Homosexuality is illogical?

[Sheeniac]

Or find logic to the RC faith (see, I’m on topic - I used the word “logic”!)

So you’re not here trying to deepen your faith? (By reason, or whatever means …) To be honest, I’ve been wondering about that while I’ve read your posts… You say you converted many years ago… But, I see a lot of non-Catholic wording and assumptions in your posts. Your criticism of your fellow Catholics is shocking. Your criticism of (what appears to be all things) Catholic Church is disturbing. If you didn’t profess yourself to be an RC, I would have find little evidence for it in your posts.

I don’t believe anyone posting the opposite position is necessarily uncharitable. But they find condemnation of what they consider illogical behavior from the Church and Holy Scripture. I see this as intolerant and I don’t believe our Church, nor the Almighty, is intolerant.

Ok. Your treatment of your fellow faithful Catholics borders on venomous. I find YOUR posts to be uncharitable.

Ah, but that life jacket makes all the difference in the world. You can have intimacy because the Church allows and encourages you to. Providing you follow certain rules. But if you’re homosexual, you have no lifejacket. You have a millstone tied around your neck and your encouraged to jump into the sea if you don’t control your urges.

You miss my point. At the time of my decision, I had to accept that I could be expected to be celibate the rest of my life. You see, it wasn’t 50-50, or 20-80. It was going to be 100 or 0, and I had NO idea which.

If you only consider one great commandment, “Do unto others…”, and you’re with someone who is adult & consensual, and its only between you two, and by being together, you’ve caused nO harm or hardship on others, where is the sin? You certainly won’t get arrested for whatever it is that you did, consensually.

Is this the basis of your belief? Do onto others? That was part of Christ’s message, but that is like comparing the Glory Be to the Catechism!

Now, again - you are muddying the waters. Sin may or may not equal crime, but regardless - it has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

I am not nasty! But I am not too smart… What does "HMC’ stand for? I’m sure its something so recognizable you will have grounds to call me a dolt. But, that’s better than nasty!

Perhaps not, but you are posting a lot of nasty (mean-spirited perhaps might be a better phrase) things.

HMC = older shorthand for Holy Mother Church. I don’t typically use it, but I seem to be typing a lot in response to you, and am trying to cut some corners where I can.

Why would I call you a dolt? I am not the one going out of the way to be insulting to posters on the forum.

Careful; Joseph (St Joseph), we’re told, was older. Mary was 14 (we’re told). Today, Joseph would be arrested for statutory rape, whether he had relations with her or not.

I must have missed your point.

Speaking of beach, the weather’s warming. Can’t wait to see the new bikini’s… Why not a Jag (car or cat), there’d be no mistaking that…

Well, I don’t wear bikinis. Mary’s fiat is a model to all of us: Let it be done to me according to Your word. In the readings last week, we see Christ saying the same thing (twice). Bringing back St. Joseph, he submitted himself to God’s will as well, since he had wanted to divorce Mary. But you seem offended that we who defend the Church’s teaching believe in the notion of a personal fiat.

Bless you child And I didn’t say all Catholic’s are arrogant; nor how the old men in Rome are mean to poor widdle women… especially those with sexy tattoos… :

Your blanket condemnations seem to imply that we’re arrogant. With regard to St. Paul, the Taliban, and your apparent distaste of the notion of submission to Church authority in terms of faith and morals, well - I’ve seen examples of such in your postings in many
other threads. I look forward to seeing more examples of your Biblical knowledge, but perhaps in a way that helps us all grow in faith.

Pax tecum, homeloan!

 

[homeloan]

You say you converted many years ago… But, I see a lot of non-Catholic wording and assumptions in your posts.

Yes, its true. I suffer from the abuse of Southern Baptists. Growing up I’ve heard sermons about the Pope being the Anti-Christ. Plus, Deacons posted at the entrance doors with axe-handles daring African Americans to enter during the Civil Rights struggles of the '60’s. My genealogy shows I come from a long line of slave-holders in S.Carolina & Georgia, even though they were all good Christian’s. Their Last Wills & Testaments shared a common clause: “Upon my death, I bequeath my soul to God, but to pay my burial expense, sell my woman slave, Fannie.”

Your criticism of your fellow Catholics is shocking. Your criticism of (what appears to be all things) Catholic Church is disturbing. If you didn’t profess yourself to be an RC, I would have find little evidence for it in your posts.

But I am. And, I’m not nasty; I told you that earlier. I just point out biblical contradictions. In Romans, Chapt 11; 25-33, the Apostle Paul flat-out tells the gentiles of Rome that Israel (Jews) will be saved, not because they acknowledge Jesus, but because of the mercy Almighty God has for the patriarchs by removing the sin from Jacob.

Ok. Your treatment of your fellow faithful Catholics borders on venomous. I find YOUR posts to be uncharitable.

No they’re not. When you decide on your next tattoo, I suggest you save a small space and write in small script, “I am tolerant”. In real life, I’ll bet you really are.

You miss my point. At the time of my decision, I had to accept that I could be expected to be celibate the rest of my life. You see, it wasn’t 50-50, or 20-80. It was going to be 100 or 0, and I had NO idea which.

I respect our clergy and our nuns who through extraordinary faith and sacrifice, vow and live celibate lives. Inspiring and awesome. Yours seem to be zero-sum. You will either be celibate or you’ll be wed in the Sacrament of Matrimony. Here’s a suggestion, and I mean no malace. If you think a wedding might be possible in the future, you might want to rethink getting another tattoo. Some guys, even RC’s, might have a preconceived notion about tattoo’d babes, all unfounded of course…

Is this the basis of your belief? Do onto others? That was part of Christ’s message, but that is like comparing the Glory Be to the Catechism!

