Homosexuality Question

[Elizabeth502]

Thanks for the clarification, Newbie. However (again), the reality of the many factors in sexuality (which, remember, psychologists can show develops over time) make it extremely unlikely that there will be discovered a [sngle] ‘gay gene.’ Sexuality is not a data point. By definition, orientation or attraction is a dynamic, and thus involves give-and-take, stimulus-and-response, action-reaction. Our tendencies, plural, from birth, are encouraged, validated, discouraged, affirmed, and even evolve as a result of compensation. And sexual inclination would be only one of many tendencies that are fluid and subject to modification. An inborn talent or attraction for something non-sexual can lie fallow or remain in neutral gear if not activated.

As yet, advocates for “gay at birth” have failed to provide evidence for their theory. Simply naming ‘inborn’ characteristics that may also persist, or correlate, within a self-identified gay population merely shows correlation, not causation. Contradictory evidence is available that shows that certain external behaviors have also been shown in confirmed heterosexuals who have never been conscious of any homosexual attraction, yet share in certain superficial ways characteristics also prominent among those who choose to act on ther homosexual attraction.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I cannot feel comfortable arguing that there is necessarily a difference between same sex and opposite sex committed, loving, Christian couples.

There is a radical difference according to the Roman Catholic Church, and there is not an option to form a contradictory personal opinion about that. This has to do with the Church’s integrated view of personhood, the complementarity of the sexes, and heterosexual marriage as an image of God’s love, as well as only heterosexual acts being truly unitive (setting aside the procreative aspect for the moment). No one is saying that same-sex chaste relationships which are deep friendships cannot be even superior to many heterosexual marriages. But marital union is a category specific to two different genders.

 

[Corki]

As such there is no difference between straight premarital relations and same sex premarital relations in the Church’s eyes. The difference comes with regards to marriage.

And which church would that be? It’s certainly not the position of the Catholic Church.

The only similarity between straight premarital relations and same sex prmarital relations is that they are both gravely sinful.

All same sex relations, are gravely disordered. Straight premarital relations are sinful but not disordered. It’s a **big **difference “in the Church’s eyes”.

 

[chrysostim83]

As such there is no difference between straight premarital relations and same sex premarital relations in the Church’s eyes. The difference comes with regards to marriage.

The fix for this quote is easy though. There is no difference between straight premarital relations with contraception and same sex relations. I don’t know if this accurately represents the teachings of the Church about this, but the following passage clearly applies to both kinds of relations:

It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in [either kind of sexual behavior] therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity [or to frustrate the end for which sexual activity was intended] is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual [or contraceptive] activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons [or persons who use contraception] are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity [or use contraception] they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

 

[francisca]

Well speaking as a gay man myself I can say that I was certainly BORN THIS WAY.

1. I did not choose this. Who would?
2. I knew I was gay before I knew what gay was. I knew I was gay before the age of reason. So it would be impossible for sin, or the devil, or society to condition me or for me to choose it at that age.

I don’t understand why it’s such a hard pill for so many people to swallow that yes God created homosexuality and yes he created me that way. God had to create homosexuality or else it would not exist in this world.

Nobody becomes sinful or holy because of the condition he is born with. Instead, a person become sinful or holy because of what he thinks/ does with whatever condition he was born with.

A person who is born homosexual is not guitly ot his condition. However, if he seduce another into homosexuality, then he is guilty of such action.

A man who is normal but choose to become homosexual, he is guilty of throwing away what’s good, and replacing it with something bad.

Yes I can understand that such condition is a hard pill, but please do not forget that you are not the only one who suffer a condition since birth. There are other people who also suffer with many different kinds of abnormality since their birth. I’ll pray for you.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The only official position of the Church is that the cause of a homosexual orientation remains largely unknown. Most educated Catholics, like most educated people generally, recognize that it is not a choice.

Well I am an educated person and I respectfully disagree when you say it is not a choice. I’m not necessarily saying it is a choice; I’m saying it has yet to be proven that a person is “born that way” or has some genetic predisposition to SSA.

 

[Hadrianus]

Well I am an educated person and I respectfully disagree when you say it is not a choice. I’m not necessarily saying it is a choice; I’m saying it has yet to be proven that a person is “born that way” or has some genetic predisposition to SSA.

