Homosexuality

[phoooiee]

I would say with no reservations that a complete and open-minded examination of any true form of love will lead anyone to Truth. And of course, every one of us will make a huge number of missteps along that journey of examination- this is the nature of the fallen world. We have to have faith that God will show everyone the right direction and that it is their choice to listen or not. Ultimately it is that person’s choice, and it is up to God, not us, to show them that path in humility.
There is a great quote from Teresa of Avila:
“There is no reason why we should expect everyone else to travel by our own road, and we should not attempt to point them to the spiritual path when perhaps we do not know what it is.”

The fact is that the teachings of the Catholic Church speak for themselves. I can clarify them to the extent I am capable, and I can defend them when I am able. I also am bound by those same teachings not to judge anyone else’s experience, and not to elevate my own perspective above theirs. However, I know from my own experience and through my faith, that even if someone chooses to believe that physical homosexuality is an expression of love, then if they keep an open mind God will show them the truth. Each time I have tried to force the truth on someone too soon, I have discovered much later on reflection that my sense of urgency has always been due to doubts in my own faith. We live in a world of sin and disorder and we must accept that.

I have no doubts that if anyone remains focused on love, they will discover the truth about this or any other issue. I also know that God works on His own time, not ours.

I hadn’t heard of a “homosexual” form of love recognized by the Church?

 

[ladybri77]

I would say with no reservations that a complete and open-minded examination of any true form of love will lead anyone to Truth. And of course, every one of us will make a huge number of missteps along that journey of examination- this is the nature of the fallen world. We have to have faith that God will show everyone the right direction and that it is their choice to listen or not. Ultimately it is that person’s choice, and it is up to God, not us, to show them that path in humility.
There is a great quote from Teresa of Avila:
“There is no reason why we should expect everyone else to travel by our own road, and we should not attempt to point them to the spiritual path when perhaps we do not know what it is.”

The fact is that the teachings of the Catholic Church speak for themselves. I can clarify them to the extent I am capable, and I can defend them when I am able. I also am bound by those same teachings not to judge anyone else’s experience, and not to elevate my own perspective above theirs. However, I know from my own experience and through my faith, that even if someone chooses to believe that physical homosexuality is an expression of love, then if they keep an open mind God will show them the truth. Each time I have tried to force the truth on someone too soon, I have discovered much later on reflection that my sense of urgency has always been due to doubts in my own faith. We live in a world of sin and disorder and we must accept that.

I have no doubts that if anyone remains focused on love, they will discover the truth about this or any other issue. I also know that God works on His own time, not ours.

I hadn’t heard of a “homosexual” form of love recognized by the Church?

Taken in that context, I agree with you. Your statement was that all forms of love can lead us to the truth, that is false. I also believe that all people can be lead to the truth through their own individual experiences. No homosexual or any group is exempt from finding God and leaving the lifestyle of sin. God can transform hearts and certainly does.

I used to receive a newsletter by Exodus, an ex-gay group, which had testimony after testimony of God’s love and healing being manifested in their lives with them ultimately leaving the lifestyle. So I am not judging anyone. I’m judging the sin and calling it for what it is, not the person or their experiences.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

What a lot of replies! And your concern and kindness is appreciated. I will try to deal with your points.

Can we talk?

Of course I am questioning the attitude of the Catholic Church to gay sex between a faithful couple in a permanent union. So if your attitude is that the church is right PERIOD then obviously a conversation would be pointless. All I can say to you is that the position your church takes, namely that such sex is an abomination, causes much distress to many gay people.

However if you are willing to accept that the church might be wrong [It has been in the past] or if you are willing to discuss the reasons the church gives for its views then we are in business

Why is the church against gay sex?

Because it does not allow, even in theory, the possibility of reproduction which is the function of sex. Plus it is claimed we must never have sex that frustrates this function.

Problems

1. For most people the main function of sex is to express love, reproduction is a secondary function. Infertile couples and women past child-bearing age are allowed to have sex even if they cannot reproduce. Why place such excessive emphasis on the biological side of sex rather than the much more important characteristically human values? Some natural law theorist agree and say the church is too ‘physicalist’ here.
2. Why should this consideration ‘trump’ all others? On the one hand not having gay sex ‘frustrates’ the purpose of sex on the other hand it expresses love and causes nobody any harm why is the first consideration more important than the second?