Yeah, but its a pretty good place to be (do unto others…). Jesus liked it!

Now, again - you are muddying the waters. Sin may or may not equal crime, but regardless - it has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

I’m the world’s worst about getting off topic… I think it has to do with my ADHD. When I was a kid, the assistant principal dealt with my ADHD with a paddle and it worked mostly; at least during class periods. Now its a condition. Sounds more lofty. “You see, I have a condition…” Sometimes, it sounds pretty cool.

Perhaps not, but you are posting a lot of nasty (mean-spirited perhaps might be a better phrase) things.

There you go again… did you see the Ronal Reagan debates with Walter Mondale…

HMC = older shorthand for Holy Mother Church. I don’t typically use it, but I seem to be typing a lot in response to you, and am trying to cut some corners where I can.

You must not be ADHD. If you were, you’d type it out all the way. Burns more energy…

Why would I call you a dolt? I am not the one going out of the way to be insulting to posters on the forum.

Please, call me a dolt. I like the sound of it better than nasty, mean-spirited, venomous…

I must have missed your point.

Uhhh, can I get back to you on that…?

Well, I don’t wear bikinis.

I think I’ve been reading a little too much St Agustine, his early years before he got religion…

Mary’s fiat is a model to all of us: Let it be done to me according to Your word. In the readings last week, we see Christ saying the same thing (twice). Bringing back St. Joseph, he submitted himself to God’s will as well, since he had wanted to divorce Mary. But you seem offended that we who defend the Church’s teaching believe in the notion of a personal fiat.

Some of that ole Baptist anti-Mary stuff, perhaps? Actually, my best friend was Catholic. To me he was as normal as me. I just didn’t understand how he could go to church to worship Mary, and then in the early Spring, he’d come home with an ugly ashy smudge on his forehead, he didn’t realize the Pope was the Anti-Christ, he didn’t even know the words to “Jesus Loves Me”, and worst of all; When Notre Dame would play Rice, or UT or A&M or SMU, he would root for Notre Dame. And wouldn’t you know it, those Catholic’s would always win! My dad said it was because they had the whole population of the world to recruit Catholic football players. That made sense. But when I asked Dad why Baylor never had a good team, because it would seem they had the whole world to recruit good Baptist football players from, my dad never seemed to be able to give me much of a convincing answer on that…

Your blanket condemnations seem to imply that we’re arrogant. With regard to St. Paul, the Taliban, and your apparent distaste of the notion of submission to Church authority in terms of faith and morals, well - I’ve seen examples of such in your postings in many other threads. I look forward to seeing more examples of your Biblical knowledge, but perhaps in a way that helps us all grow in faith. Pax tecum, homeloan!

Ahh, I knew you’d come around. et cum spiritu tuo!

 

[BlaineTog]

A homosexual won’t ever be able to find peace in a monogamous, intimate s/s relationship as a RC,… unless the Church reassesses itself, or a new revelation is uncovered.

So give us a start on that reassessment.

But you question begs another question. Did almighty God really intend such condemnation of homosexuals? Or perhaps could the authors of Holy Scripture maybe made a mistake when they were taking dictation from God?

No, you either take the Bible as a whole or you drop the whole thing and find another authority. You certainly can’t pick and choose which verses you want based on personal preference.

After all, they got it wrong when describing that the “sun rose in the east”, which we know is wrong. The earth rotates…
And of course, female RC’s certainly wear gold jewelry, fancy hair syles, pearls and costly clothing; even at Mass… despite St Paul’s admonition…

And I’m sure there are perfectly good explanations for all that. I’m still waiting for one regarding the the condemnations of homosexuality.

Mmmkay. So that’s all you can come up with? Someone who believes that Christianity is true and hates God anyway, a sociopath who lives alone, and someone with depression who has a asphyxiation fetish?

Wow, talk about extreme examples…

Extreme or not, their existence proves my point.

Regarding the “It’s Not Okay” side of the scale: You address the natural issue below, so I’ll let it alone for a second. The Bible, however, as we have discussed, is a book that is … unreliable (the nicest word I could come up with) for moral teaching. Everything from divine edicts to murder countless innocent people - to misogyny - to condoning slavery - and countless other examples. I could probably write an encyclopedia or two on the subject. Needless to say, I don’t think the Bible is very reliable.

And each and every one of those examples needs its own explanation, its own interpretation. In general, though, the difficulty comes not from whether or not the acts in question are wrong but in what the Bible says to do to the people who do them. We’re not saying homosexuals should be put to death, but the condemnation remains. Christ revoked the death penalty on adulterers, but adultery remains wrong.

*Regarding the “It’s Okay” side of the scale: Yes, happiness isn’t everything. And yes, harmlessness isn’t everything. But *when combined **that makes a very, very strong argument.

You’re missing my point: whether or not it’s harmful is the question at hand. Sin is harmful; in a larger sense, it’s the only thing that ever really harms.

How it will possibily break the combined argument of harmlessness and happiness, I have no idea at all. Apparently it takes hours and a great deal of mental ability to understand it.

Happiness and harmlessness versus a highly flawed and unreliable two-thousand-plus year old book and a complex argument that takes hours and hours to put together.

Hmm…

You can see, of course, why so many people are beginning to understand that homosexuality is fine.

Beeeeecause they presuppose their own points?