One must first define what is meant by "choice."As your initial question concerned Catholic teaching I used “choice” in the sense in which moral theologians use it with regard to human acts. Any behavior if freely willed is a choice, but the inclination to the behavior is not a choice. One can of course by force of will and habit acquire a taste for something, but in something as fundamental as the primary object of sexual attraction this is pretty rare. Fetishism is another matter, but that is not at issue here.

The vast majority of human beings at all times has demonstrated a clear heterosexual attraction which few people beyond maybe Michel Foucault would seriously suggest was a choice or an acquired inclination. It follows that among the 1.5–3% of humans who demonstrate a primary attraction to their own sex this too is not an acquired inclination but rather an abnormality caused by any number of biological or infantile psychological factors about which we still know very little. Thus in the present state of knowledge the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is to form no opinion on the cause or causes of what we refer to as a homosexual orientation.

We are all free to speculate, but if you want to know what the Church teaches officially, well that’s it, it’s in the CCC and other documents.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It follows that among the 1.5–3% of humans who demonstrate a primary attraction to their own sex this too is not an acquired inclination but rather an abnormality caused by any number of biological or infantile psychological factors about which we still know very little.

But what we do know (what psychologists know, and the Roman Catholic Church respects the independent professional work of psychologists) is that it is not as you say, by definition, since sexuality is not a passive or static state of being, or a system of independent, self-sustaining biological triggers that are automated. Rather, sexuality includes response. Any other suggestion is not worthy of the category of science.

Again, the Chruch respects the fields of the behavioral sciences and medicine, including neurobiology. You will not find in the Catechism a discussion of accepted scientific understandings from these fields, based on research. The Catechism is a theological (and philosophical, explicitly and implicitly) document. The fact that you prefer to close off comments based on your assertion of what the catechism is or is not in your view, is logically invalid and is simply your subjective preference, nothing more.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It follows that among the 1.5–3% of humans who demonstrate a primary attraction to their own sex this too is not an acquired inclination but rather an abnormality caused by any number of biological or infantile psychological factors about which we still know very little.

But what we do know (what psychologists know, and the Roman Catholic Church respects the independent professional work of psychologists) is that it is not as you say, by definition, since sexuality is not a passive or static state of being, or a system of independent, self-sustaining biological triggers that are automated. Rather, sexuality includes response. Any other suggestion is not worthy of the category of science.

Again, the Chruch respects the fields of the behavioral sciences and medicine, including neurobiology. You will not find in the Catechism a discussion of accepted scientific understandings from these fields, based on research. The Catechism is a theological (and philosophical, explicitly and implicitly) document. The fact that you prefer to close off comments based on your assertion of what the catechism is or is not in your view, is logically invalid and is simply your subjective preference, nothing more.

 

[Hadrianus]

But what we do know (what psychologists know, and the Roman Catholic Church respects the independent professional work of psychologists) is that it is not as you say, by definition, since sexuality is not a passive or static state of being, or a system of independent, self-sustaining biological triggers that are automated. Rather, sexuality includes response. Any other suggestion is not worthy of the category of science.

Again, the Chruch respects the fields of the behavioral sciences and medicine, including neurobiology. You will not find in the Catechism a discussion of accepted scientific understandings from these fields, based on research. The Catechism is a theological (and philosophical, explicitly and implicitly) document. The fact that you prefer to close off comments based on your assertion of what the catechism is or is not in your view, is logically invalid and is simply your subjective preference, nothing more.

I merely state the official position of the Church as she herself presents it in her official documents. That is all. The initial question conncerned the official position of the Church.

Of course, Catholics are free to adopt as their opinion any one of a number of possibilities which are supported by scientific research. The Church however is not committed to any of these no matter what individual neuroscientists or psychologists may say. I fail to see where I have closed off comments, except insofar as to distinguish between scientific hypotheses and Catholic doctrine. We are all perfectly free to adopt many opinions upon many subjects, but we cannot impose our opinions on others as though they possess some kind of doctrinal authority.

 

[chrysostim83]

This is more of a technicality question than a moral or theological one but,

What is the Church’s position on homosexuality from a nature vs. nurture perspective?

Does the Church see homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle and/or a conditioned behavior, or does the Church acknowledge that some people are simply “born that way”?

