.
Living together outside of marriage is a sin. How many people do you know that are in this type of relationship? It’s popular today as you know.

Exactly. And it’s not happening because of biology. It’s happening because of choice. Let’s imagine for a moment that sexual orientation is 101% biological. Fine. Great!! Doesn’t mean that “God screwed up” in cases of homosexual orientation. It means nature did. And now, regardless, we all must still choose what we’re going to do with “the hand we’re dealt”.

Maybe we should all pray for the condition of the world today.

No maybies…

SK