As I said, the problem is that sex is big and much of it lies behind the veil. Just because an argument is hard to understand doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Just because you don’t know the argument doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And if you’re going to denigrate the Bible, stepping outside Christianity in the process, you can’t possibly expect to be able to prove that Christianity should allow homosexuality.

Oh, and the argument isn’t very complicated, really. I’m just trying to be as careful and exhaustive as possible, and that takes time. In a nutshell, sex causes you to join someone in a literal spiritual sense, but you need to have the procreative and unitive aspects right for the sex to work correctly rather than dissonantly.

 

[BlaineTog]

Ok. So, let’s start with sex. No, marriage. No, sex. See? It’s hard to see where to begin, since sex and marriage are supposed to never be split apart, the way I split my infinitive just there. Let’s try starting with both and see where that gets us.

Sex and marriage are ideally inseparable. Indeed, sex is the part of the wedding event itself that is actually the sacrament; the couple are married not when they say “I do,” not when they cut the wedding cake, not when the bride throws her bouquet, but when they have sex on their first wedding night. That’s because a marriage is a lifelong bond in which the husband and the wife literally become one soul in two bodies, and sex is the mechanism by which that spiritual joining takes place. Sex is necessarily that joining action; it isn’t an aspect of it that the wedding ceremony “turns on,” but was a function of it that was always there.

From this, all Catholic sexual morality flows. Because that joining can be fouled. If the sex isn’t part of marriage, then the joining is a lie; by having sex with someone, you are inherently telling them that you will be with them forever, but without the marriage covenant, no such foreverness has been forged between the two people. It’s sorta like a God-hating murderer child rapist taking the Eucharist: by taking the Eucharist, he’s trying to become part of the Body of Christ, but by his actions and his mindset, he is forcibly evicting himself. The result is something like a fire truck klaxon or a chord of absolute dissonance in the center of a symphony. You are taking something that brings people together and you are using it incoherently and disrespectfully, like an act of defiance, like urinating on a Christmas gift. Put simply, sex joins, but you try to unravel.

There are many other things that achieve a similar effect. Contraception, for example. “I am joining with you, but I’m not. I’m holding part of myself back, and in doing so, I negate the effect.” After all, two puzzle pieces have not actually been joined together if you just rub them together.

Ok, I think that’s more or less clear enough. Sex is a joining, but the joining has to be done correctly lest you use a sacrament meant to raise you up to butt your head against the wall of impossibility. This joining has to take place between two people who are married to each other and without artificial walls blocking the two people. The metaphor I like to use is of two glasses of water pouring themselves into one larger glass to make one glass, but with contraception, you’re really only smashing the glasses into one another, and with masturbation, you’re smashing it into the ground, and so on.

How does homosexuality come into all this? Well, it’s a question of whether or not the sex act can cause them to join. Sex joins; it’s what it does. But you can do things that cause the joining to be awry, or to block the joining from happening at all. So, does homosexuality do either of these things?

Up until now, I’ve been using the generic term “joining” to describe what sex does. Now, I will bring in the terms most Catholic sources (including “Humanae Vitae”) use: Procreative and Unitive. In a basic sense, sex is for procreation; obviously the procreative aspect can be removed from sex, and not even all animals only have sex for procreative purposes, but nevertheless, what the anatomy primarily does is pretty obvious. The man (and hopefully the woman) climaxes, sperm meets egg, and the rest is history. But sex also unites the couple both spiritually and, more visibly, psychologically. People who have had sex are closer to each other than people who have not, and pretty much the only way to get around this is to either have very odd brain chemistry or to have inured yourself to sex by having a lot of it.

Sex is both procreative and unitive, but the question is, does it have to be both to be licit? Are we using sex incorrectly if the unitive aspect is missing? What about the procreative?

I think most everyone would agree that you need the unitive aspect for sex to be sacramental. Indeed, this was largely what I was referring to earlier when I spoke of sex being for marriage: obviously, you can conceive children without being married, but the unitive aspect is harmed. But it would seem that this is largely immaterial to whether or not homosexuality is licit. However, you have to make inferences first as to whether or not two men or two women can in fact join spiritually. Obviously they join psychologically/emotionally, but are they as two puzzle pieces that don’t match, or like two glasses of water that can mix with any other glass of water? The fact of the matter is, I don’t know. There may be some scriptural passage or early Church epistle about it or something, but from a purely philosophical standpoint, that information is simple unavailable. If homosexual sex were licit, it would need to have this unitive aspect in both an emotional and a spiritual sense, that much is certain. It has the emotional. Can we make any inferences about the spiritual?

(Con’t below)

 

[BlaineTog]

(Con’t from above)

Here, we have to go back to sex, as in “gender.” Is gender meaningless in a spiritual sense or not? Does my being male or female have deeper ramifications than what’s between my legs? There’s a lot of male imagery used in the Bible with regards to God and “His” Church and plenty of female imagery for the Church herself, but I don’t want to push the comparison too much. That’s a whole other issue entirely that deserves its own essay. Suffice it to say, there seems to be some evidence that gender is not an arbitrary construction, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that God couldn’t somehow forge two male souls or two female souls into one. Maybe such a thing is a further absurdity, but maybe it isn’t. I think this point is a judgment call, so I’ll leave it alone unless it becomes necessary to give it a close look.

Back to the procreative. Obviously, two men or two women cannot conceive and bear a child to term. It’s simply beyond their physical capabilities. Even a science-fiction scenario doesn’t change the fact that they cannot have a child as part of the sex act. So, does this invalidate or break the joining?

Try to imagine melding into someone else. You stay human size and shape, but the two of you become one person instead. What remains is neither you nor that other person, but something else entirely, a “you-I,” an “us.” It has aspects of both of you while remaining different from what came before. In effect, I’ve just described a baby.