It seems like you haven’t quite made up your mind about whether “homosexuality” refers to a behavior or a condition. I’ll just quickly summarize the Church’s preferred terminology:

• Homosexuality = homosexual acts: These two terms refer to sexual relations between two persons of the same sex. The acts are typically chosen (i.e., voluntary) and nobody is born doing them.
• Homosexual inclinations: This term seems to refer to specific temptations to engage in homosexual acts. From what I’ve seen, the Church has not taken a stand on the proximate cause of these temptations, but it has said that if their source is not voluntary then it is no sin to experience them.
• Deep-seated homosexual tendencies: This is the Church’s version of “gay” with the reductionist twist that it refers only to a stable propensity to experience particular temptations to engage in homosexual acts. Unlike the psychological definition of sexual orientation, there is no wider reference to (romantic) love or attraction to persons rather than acts.

As you can see, there’s no way to ask your question using the Church’s vocabulary (since all the terms refer either to sexual acts or to attractions toward sexual acts), so it’s pretty safe to say the Church doesn’t have a view about whether people are “born that way.”

 

[Adam1986]

Adam,

Please read this link Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture from an academic / scientific site. It’s not a religious or Christian site. [This link is also for the OP to read since he/she is asking if homosexuality comes from nature or nurture.]

Its conclusion:

We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive ‘gay gene’. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

You can’t maintain that science is supporting your theory that you are born that way, because it has not been proven. If so, it would have made the biggest news and all LGBT organizations would have been trumpeting that science is indeed supporting the claim that the etiology of homosexuality is based on a gene or biology.
That is true that it would be a HUGE newsworthy event if/when science proves that people are born gay. However you don’t always need scientific proof to know something. For instance, there’s no scientific proof that God exists, but we know He does.

But here are questions that you should answer, which you do not have to answer in open forum if it will embarrass you:

1. Did you not have free will when you made the decision to give in or act on your homosexual desires? Were you forced in any way, or did you think something adverse would happen to you that would put your health and life on the line if you did not give in to said desires?
   Yes I do have free will when I choose to have sex, etc. Just like I have free will when I choose to eat a taco or watch a movie or make any decision. I’m not quite sure what my having free will has to do with this? No I did not think anything bad would happen to me if I didn’t “give in”.
2. You said that you grew up in a Catholic family, you went to Catholic schools, and you regard yourself Catholic. You even say your boyfriend is Catholic.
   a. Did you not learn Catholic teaching on homosexuality from school and/or your parents? You must have.
   **School? Nope not at all. Religion class was basically a history class mixed in with a secular ethics class.
   **
   b. Did you just figure that the teaching was wrong, that your personal opinion weighs more than all the the authority of Scripture and the Church?
   **No, I don’t feel that my personal opinion outweighs that of the Church. However I do feel that this teaching is wrong, especially since Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. I personally feel that if it were such a big deal then Jesus would have denounced it. Jesus certainly spoke out against certain things that were very wrong, so why not homosexuality? **
3. The Church teaching on homosexuality (being intrinsically disordered) is based on the bible, is not new, and will not change. How do you reconcile this with being a Catholic? Is your religion really Catholicism or homosexuality?
   **Yes it is based on the Bible, but on the OT, not on the teachings of Jesus. I reconcile it by asking, why didn’t Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality? Seriously, why do you think He didn’t? I’ve never really heard an argument about why He didn’t, so I’m just very curious.

My religion is Catholicism. Please don’t equate sexual orientation to a religion. I find that disrespectful as a Catholic.**

Please do not think that people are just ganging up on you on this board. You may have supporters with your views on homosexuality from non-Catholics and Catholics NOT faithful to teaching in your social circle and in this forum. This is after all a Catholic board and Catholics have a duty not just to instruct the unknowing, but to counsel the doubtful and to admonish sinners. As others have reminded you, acting on homosexual desires is a sin. You are called to chastity, just as priests are, just as heterosexuals are who are not married. Yes, homosexuality is a cross, but it is not your identity. You are much more than your homosexual desires.

In case you think I am only speaking from a theoretical or impersonal perspective, let me share with you that I grew up with a homosexual brother who thought that expression and cultivation of his homosexual orientation or inclination, living the gay lifestyle was the right thing to do, that it must have been what God wanted for him (like you are claiming now). He is now in his late forties and realizes that he could not have been more wrong. He regrets the choices he has made very much …
I’m very sorry your brother is not happy now. However, there is no “gay lifestyle”. Just as there is no “heterosexual lifestyle”. I find that term disrespectful, to be honest.