Rules and love

Jesus was very hostile to the Pharisees when they blindly stuck to their rules instead of looking sympathetically and with love at the situation before them . It was not the rules that were important but the attitude of the people concerned.

Two people love each other and among other things in the privacy of their own room they give each other physical pleasure. This, because we are bodies as well as minds, and sex expresses their love and gives each a deep happiness.

However because they are of the same sex the Catholic Church declares that this is sinful, contrary to Natural Law, prevents them reaching their full potential, impedes the goal of being a Christian etc. This seems totally incongruous! It is not clear why the fact that the sex cannot result in reproduction should mean it cannot be used to express their love. Infertile couples do it but ‘we expect a miracle’! What nonsense – we could expect a miracle with gays then.

If we looked as I am sure Jesus would, at the love that a faithful gay couple express through sex we would not rush in with a ‘rule’ to condemn it. Christians worship a God of Love not a God of Rules

Answers to individuals

DavidV
You say:
How is the Truth harmful? Any harm and distress based on Truth is self-inflicted.
As explained I do not think that the Church has the Truth. And if the Church was right gays would be harmed by not being able to express their love physically

Ladybri Post 104
If gay sex was wrong then, of course, they would have to try and be chaste and the groups you mention would be helpful. You are, perhaps, struggling yourself, why not read the above and you might think you do not need to!

Phooies Post 105
Of course love is not the same as physical pleasure. However we are bodies as well as minds and most people find expressing love physically is a source of great happiness and fulfilment. The Church, you say, accepts the love that gays have for each other but does not allow them to have sex – it is an abomination if they do.

Phooie Post 106
You say
sinful=not good/not helpful/not elevating, rather than sinful=directly and obviously aggressive or harmful.
But banning gay sex is, ‘not helpful and not elevating’ to the people concerned

Joe 5859
You are right that the argument has some supplementing, I suppose along the lines that as Paul was talking about something which is very wrong, he ought to have condemned it.

Lasalle Post 110
Yes if gay sex is an abomination then the church should condemn it – but it is not – see above and below!

A final way of looking at the matter
At the end of the day most of you argue as follows

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong.
Laurie’s daughter has gay sex.
Therefore Laurie’s daughter is doing something wrong.
Whereas I argue.

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong
But the gay sex my daughter is having is not wrong
Therefore Natural Law is either a mistaken approach to morality OR its application here needs to be rethought.

Why do I reason in the second way and not the first? Because my daughter’s partnership has all the good things that an infertile loving married couple might have. As the latter is, according to the church fine and good, I’m concluding that so is my daughter’s.

Best wishes to all

 

[ladybri77]

What a lot of replies! And your concern and kindness is appreciated. I will try to deal with your points.

Can we talk?

Of course I am questioning the attitude of the Catholic Church to gay sex between a faithful couple in a permanent union. So if your attitude is that the church is right PERIOD then obviously a conversation would be pointless. All I can say to you is that the position your church takes, namely that such sex is an abomination, causes much distress to many gay people.

However if you are willing to accept that the church might be wrong [It has been in the past] or if you are willing to discuss the reasons the church gives for its views then we are in business

Why is the church against gay sex?

Because it does not allow, even in theory, the possibility of reproduction which is the function of sex. Plus it is claimed we must never have sex that frustrates this function.

Problems

1. For most people the main function of sex is to express love, reproduction is a secondary function. Infertile couples and women past child-bearing age are allowed to have sex even if they cannot reproduce. Why place such excessive emphasis on the biological side of sex rather than the much more important characteristically human values? Some natural law theorist agree and say the church is too ‘physicalist’ here.
2. Why should this consideration ‘trump’ all others? On the one hand not having gay sex ‘frustrates’ the purpose of sex on the other hand it expresses love and causes nobody any harm why is the first consideration more important than the second?

Rules and love

Jesus was very hostile to the Pharisees when they blindly stuck to their rules instead of looking sympathetically and with love at the situation before them . It was not the rules that were important but the attitude of the people concerned.

Two people love each other and among other things in the privacy of their own room they give each other physical pleasure. This, because we are bodies as well as minds, and sex expresses their love and gives each a deep happiness.

However because they are of the same sex the Catholic Church declares that this is sinful, contrary to Natural Law, prevents them reaching their full potential, impedes the goal of being a Christian etc. This seems totally incongruous! It is not clear why the fact that the sex cannot result in reproduction should mean it cannot be used to express their love. Infertile couples do it but ‘we expect a miracle’! What nonsense – we could expect a miracle with gays then.