Human bodies are discrete physical objects with a limited amount of amorphousness. You do not cease to have your own material when you have sex, but you can create a child, something which is half you and half your partner. In this way, the baby is the most perfect physical representation of the joining caused by sex. It is, if you will, a tangible metaphor for what is happening on the spiritual level, as well as being the primary function of sex on a mechanistic level. However, if the possibility of conceiving a baby is metaphorically the joining of the two people on the spiritual level, then cutting off that possibility is metaphorically cutting off the joining on the spiritual level. However, sex is a sacrament, and sacraments are, in a sense, metaphors made real, so by breaking the metaphor, you break the sacrament.

There may be an out, however. Couples that are infertile are still able to have licit sex because any deficiency in the procreative side of the act is not on their end. Humans do not have complete control over their procreative faculties, so it is clearly absurd to demand of us that every sex act result in conception. As long as the couple isn’t trying to stop the conception from happening, that is, as long as the couple is having sex as if that sex were to result in a conception, it can thus be said that they are preserving the procreative aspect of the sex act, if not causing that aspect to be made manifest each and every time. Similarly, if the man or woman are infertile, the fact that the act will not result in conception is due to no fault of the couple’s and thus still preserves this “openness to life,” as the kids are calling it these days. Plus there’s always the off-chance that they will be healed miraculously and conceive anyway. The point is it’s up to God whether or not the couple conceives, and as long as they don’t try to forcibly take away God’s choice, the act is “open to life.”

The question is, then, can homosexual sex fit under this caveat? After all, the two people love each other and presumably they would want to be able to conceive were it not impossible.

But that’s just it: the conception is impossible, and there is a qualitative difference between the kind of impossibility of conception between two men or two women and between an infertile heterosexual couple. Namely, the homosexual conception is absolutely impossible, whereas the infertile conception is only incidentally impossible. No matter what, two men cannot conceive. However, a man and a women who are infertile could conceive were they not infertile. Now, one could formulate the scenario such that, “a man and a man could conceive were one of them a woman,” but this treats gender as if it were the same thing as infertility, which it is not. Infertility is an affliction, a wrong which we would right if we could, but gender is a crucial component of a person’s identity, possibly the single most crucial part (apologies to transsexual persons; my terminology here is very crude and ponderous). Gender is more than your eye color or which Beatles album is your favorite. If you were not infertile, you would still be you, just not infertile. If you were you but the opposite gender, you would be vastly different, unimaginably different. And of course, there’s still the question of whether or not gender is spiritually relevant or not.

So that’s my try. I hope it was helpful.

 

[homeloan]

OK, here is something “just” and beneficial. Certainly the Almighty would bless it:

“Blame Game” and “Exhausted” are banished to the Gulag for 30-days. You must be in each others presence for all you waking hours, except for brief removals to answer the calls of nature.

Blame Game may have an advantage because he is obviously more verbose than Exhausted. But Exhausted seems like a pretty OK guy, so he will frustrate Blame Game, exposing his phobia of homosexuality to be exposed to the light of day.

Don’t you think that would be a constructive exercise? I wonder if it might work for the Jews & Palestinians? Hillary & Barack? George W & Saddam (oh, too late for that…)…

Back to the posts… (logical thought…). See, I’m on topic. How logical.

One final thought. Today, Blame Game, your task is to write a 500 word essay on, “Why my Roman Catholicism Has Made Me Such A Tolerant Person Regarding Homosexuality.”

Exhausted, your task for tomorrow is to read Blame Games essay.

If you two aren’t reconciled afterwards, its back to the Gulag. This time for 60-days…

 

[defenderoftruth]

I’ve seen a couple homosexuals on here go down the “isn’t in scripture therefore it’s ok” route.

Fact: you can’t get around the many verses in the bible condemning active homosexuality; you can try and throw your college education in religion out like you know better than God but it isn’t happening you’re only fooling yourself. You have to go through alot of tricks and twists to get homosexuality isn’t in there when it plainly mentions it without going too far in graphic detail. (really and even if the scriptures did condemn it in detail you guys still wouldn’t see it because some of you are ok with your sin and will do anything to stick up for it)

Fact: the catholic church has NEVER been “sola scriptura” (bible only) so throwing the “bible doesn’t say so” comment out is a joke because tradition from the beginning has condemned homosexuality as well (read the early church fathers).

Fact: This “loving same-sex relationships aren’t mentioned in the bible only lustful ones” (for those that admit that homosexual unions are condemned in the bible) has no point because St. Paul and the church fathers didn’t see homosexual unions as ever “loving” because it went against God and when people go against God be it homosexuality or straight fornication they aren’t loving towards God or their neighbor who they drag into the sin with them.

To the original poster: good answers.

 

[defenderoftruth]

Homeloan,

You don’t seem to see your hypocrisy so I’ll point it out for you, (hey we all need someone to help us with this problem at some point right?) anyway, you go on and on about “tolerance” and being “loving”, your answers show that you are neither “tolerant” or “loving” towards anyone (or the Catholic church for that matter) that hold the biblical and traditional view that homosexual unions are sinful. You show that you are only “tolerant” and “loving” towards open practicing homosexauls. I’m not going to sift through your many posts (but if you’d like proof just look at your last post-besides the many others)

Take that beam out of your eye you’ll be able to see the speck in someone elses. Just remember that next time you try to throw “you guys are sooooo intolerant” out.

Other than the two post I don’t have anything more to say. To me it’s too cut and dried. I’ve done a lot of growing since I was on here last and I have also since learned that arguing with people that aren’t open is useless so now I just state the facts.