If you are only in your twenties, it is not too late for you. You have free will, child. Free will to choose salvation. Should you have a change in mind or heart about your lifestyle, you can call the nearest Courage site for help.

God loves you.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Adam,

You did not use the quote feature so it was not easy to address your post. But, as you can see, I made the effort of cutting and pasting each segment of yours in my reply.

You:
Yes I do have free will when I choose to have sex, etc. Just like I have free will when I choose to eat a taco or watch a movie or make any decision. I’m not quite sure what my having free will has to do with this? No I did not think anything bad would happen to me if I didn’t “give in”.
Me:
The reason I asked this is you were very emphatic that you being a homosexual is not a choice. I understand you cannot deny you are same-sex attracted, but to act on the attraction is a choice, right? That is exercise of free will, just as you have free will to eat a taco or not, to watch a movie or not.

You have a soul, a spirit, made in the image and likeness of God, besides your physical body. Your spirit is robbed of sanctifying grace when you go against natural and divine law. When our life is over, each will account for his/her life before God.
You:
*School? Nope not at all. Religion class was basically a history class mixed in with a secular ethics class.
*
Me:
That is not consistent with what you indicated in a previous post that you attended Catholic schools and that your family is Catholic, meaning you grew up in a Catholic home.

You:
*No, I don’t feel that my personal opinion outweighs that of the Church. However I do feel that this teaching is wrong, especially since Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. I personally feel that if it were such a big deal then Jesus would have denounced it. Jesus certainly spoke out against certain things that were very wrong, so why not homosexuality? *
Me:
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality:

What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as “male prostitute” is the Greek word malakos which literally means “soft to the touch.” However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as “homosexual offender” is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse.

There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones,” which might apply to lesbian acts:

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
[con’t]
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

[con’t]

Adam,

You:
Yes it is based on the Bible, but on the OT, not on the teachings of Jesus. I reconcile it by asking, why didn’t Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality? Seriously, why do you think He didn’t? I’ve never really heard an argument about why He didn’t, so I’m just very curious.
Me:
This has been covered several times in homosexual threads. The short answer is that the ethos of human sexuality in the Old and New Testament was unambiguous. Homosexuality was unambiguously accepted as wrong and sinful in early Judaic life. There was an understood, clearly a dark shadow cast over homosexual activity. If you are really curious AND serious about your question, read this link for full elucidation: godweb.org/mauser.htm. It explains very well why Jesus did not have to specifically teach on the matter.
You:
*My religion is Catholicism. Please don’t equate sexual orientation to a religion. I find that disrespectful as a Catholic.

I’m very sorry your brother is not happy now. However, there is no “gay lifestyle”. Just as there is no “heterosexual lifestyle”. I find that term disrespectful, to be honest.
*
Me:
You may not agree but I and many others are not being disrespectful when we say that an active homosexual life is not compatible with being a Catholic. Noted Christian philosopher and professor Dr. Peter Kreeft has asked it in the seminars where he has spoken, addressing homosexuals: Is your religion Catholicism or homosexuality? The question does make a practicing homosexual think and reflect. It puts it in the context of which do you worship more? Here is an excellent audio link, if you wish to listen to him: peterkreeft.com/audio/11_moral-theology.htm

Also, I am sorry and understand you don’t like the term, but I don’t think the term “gay lifestyle” is meant to disrespect when people use said term. It is a word to denote the life of homosexuals who have accepted to live openly as homosexuals. There is a thread on CAF actually on this, if you care to use the search function. Many gays use the term themselves, including my gay brother, as a matter of fact.

Now I will not deny that there will be people who will always view the gay lifestyle as sinful, like Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics, fundamental Christians, Jews and Muslims. But then you seem certain you are correct in your views and the great majority is wrong about homosexuality.Peace
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Posts #52 and #53 are for you, as well as this one.
*Yes it is based on the Bible, but on the OT, not on the teachings of Jesus. I reconcile it by asking, why didn’t Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality? Seriously, why do you think He didn’t? I’ve never really heard an argument about why He didn’t, so I’m just very curious.