If we looked as I am sure Jesus would, at the love that a faithful gay couple express through sex we would not rush in with a ‘rule’ to condemn it. Christians worship a God of Love not a God of Rules

Answers to individuals

DavidV
You say:
How is the Truth harmful? Any harm and distress based on Truth is self-inflicted.
As explained I do not think that the Church has the Truth. And if the Church was right gays would be harmed by not being able to express their love physically

Ladybri Post 104
If gay sex was wrong then, of course, they would have to try and be chaste and the groups you mention would be helpful. You are, perhaps, struggling yourself, why not read the above and you might think you do not need to!

Phooies Post 105
Of course love is not the same as physical pleasure. However we are bodies as well as minds and most people find expressing love physically is a source of great happiness and fulfilment. The Church, you say, accepts the love that gays have for each other but does not allow them to have sex – it is an abomination if they do.

Phooie Post 106
You say
sinful=not good/not helpful/not elevating, rather than sinful=directly and obviously aggressive or harmful.
But banning gay sex is, ‘not helpful and not elevating’ to the people concerned

Joe 5859
You are right that the argument has some supplementing, I suppose along the lines that as Paul was talking about something which is very wrong, he ought to have condemned it.

Lasalle Post 110
Yes if gay sex is an abomination then the church should condemn it – but it is not – see above and below!

A final way of looking at the matter
At the end of the day most of you argue as follows

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong.
Laurie’s daughter has gay sex.
Therefore Laurie’s daughter is doing something wrong.
Whereas I argue.

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong
But the gay sex my daughter is having is not wrong
Therefore Natural Law is either a mistaken approach to morality OR its application here needs to be rethought.

Why do I reason in the second way and not the first? Because my daughter’s partnership has all the good things that an infertile loving married couple might have. As the latter is, according to the church fine and good, I’m concluding that so is my daughter’s.

Best wishes to all

The Catholic church goes by what the Bible, the Living Word of God says. If the bible and God didn’t say it was wrong, I would have considered it, but knowing God’s truth as it is written in the Holy Bible, I believe Him and understand completely.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[phoooiee]

Taken in that context, I agree with you. Your statement was that all forms of love can lead us to the truth, that is false. I also believe that all people can be lead to the truth through their own individual experiences. No homosexual or any group is exempt from finding God and leaving the lifestyle of sin. God can transform hearts and certainly does.

I used to receive a newsletter by Exodus, an ex-gay group, which had testimony after testimony of God’s love and healing being manifested in their lives with them ultimately leaving the lifestyle. So I am not judging anyone. I’m judging the sin and calling it for what it is, not the person or their experiences.

I still stand by the statement that all forms of love can lead us to Truth. However, the Church states that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are not a form of love and I stand by that as well.

 

[ladybri77]

I still stand by the statement that all forms of love can lead us to Truth. However, the Church states that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are not a form of love and I stand by that as well.

Yes, if it is the true form of love.

 

[davidv]

What a lot of replies! And your concern and kindness is appreciated. I will try to deal with your points.

Can we talk?

Of course I am questioning the attitude of the Catholic Church to gay sex between a faithful couple in a permanent union. So if your attitude is that the church is right PERIOD then obviously a conversation would be pointless. All I can say to you is that the position your church takes, namely that such sex is an abomination, causes much distress to many gay people.

However if you are willing to accept that the church might be wrong [It has been in the past] or if you are willing to discuss the reasons the church gives for its views then we are in business

Why is the church against gay sex?

Because it does not allow, even in theory, the possibility of reproduction which is the function of sex. Plus it is claimed we must never have sex that frustrates this function.

Problems

1. For most people the main function of sex is to express love, reproduction is a secondary function. Infertile couples and women past child-bearing age are allowed to have sex even if they cannot reproduce. Why place such excessive emphasis on the biological side of sex rather than the much more important characteristically human values? Some natural law theorist agree and say the church is too ‘physicalist’ here.
2. Why should this consideration ‘trump’ all others? On the one hand not having gay sex ‘frustrates’ the purpose of sex on the other hand it expresses love and causes nobody any harm why is the first consideration more important than the second?

Rules and love

Jesus was very hostile to the Pharisees when they blindly stuck to their rules instead of looking sympathetically and with love at the situation before them . It was not the rules that were important but the attitude of the people concerned.