 

[homeloan]

I’ve seen a couple homosexuals on here go down the “isn’t in scripture therefore it’s ok” route.

Uhhh, because there aren’t too many posters (but the ones that do post, O’Boy, they’re verbose,… yours truly, included), I hate to burst you bubble, but I’m not homosexual, nor am I attracted to s/s guys, although I do enjoy Sean Connery, Denzel Washington, Matt Damon, Charlton Heston & John Wayne in the movies. I’m not attracted to them but sometimes I envy them, especially how often they end up with these fine babes…

Fact: you can’t get around the many verses in the bible condemning active homosexuality; you can try and throw your college education in religion out like you know better than God but it isn’t happening you’re only fooling yourself.

Yes, but one of my degrees was from Baylor, and we all know you can discount those Baptist’s as fast as you can swat a fly. My other was from A&M, and down here in TX, everyone knows that carries no water…

You have to go through alot of tricks and twists to get homosexuality isn’t in there when it plainly mentions it without going too far in graphic detail. (really and even if the scriptures did condemn it in detail you guys still wouldn’t see it because some of you are ok with your sin and will do anything to stick up for it)

You want graphic? I’ll give you graphic! (sorry, borrowed from “A Few Good Men”, starring Jack Nicholson, another guy whom I think is neat, in the movies).

Sorry again, but here’s an edited version of a posting I made on the topic regarding NFP, which I think is appropriate here:

Sometimes, God’s way is a little bazaar, e.g., Gen 18;16-33 & Gen 19 (whole chapter). God decided to murder all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexuality, even after Abraham pleaded mightily to spare them. Abraham specifically prayed that God spare the innocent (presumably, women & children). The exhaustive pleadings of course were in vain. So God rained down sulphurous fire on the city, murdering the homo’s, women and children. He was so PO’d, he even murdered Lot’s wife, who committed the unpardonable sin. While escaping, she turned to look. But at least the world benefitted from an extra measure of salt.

But, after Lot & his two daughters were relocated and safe, in a cave in Zoar, his daughters got him got drunk. They were frustrated (because there were no men in Zoar), so they “lay” with their father, the oldest one 1st, then, the next day, they got him drunk again and the younger daughter lay with him.

Of course, we’re told Lot was unaware of this… Yeah, I’ll bet…

Bottom line, the older daughter bore Moab, who became the ancestor of all the Moabites. The younger daughter bore Ammon, who became the ancestor of all the Ammonites.

MORAL OF THE STORY: When it comes to NFP, I guess God figures Incest is OK because it allows one man and one woman (well, actually two women, even though they were his daughters) to make babies.

YOU MAKE THE CALL: But, if you read the graphic details in your NAB, is it fair to reckon that God is OK with incest, as long as new babies are forthcoming. But, God strictly dispises homosexuality because no babies are forthcoming.

NOW THE REST OF THE STORY: If Lot and his daughters would have been homosexually inclined instead of incest inclined, the world would have missed out on the millions of Moabites & Ammonites, which I think are the tribes Yassar Arafat came from…

Fact: the catholic church has NEVER been “sola scriptura” (bible only) so throwing the “bible doesn’t say so” comment out is a joke because tradition from the beginning has condemned homosexuality as well (read the early church fathers).

Gotta hand it to those early church fathers, they knew how to deal with homo’s…

Fact: This “loving same-sex relationships aren’t mentioned in the bible only lustful ones” (for those that admit that homosexual unions are condemned in the bible) has no point because St. Paul and the church fathers didn’t see homosexual unions as ever “loving” because it went against God and when people go against God be it homosexuality or straight fornication they aren’t loving towards God or their neighbor who they drag into the sin with them.

Psssst, Defender, you might want to tone down the facts a little. Otherwise, you’ll lead you traditional RC’s, who’ve never touched the Holy Bible they keep on their coffee tables, to open to the Chapters in Genesis I quoted and learn far more about incest than I think you’d prefer…

P.S. I opened by dictionary to the word homophobe. It referred me to Genesis 18 & 19. Homo’s better not mess around with God!
P.S.S. I also looked up the word for Christian tolerance. Duh, I hate to inform you, but your picture wasn’t there…

 

[BlaineTog]

“Blame Game” and “Exhausted” are banished to the Gulag for 30-days. You must be in each others presence for all you waking hours, except for brief removals to answer the calls of nature.

?

 

[Exalt]

I’ve seen a couple homosexuals on here go down the “isn’t in scripture therefore it’s ok” route.

Fact: you can’t get around the many verses in the bible condemning active homosexuality; you can try and throw your college education in religion out like you know better than God

I was told I was ignorant of scripture. This is totally false, as per my four-year BA degree in the study of religion, which included more biblical exegesis than 99% of the people on this forum have probably worked through.

Regarding homosexuality not being in scripture, as a graduate of my aforementioned program, that is totally false as well. But that wasn’t my point. The Bible has all sorts of extremely disturbing messages, stories, passages, instructions, and restrictions (both in the Hebrew Bible and the New testament, by the way). It is therefore my point that the Bible is unreliable for moral teaching/guidance.

 

[rlg94086]

I was told I was ignorant of scripture. This is totally false, as per my four-year BA degree in the study of religion, which included more biblical exegesis than 99% of the people on this forum have probably worked through.

Regarding homosexuality not being in scripture, as a graduate of my aforementioned program, that is totally false as well. But that wasn’t my point. The Bible has all sorts of extremely disturbing messages, stories, passages, instructions, and restrictions (both in the Hebrew Bible and the New testament, by the way). It is therefore my point that the Bible is unreliable for moral teaching/guidance.