No, I don’t feel that my personal opinion outweighs that of the Church. However I do feel that this teaching is wrong, especially since Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. I personally feel that if it were such a big deal then Jesus would have denounced it. Jesus certainly spoke out against certain things that were very wrong, so why not homosexuality?
In further reply to your questions above, I would like to add this:

Jesus Christ was born into a particular time and place. He lived His earthly life within the context of 1st century Israel and never traveled much further. His audience consisted almost entirely of Israelites, though He did pass through and teach in Samaritan and Gentile regions. By and large, His message was to a Jewish audience well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures of His day.

The Mosaic Law was not neutral on the issue of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were clearly expressive of the moral will of God’s law within the context of proper sexual expression. Unlike the ritual purity laws (not mixing cloths, prohibition against having sex during menstruation, etc.), laws against homosexuality were relegated to the first-tier of trespass.

Though the larger world of the Roman and Greek cultures would have had more ambiguity in regards to the impropriety of homosexuality, Judaism was staunchly united. Any Jew would have known the prohibitions. There was no vagueness, no uncertainty, no subtle hints in the text of the propriety of homosexuality.

What is the point of knowing the context in which Jesus taught? Simply put, we should not expect Him to spend much time teaching on that which was never questioned within that culture and was already clearly articulated within the authoritative Word of God. How many times have you heard a preacher in our contemporary culture give an impassioned discourse discouraging incest? Does the fact that such speeches rarely happen therefore communicate that incest is acceptable to that particular pastor? Jesus Himself never spoke about incest, or rape, or bestiality that we know of. Should we therefore conclude that He was ambivalent toward or even approving of these sexual expressions as well?

…

Conclusion

To walk as Jesus walked does not mean that we only say what He explicitly said or do what He actually did, but rather that we follow Him in love for God and others. To claim a love for God while hating those whom He has created, betrays itself as an empty lie (1 John 4:20-21). Those who claim to honor God by their oppression or ridicule of those who struggle with homosexuality are called to repent and pursue love. At the same time, to claim to love God while neglecting His Word and condoning what He has condemned is just as sinful and calls for repentance as well. As John writes in 1 John 2:5-6, walking as Jesus did is equated with keeping the Word of God. We must not love God in a manner that denies the call to love our fellow man, just as we must not love others in a way that excludes or restricts a love for God.

Relying primarily upon shock value, arguments based upon a presumed silence of Christ on the matter of homosexuality are deceptive and misleading. Not only does such reasoning subjectively divide the Word of God into authoritative and non-authoritative sections, but it also rejects the rather precise portrait of sexuality which Jesus Himself paints within the red letters.

As believers, we must wrestle deeply with what legitimizes sexual expressions, the reality of our wants or the revelation of God’s will. If our desire is ultimately authoritative, then sin no longer has any meaning whatsoever and each man becomes his own standard and judge. Though our eyes may burn as they are adjusted to the light of God’s Word, the result is that we might better see our fallen selves and the radiance of our exalted Savior. Scripture must be the lens through which we view all things and it must be the standard by which we measure them.

There is always a danger of twisting the Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), particularly where we fail to perceive our presuppositions and prejudices. The peril of bending the Word to fit ourselves and justify our behaviors and biases looms for us all, whether we do so by singling out homosexuality to the neglect of other sins or by disregarding the words which we have been given by God on this subject.

Faithful biblical interpretation avoids both extremes. It preaches a holistic gospel from the entirety of the Scriptures with the horror of sin and the necessity of holiness neither minimizing nor minimized by the power of the cross and the grace and mercy of our loving God. In this message we see a Son sent to rescue and redeem us from ourselves and all of our lawless deeds and to awaken us to the satisfaction and joy that is found only in Him.

[bolding added]

Read the full document here

 

[buffalo]

I actually do completely disagree with the Church’s teaching but I don’t use being born this way to try and argue my part.

I just get sick and tired of hearing some people say that being gay is a choice or that we’re not born like this. It just isn’t true.

There is no gay gene.

The act is a choice. Complex environmental and early childhood issues seem to be involved with SSA itself. We have to distinguish the act from the condition.

Every human is born with an inclination to commit sin. We are all called to self mastery to overcome these particular inclinations.

 

[Kolbe300]

There is no gay gene.