Two people love each other and among other things in the privacy of their own room they give each other physical pleasure. This, because we are bodies as well as minds, and sex expresses their love and gives each a deep happiness.

However because they are of the same sex the Catholic Church declares that this is sinful, contrary to Natural Law, prevents them reaching their full potential, impedes the goal of being a Christian etc. This seems totally incongruous! It is not clear why the fact that the sex cannot result in reproduction should mean it cannot be used to express their love. Infertile couples do it but ‘we expect a miracle’! What nonsense – we could expect a miracle with gays then.

If we looked as I am sure Jesus would, at the love that a faithful gay couple express through sex we would not rush in with a ‘rule’ to condemn it. Christians worship a God of Love not a God of Rules

Answers to individuals

DavidV
You say:
How is the Truth harmful? Any harm and distress based on Truth is self-inflicted.
As explained I do not think that the Church has the Truth.

I reject your thinking that way because I don’t think you have the knowledge to make such a claim.

And if the Church was right gays would be harmed by not being able to express their love physically

Keeping one from sin causes no harm.

Ladybri Post 104
If gay sex was wrong then, of course, they would have to try and be chaste and the groups you mention would be helpful. You are, perhaps, struggling yourself, why not read the above and you might think you do not need to!

Phooies Post 105
Of course love is not the same as physical pleasure. However we are bodies as well as minds and most people find expressing love physically is a source of great happiness and fulfilment. The Church, you say, accepts the love that gays have for each other but does not allow them to have sex – it is an abomination if they do.

Phooie Post 106
You say
sinful=not good/not helpful/not elevating, rather than sinful=directly and obviously aggressive or harmful.
But banning gay sex is, ‘not helpful and not elevating’ to the people concerned

Joe 5859
You are right that the argument has some supplementing, I suppose along the lines that as Paul was talking about something which is very wrong, he ought to have condemned it.

Lasalle Post 110
Yes if gay sex is an abomination then the church should condemn it – but it is not – see above and below!

A final way of looking at the matter
At the end of the day most of you argue as follows

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong.
Laurie’s daughter has gay sex.
Therefore Laurie’s daughter is doing something wrong.
Whereas I argue.

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong
But the gay sex my daughter is having is not wrong
Therefore Natural Law is either a mistaken approach to morality OR its application here needs to be rethought.

Why do I reason in the second way and not the first? Because my daughter’s partnership has all the good things that an infertile loving married couple might have. As the latter is, according to the church fine and good, I’m concluding that so is my daughter’s.

Best wishes to all

Your reasoning is illogical. A valid arguement is formed such that if the premises are true the conclusion must follow. Your argument fails because the two premise cannot both be true. I addition premise 2 of your argument is not demonstratively true.

 

[phoooiee]

What a lot of replies! And your concern and kindness is appreciated. I will try to deal with your points.

Can we talk?

Phooies Post 105
Of course love is not the same as physical pleasure. However we are bodies as well as minds and most people find expressing love physically is a source of great happiness and fulfilment. The Church, you say, accepts the love that gays have for each other but does not allow them to have sex – it is an abomination if they do.

Phooie Post 106
You say
sinful=not good/not helpful/not elevating, rather than sinful=directly and obviously aggressive or harmful.
But banning gay sex is, ‘not helpful and not elevating’ to the people concerned

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong.
Laurie’s daughter has gay sex.
Therefore Laurie’s daughter is doing something wrong.
Whereas I argue.

Natural Law says that gay sex is always wrong
But the gay sex my daughter is having is not wrong
Therefore Natural Law is either a mistaken approach to morality OR its application here needs to be rethought.

Why do I reason in the second way and not the first? Because my daughter’s partnership has all the good things that an infertile loving married couple might have. As the latter is, according to the church fine and good, I’m concluding that so is my daughter’s.

Best wishes to all

Here are some interesting points to consider. I’d love to hear what you think of them.

1. How can you know whether gay sex is helpful or elevating to your daughter when you are not her and do not share her personal experience? All of the observable positive qualities you have mentioned about her relationship have had nothing to do with sexuality.
2. How do you know that banning gay sex is not helpful and not elevating to the people concerned? The only consequence of violating this ban is that a person cannot be in a state of God’s grace, which is a matter of every person’s own free will.
3. What kind of distress does the Church’s frowning upon gay sex cause gay people? What negative consequences do they suffer as a result of this?
4. My perception of your post is that you are coming from a faith-based acceptance that what your daughter tells you about her own experience is true, whereas Catholics come from a faith-based acceptance that what the Catholic Church tells them is true.
   They are both faith-based. Why is one better than the other?