While we disagree, I appreciate your honesty and consistency.

Your arguments don’t try to twist Scripture, as some do. Rather, you just deny the validity of Scripture.

 

[Exalt]

So give us a start on that reassessment.

No, you either take the Bible as a whole or you drop the whole thing and find another authority. You certainly can’t pick and choose which verses you want based on personal preference.

Why do you need another authority, if the Bible turns out to be a horrible authority on morality?

I agree with you on that last sentence, by the way. I suppose if I presented a passage that clearly condoned the extermination of thousands of innocent people, including children and women, by a certian “chosen people” - you’d have some complex explaination why that was okay, right? But you’d never present that story, in it’s completion, at mass or in bible study. Why? Because it pretty much shows the extremely flawed nature of the Bible as a divine source of moral guidance.

And each and every one of those examples needs its own explanation, its own interpretation. In general, though, the difficulty comes not from whether or not the acts in question are wrong but in what the Bible says to do to the people who do them. We’re not saying homosexuals should be put to death, but the condemnation remains. Christ revoked the death penalty on adulterers, but adultery remains wrong.

Adultery is very different from homosexual relationships. Be very careful there. Modern homosexual, monogamous relationships are both harmless and foster happiness. I can introduce you to people like that if you like. Adultery, on the other hand (that is, having sex with another man or woman while you’re in a promise to fidelity towards another partner) is very, very different. The equation you propose is rather insulting, to be honest.

You’re missing my point: whether or not it’s harmful is the question at hand. Sin is harmful; in a larger sense, it’s the only thing that ever really harms.

Oh. Sin. Another one of those extremely complex words that has a huge number of meanings. Which one will you choose for the sake of this forum?

As I said, the problem is that sex is big and much of it lies behind the veil. Just because an argument is hard to understand doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Just because you don’t know the argument doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And if you’re going to denigrate the Bible, stepping outside Christianity in the process, you can’t possibly expect to be able to prove that Christianity should allow homosexuality.

Oh, was that our goal? Sorry.

My goal was to show that homosexuality isn’t immoral, regardless of religion. Happiness and harmlessness versus a flawed two-thousand-year old book and a complex philosophical argument. Seems like I’d be arguing the same thing if you guys found a passage in the condemning chess or volleyball or something.

Oh, and the argument isn’t very complicated, really. I’m just trying to be as careful and exhaustive as possible, and that takes time. In a nutshell, sex causes you to join someone in a literal spiritual sense, but you need to have the procreative and unitive aspects right for the sex to work correctly rather than dissonantly.

I’ve heard that before. But homosexuality is far more than just sex, and you know that.

 

[Exalt]

While we disagree, I appreciate your honesty and consistency.

Your arguments don’t try to twist Scripture, as some do. Rather, you just deny the validity of Scripture.

I deny the validity of scripture as a source of moral teaching.

Though I would agree with the idea that monogamous, steadfast, and committed homosexual relationships did not exist back then like they do today. But marriage was quite different back then anyway, so meh. So was the status of women. So was everything.

It all just reinforces the idea that the Bible is just a bad source of any kind or form of moral teaching.

 

[Exalt]

So that’s my try. I hope it was helpful.

I’m really sorry - but your post didn’t assess what my post was asking for. I don’t think I was clear enough.

The philosophical argument against homosexuality that Aquinas and Augustine use is largely secular - going back to different styles of platonism and whatnot. Very very complex stuff - but still secular. As I’ve stated before, the “natural” arugment is supposed to be one that even secular people understand.

But your argument was religious, just like the Biblical argument. You explained Catholic sexual theology, which I already know and understand - so long as one accepts those base assumptions (i.e., God exists, God exists in a personal, loving sort of way, God has a plan for sex, “souls” exist, sex is a spirtiual union, sex needs to be unitative and procreative to be a spirtual union, etc)

 

[homeloan]

Exault, the next-to-last sentence posted by rlg94086, of his tag to you “…Your arguments don’t try to twist Scripture, as some do.”. I think he was referring to me. However, I think rlg should realize that quoting directly from the NAB is not the correct definition of the word “twist”.

Besides, I learned the twist very well. Early '60’s, Chubby Checker. Was pretty good too. Now, when I dance at weddings, etc., some of the kids think I’ve got new moves. So I instruct them, “…pretend you’ve got a bath-towel in your hands, slung over your backside. Now, dry your posterior!”

Not sure the last comment is on topic. I get carried away. Sorry Flying Bison…

 

[rlg94086]

Exault, the next-to-last sentence posted by rlg94086, of his tag to you “…Your arguments don’t try to twist Scripture, as some do.”. I think he was referring to me. However, I think rlg should realize that quoting directly from the NAB is not the correct definition of the word “twist”.

Besides, I learned the twist very well. Early '60’s, Chubby Checker. Was pretty good too. Now, when I dance at weddings, etc., some of the kids think I’ve got new moves. So I instruct them, “…pretend you’ve got a bath-towel in your hands, slung over your backside. Now, dry your posterior!”

Not sure the last comment is on topic. I get carried away. Sorry Flying Bison…

You are a little paranoid and/or think more of yourself than others do. I was referring to multiple posters…you were not one of them. In fact, one of them would take you to task on your continued mention of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God punishing homosexuality. I would love to see the two of you fight that one out.

 

[BlaineTog]

"Exalt:

Why do you need another authority, if the Bible turns out to be a horrible authority on morality?