I’m always curious why people say that as if it’s fact. It always comes across as something one hopes is true. Now, if you’ve made the scientific discovery no one else has been able to, I suggest making your discoveries known to the rest of the scientific world.

The act is a choice.

I certainly won’t argue with that. Being, of course, isn’t an act. But that’s a whole different discussion.

Complex environmental and early childhood issues seem to be involved with SSA itself.

That certainly could be part of it.

We have to distinguish the act from the condition.

Amen!

Every human is born with an inclination to commit sin.

Truer words have never been spoken!

We are all called to self mastery to overcome these particular inclinations.

Once again, you’re right. We are, indeed, called to overcome our sinful inclinations. Now, if only we can figure out what to do with the other 98% of human sexuality!

 

[Adam1986]

Adam,

You did not use the quote feature so it was not easy to address your post. But, as you can see, I made the effort of cutting and pasting each segment of yours in my reply.

I’m sorry about that. I’ll make sure I post on the bottom of this so then you can quote me.

You:
Yes I do have free will when I choose to have sex, etc. Just like I have free will when I choose to eat a taco or watch a movie or make any decision. I’m not quite sure what my having free will has to do with this? No I did not think anything bad would happen to me if I didn’t “give in”.
Me:
The reason I asked this is you were very emphatic that you being a homosexual is not a choice. I understand you cannot deny you are same-sex attracted, but to act on the attraction is a choice, right? That is exercise of free will, just as you have free will to eat a taco or not, to watch a movie or not.
Yes but I don’t have free will as to whom I am attracted to. Just what I do with those feelings.
*Sorry I had to remove some of you post. Mines over 6,000 characters long.
You:

*School? Nope not at all. Religion class was basically a history class mixed in with a secular ethics class.
*
Me:
That is not consistent with what you indicated in a previous post that you attended Catholic schools and that your family is Catholic, meaning you grew up in a Catholic home.

**No, it is. I did go to Catholic school but the religion classes in the Catholic school were basically a history class (meaning history of the Church, sorry if I wasn’t clear on that) and an ethics class meaning that teacher asked us our opinions on different moral topics. I.E. abortion, having gay sex, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, etc and then barely, if at all said what the Church thought about certain issues. For instance when almost everyone in my class was for pre-marital sex, the teacher basically said to be careful and that the Church was against that. And when most of the class raised their hand for gay marriage, the teacher agreed with us, but said that the Church disagreed with that.

And I was raised Catholic in a Catholic family. I don’t know why my post made you think otherwise. **

You:
*No, I don’t feel that my personal opinion outweighs that of the Church. However I do feel that this teaching is wrong, especially since Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. I personally feel that if it were such a big deal then Jesus would have denounced it. Jesus certainly spoke out against certain things that were very wrong, so why not homosexuality? *
Me:
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality:

What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)
True but not to spilt hairs, he didn’t say homosexuality was a “sexual immorality” though.

The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)
That’s true Paul did. Not Jesus. Not Peter the first Pope. And also in that time period, homosexual often meant a grown man who has sex with a teen or pre-teen boy. Not two grown men or women.

This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as “male prostitute” is the Greek word malakos which literally means “soft to the touch.” However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as “homosexual offender” is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse.
Well, actually the term ‘arsenokoites’ meant to shrine male-female prostitution back when Paul wrote that. It did not mean sodomite.

There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones,” which might apply to lesbian acts:

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
[con’t]
,
​

It could mean lesbian relations or a lot of other bad things. Also men committing indecent acts with other men does not have to mean gay sex. It could, but it doesn’t have to.​

 

[Adam1986]

Posts #52 and #53 are for you, as well as this one.
Yes it is based on the Bible, but on the OT, not on the teachings of Jesus. I reconcile it by asking, why didn’t Jesus say ANYTHING about homosexuality? Seriously, why do you think He didn’t? I’ve never really heard an argument about why He didn’t, so I’m just very curious.

No, I don’t feel that my personal opinion outweighs that of the Church. However I do feel that this teaching is wrong, especially since Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. I personally feel that if it were such a big deal then Jesus would have denounced it. Jesus certainly spoke out against certain things that were very wrong, so why not homosexuality?

In further reply to your questions above, I would like to add this:

Jesus Christ was born into a particular time and place. He lived His earthly life within the context of 1st century Israel and never traveled much further. His audience consisted almost entirely of Israelites, though He did pass through and teach in Samaritan and Gentile regions. By and large, His message was to a Jewish audience well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures of His day.

The Mosaic Law was not neutral on the issue of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were clearly expressive of the moral will of God’s law within the context of proper sexual expression. Unlike the ritual purity laws (not mixing cloths, prohibition against having sex during menstruation, etc.), laws against homosexuality were relegated to the first-tier of trespass.
True, Lev. is clear on that, death. But we as Christians don’t agree that gay people should be killed. So why didn’t Jesus stand up and say “Hey it’s a mortal sin for you to have gay sex, but it’s also a mortal sin to kill someone who does.” Why didn’t Jesus say that?

Though the larger world of the Roman and Greek cultures would have had more ambiguity in regards to the impropriety of homosexuality, Judaism was staunchly united. Any Jew would have known the prohibitions. There was no vagueness, no uncertainty, no subtle hints in the text of the propriety of homosexuality.
True. Any Jew would. However, Jesus came to save ALL. So why wouldn’t He then say for the people who don’t know, hey this is really bad.

What is the point of knowing the context in which Jesus taught? Simply put, we should not expect Him to spend much time teaching on that which was never questioned within that culture and was already clearly articulated within the authoritative Word of God.
Yes, but that particular word of God stated that gays should be killed. Something that Christians don’t agree with. So why wouldn’t Jesus make it know that gay sex is wrong, but so is killing gay people.

How many times have you heard a preacher in our contemporary culture give an impassioned discourse discouraging incest? Does the fact that such speeches rarely happen therefore communicate that incest is acceptable to that particular pastor? Jesus Himself never spoke about incest, or rape, or bestiality that we know of. Should we therefore conclude that He was ambivalent toward or even approving of these sexual expressions as well?

**Well as for incest, the word incest is not in the Bible. So the term incest would vary from region to region. And as for rape, Jesus did speak out against child-rape. "Who ever hurts one of these children would be better off having a mill stone hung around their necks and be drowned, I always took to mean all rape. That even though He was refuring to young children at that time, He meant all rape victims, That was always my interpretation. And as for bestiality, honestly I don’t think that ever really was a “problem” or is now and Jesus maybe figured He didn’t need to address that.

Also don’t you think, if homosexuality is so bad, that Jesus would have been able to for see the possible future and gay marriage, gay adoption, openly gay people all around that He would have made an effort to say SOMETHING about it?

Now don’t get me wrong I don’t mean a sort of predestination, I just mean that Jesus the son of God would have been able to see this as a possibility in the future, not a definite, but a possibility. **

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

You embed your remarks within my quote, making it difficult to engage you in different parts of your reply. Please learn how to use the quote the way it is normally used by posters. It should not be that hard for you having logged in excess of 300 posts already. this.

Adam:

*No, it is. I did go to Catholic school but the religion classes in the Catholic school were basically a history class (meaning history of the Church, sorry if I wasn’t clear on that) and an ethics class meaning that teacher asked us our opinions on different moral topics. I.E. abortion, having gay sex, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, etc and then barely, if at all said what the Church thought about certain issues. For instance when almost everyone in my class was for pre-marital sex, the teacher basically said to be careful and that the Church was against that. And when most of the class raised their hand for gay marriage, the teacher agreed with us, but said that the Church disagreed with that.
…
*
That is hardly the extent of sufficient education in the faith. Did you undergo catechism class? It is more than a teacher asking the class their opinion on pre-marital sex, abortion, gay sex / ‘marriage’ and taking a poll to determine who believes in them. Were you taught about sin and that actions associated with said topics are sins? If so, at what level were you taught? When did YOU decide that the Church teaching on homosexuality is wrong?

Adam:

Well, actually the term ‘arsenokoites’ meant to shrine male-female prostitution back when Paul wrote that. It did not mean sodomite.

Wrong. You are basing this on the spin in gay Christian sites, which promotes erroneous translation or interpretation that waters down if not denies that sodomy or sodomite was what was referred in a particular line in scripture.

Arsenokoites – Greek word at 1Cor. 6:9,10
The first part of the word, ARSEN, means MALE – KOITE (together, giving us the word coitus) thus putting the two parts (ARSEN + KOITE) together, we see it is correctly defined as SODOMITES, the “S” ending in ARSENOKOITES makes the term masculine.
,