You need some authority, be it a book, a wise man, or your own conscience. You certainly consider yourself to be an authority on the subject.

I agree with you on that last sentence, by the way. I suppose if I presented a passage that clearly condoned the extermination of thousands of innocent people, including children and women, by a certian “chosen people” - you’d have some complex explaination why that was okay, right? But you’d never present that story, in it’s completion, at mass or in bible study. Why? Because it pretty much shows the extremely flawed nature of the Bible as a divine source of moral guidance.

Only if you take each story is a moral edict, which they most certainly are not, and only if you remove the stories from their contexts, which is always dangerous. This is one of the reasons I steer clear of theological studies: they can get grimy and complicated and involve altogether too much history for my liking. But one thing I do not do is take the basic plot of a story out of any book and use it to claim that the book is telling us to do that. Nabokov’s Lolita, for example, is definitely not in favor of pedophilia, nor is it a condemnation of pedophilia, but you could make a case for either if you did some bad literary criticism on it.

Adultery is very different from homosexual relationships.

They are obviously different acts, but the parallel that I was trying to make was very relevant. In the Bible, the act of adultery is wrong and has a certain punishment associated with it. Jesus revoked that punishment, but the act remains wrong. So, just because we don’t punish the act as harshly as possible doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. That was my point in its entirety.

Oh. Sin. Another one of those extremely complex words that has a huge number of meanings. Which one will you choose for the sake of this forum?

It’s not really relevant which one I choose since they’re all interrelated and all really saying the same thing but differently.

My goal was to show that homosexuality isn’t immoral, regardless of religion. Happiness and harmlessness versus a flawed two-thousand-year old book and a complex philosophical argument.

Then you’re not saying that homosexuality is licit regardless of religion but that Christianity is wrong, which is wildly off-topic.

I’ve heard that before. But homosexuality is far more than just sex, and you know that.

Sure, but that part of homosexuality isn’t relevant. If two men wanted to live together for life in romantic love but chastely, that would be fine, probably better than fine, possibly even saintly (though probably ridiculously hard for them). Homosexuality is more than sex, but sex is the sticking point, so that’s the only relevant part.

I’m really sorry - but your post didn’t assess what my post was asking for. I don’t think I was clear enough.

The philosophical argument against homosexuality that Aquinas and Augustine use is largely secular - going back to different styles of platonism and whatnot. Very very complex stuff - but still secular. As I’ve stated before, the “natural” arugment is supposed to be one that even secular people understand.

But your argument was religious, just like the Biblical argument. You explained Catholic sexual theology, which I already know and understand - so long as one accepts those base assumptions (i.e., God exists, God exists in a personal, loving sort of way, God has a plan for sex, “souls” exist, sex is a spirtiual union, sex needs to be unitative and procreative to be a spirtual union, etc)

Well, yeah. Wasn’t that what I said I was going to talk about? Homosexuality is wrong, but of course if you don’t accept the Catholic world view, there’s no way I could possibly convince you of that. It’s kinda like going to Church on Sundays; yes, you should go, but I obviously won’t be able to convince a Buddhist of that, or even a Jew.

You phrased the argument that homosexuality is harmless, and therefore ok. I think it is harmful, but only because I have the Christian understanding of sex. I am thus not trying to convince the agnostic or even the Hindu, but the Christian. If Christianity is correct, then homosexuality is sinful (and harmful). You have to accept the premise to reach the conclusion. And as for those “philosophical” arguments you alluded to (mine is still philosophical, just religiously so, whereas those try for secularity), I don’t buy them. “Natural” doesn’t mean good and “unnatural” doesn’t mean bad; or if they do, you have to establish that first. For example, one might say it is an “unnatural” use of gold to put it in computer wires, that glass is an “unnatural” use of sand, or that using a hammer as a paperweight is “unnatural,” and that is all true in a sense, but you still haven’t proven that you shouldn’t do things that are unnatural just because they are unnatural. Without the additional argument that “natural” sex is the only good sex, you have no case, and that is the argument that I was largely trying to bring to bear. Sorry if you thought I was doing something different.

 

[Exalt]

You need some authority, be it a book, a wise man, or your own conscience. You certainly consider yourself to be an authority on the subject.

Could you define “authority” here?

There is a whole history on the whole *sola scriptura *debate and whatnot, as well as the role of the pope in a position of authority. But I don’t really see how that applies.

If by authority you mean “how I have arrived at the conclusions I have made” - that would be a very long and complicated story. But I do believe that everyone should make up their own minds for themselves as best they can. The search and claim for one’s own identity and beliefs is essential to the happiness, at least, of my friends and family (and myself) - and it’s probably essential for everyone’s (most psychologists would think so, as is taught in psychosocial development classes). If you make up your mind that the Church should make up your mind, that’s fine by me - just have good reasons for it. If you make up your mind that you don’t believe in this or that, or do believe in this or that, that’s fine by me too - just have good reasons for that too.

Only if you take each story is a moral edict, which they most certainly are not,

Incorrect. God told these people to go kill all these other people (all the people, including women and children), destroy their city, and take their gold. (I’m talking about the slaughter at Jericho here, as recorded in the book of Joshua)

It fits the United Nation’s defination of genocide. And God condoned it. Just because it isn’t an explicit law doesn’t mean the story doesn’t say something about the morality of genocide.

In my opinion? Genocide is *never *justified. There is absolutely no justification for the merciless destruction of a large number of people. It doesn’t matter if it’s the holocaust or Rowanda or Darfur or Jericho. It doesn’t matter if it’s done with a bomb or a gas chamber or a gun or a sword. There is absolutely no justification for it. It’s wrong and that’s that.

And God commanded it.

That’s what your scripture says. I’m not misinterpreting it, I’m not being misleading in the slightest. You want context? I can give it to you:

and only if you remove the stories from their contexts, which is always dangerous.

In this context, God was supposedly giving the chosen people the land of Judah - fulfilling a promise made to Moses. There were a number of other cities taken, and a number of cities that were not taken (the book says it was all because of God, which reflects a particular theology of a particular group of people, which helps us to find out all kinds of things about the book and where it comes from). I could even talk about the book of Joshua itself. I could tell you approximately when it was written and who wrote it. I could tell you all about the scholarly study of the book as a historical document, and I can tell you all about the stories it contains.

That isn’t bad biblical scholarship. That’s ideal biblical scholarship. It includes looking at a text critically, taking it in context, putting aside your own beliefs and treating it like a science. (Which it is.) It’s not apologetics. You aren’t seeking to justify a viewpoint. It’s scholarship. You seek to uncover the truth, no matter what that means.

This is one of the reasons I steer clear of theological studies: they can get grimy and complicated and involve altogether too much history for my liking.

Wow?

Have you read 1984? “Too much history” sound awfully familiar.

But one thing I do not do is take the basic plot of a story out of any book and use it to claim that the book is telling us to do that. Nabokov’s Lolita, for example, is definitely not in favor of pedophilia, nor is it a condemnation of pedophilia, but you could make a case for either if you did some bad literary criticism on it.

The truth usually lies somewhere in between, particularly with literary works. In fact, I think the best types of art are those that are ambiguous.

But I think it’s a bad idea to take art or literature and turn it into the basis of morality.

Sure, but that part of homosexuality isn’t relevant. If two men wanted to live together for life in romantic love but chastely, that would be fine, probably better than fine, possibly even saintly (though probably ridiculously hard for them). Homosexuality is more than sex, but sex is the sticking point, so that’s the only relevant part.

Seriously? Wow. Do you have any kind of Church documentation to support that? Or is that your own particular viewpoint?

So, two men can do anything they want other than actually have sex? They could go to mass and, at times, discreetly hold hands, like my parents do. They could kiss. They could hold eachother and have a picnic in the park. They could adopt children. They could profess their romantic relationship. They could come out of the closet as being attracted to other men. They could dance with eachother.

All so long as they don’t have sex, all that is morally permissible?

Well, yeah. Wasn’t that what I said I was going to talk about? Homosexuality is wrong, but of course if you don’t accept the Catholic world view, there’s no way I could possibly convince you of that.

Yay! A Catholic who finally accepts that the grounds for the immorality of homosexuality are firmly planted in religion.

I’ll be sure to refer to that the next time someone brings up *secular *domestic partnerships or secular gay adoption and wether they should be legal or not.

Without the additional argument that “natural” sex is the only good sex, you have no case, and that is the argument that I was largely trying to bring to bear. Sorry if you thought I was doing something different.

Thanks for the explaination.

 

[BlaineTog]

Could you define “authority” here?

What you listen to.

Incorrect.

Incorrect that some of the Bible is about morality and other parts aren’t, or incorrect that that specific story is or isn’t about morality? Because I didn’t say anything about that story, nor do I care to. It’s off-topic, for one, outside the area I consider myself to be sufficiently good with, for another, and it bores me, for a third. I seriously doubt there isn’t a good explanation for it, I’m just not interested enough to find it.

*Wow?

Have you read 1984?*

Yep. Good book, though I prefer “Animal Farm,” even though allegorical.

“Too much history” sound awfully familiar.

Strawman. You clipped my words into something else entirely. I’m not saying history is bad, I’m saying it bores me. For me, it’s too much history, just like advanced multilinear calculus is too much math for me. That by no means means it’s unimportant, just that it doesn’t fit into my subjective areas of interest.

But I think it’s a bad idea to take art or literature and turn it into the basis of morality.

Seriously? Wow. Do you have any kind of Church documentation to support that? Or is that your own particular viewpoint?

It’s an off-the-cuff guess. Love is a good thing, as long as it isn’t twisted, so my hunch is that loving another person, even if you can’t morally express that love in its fullness, is still good. I don’t know, and I don’t intend to put too much more thought into it (after all, it’s not really a situation I could see many people living under), but as long as the love doesn’t abuse the sacramental, I’d have no problem with it.

Yay! A Catholic who finally accepts that the grounds for the immorality of homosexuality are firmly planted in religion.

Not quite. Homosexuality is wrong whether you are Christian or not and it’s always harmful spiritually, but it may not be Sin/mortal Sin per se since you can’t expect someone non-Christian to have full knowledge of what they are doing. Like, I think Protestants are doing themselves a disservice by not coming back to the Catholic church, but that doesn’t mean it’s a Sin to be Anglican, nor does it mean we should make it illegal to be Baptist.

Put differently, let’s say there’s lead in your drinking water. Drinking the water hurts you no matter what, but if you didn’t know that there was lead in the water, or you didn’t know that lead hurts you, then drinking the water isn’t suicidal, but you’re still hurting.

*I’ll be sure to refer to that the next time someone brings up *secular **domestic partnerships or secular gay adoption and wether they should be legal or not.

Be careful, though, as the issue gets more complicated when you bring in things like that. Personally, I think the government should only give out civil unions, and I don’t have any particular objection to gays adopting children, but then again, I hate politics and refuse to discuss it with anyone (I also don’t vote, so don’t worry about me making an uninformed decision or something).

Thanks for the explaination.

You’re very welcome.