This is my most important question then:
5. Why should I believe your perception of what your daughter feels, over my own experience of being in a homosexual relationship, and the position of the Catholic Church? Does it hurt anyone if I choose not to?

 

[Bishop93]

It’s one thing to “know” the Holy Spirit, it’s another to have Him indwelling in you.

Scripture says, “I will give them the Holy Spirit who will give them the Truth”. Paraphrased.

Scipture also says…

“Love thy neighbor”… Lev.19:18…Mark 12:31
“Love thy enemy”…Mark 16:16
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” …Matt 7:1
“Love one another”…John 13:34
“Let your love be genuine”…Romans 12:9
“Love is a good thing”…1 Cor 8:1
“Do all things with love”…1 Cor 16:14
“Let brotherly love continue”…Hebrews 13:1
“By love serve one another.” Galations 5:13

“Let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” 1 John 3:18

“Don’t fight, be humble, and look after the needs of others”…Philp. 2:3-4

People need love^^^

God was pretty clear that we should LOVE one another REGARDLESS.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Ladybri – you say:

The Catholic Church goes by what the Bible, the Living Word of God says. If the bible and God didn’t say it was wrong, I would have considered it, but knowing God’s truth as it is written in the Holy Bible, I believe Him and understand completely.

I notice that you do not answer any of the reasoning in my long post! Catholics also believe that their faith is not contrary to reason.

Instead you go back to the Bible. The Bible says and condones lots of things. In the OT we have slavery, polygamy, capital punishment for lots of offences and ethnic cleansing! Paul does not condemn slavery, insists that women do not speak in Church and thinks that marriage is inferior to celibacy. So often just because something is in the Bible does not mean it is beyond criticism.

At the end of the day it seems you cannot answer my points and simply rely on ‘What the Church says’!

**Phooie *– you say;
*
However, the Church states that sexual relations between two people of the same sex are not a form of love and I stand by that as well.

So you too do not answer what I say but just ‘stand by what the church say’. Why not use your ability to reason and consider that your church might be mistaken as it has been in the past?

**DavidV **– you say;

I reject your thinking that way because I don’t think you have the knowledge to make such a claim

I claim no knowledge – I just put forward some reasoning which, like the two friends above you do not answer.

ALSO Yes ‘valid’ does mean ‘if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true too. Both the arguments given are valid. So we need to consider the truth of the premises – which we have been doing.

Phooie – you ask some questions which I am happy to answer;

Q1 How can you know whether gay sex is helpful or elevating to your daughter when you are not her and do not share her personal experience? All of the observable positive qualities you have mentioned about her relationship have had nothing to do with sexuality.

I have talked to her and she says that just as sex is for most married couples a vital and important way of expressing love so it is for her and her partner. You seem to think that sex is an unimportant add-on extra to a permanent monogamous love relationship. For most people it is not!

*Q2. How do you know that banning gay sex is not helpful and not elevating to the people concerned? The only consequence of violating this ban is that a person cannot be in a state of God’s grace, which is a matter of every person’s own *free will.

If my daughter and partner were not able to have sex they say their relationship would be severely impoverished. Just like most married couples would be by a ban on them having sex. [As I have said I think the church is incorrect to say that gay sex means they cannot be in a state of grace]

Q3. What kind of distress does the Church’s frowning upon gay sex cause gay people? What negative consequences do they suffer as a result of this?

It is not pleasant to be told that your loving physical relationship is an ‘abomination’. To hear it condemned as such in pulpits and books and to be told you will go to Hell as a result. I may also say that it is a barrier to my daughter following up an interest she has always had in the Catholic Church.

.is true.*Q4 My perception of your post is that you are coming from a faith-based acceptance that what your daughter tells you about her own experience is true, whereas Catholics come from a faith-based acceptance that what the Catholic Church tells them *

Your perception is not accurate. Please read my previous post. My position is based on the reasoning therein – there is no faith anywhere.
*
5. Why should I believe your perception of what your daughter feels, over my own experience of being in a homosexual relationship, and the position of the Catholic Church? Does it hurt anyone if I choose not to? *

I accept that you have had a gay experience which was not fulfilling but why do you generalise to claim that all gay relationships are like yours? So there is no conflict between your experience and my daughter’s. I do not challenge your experience – it would be silly to say that all gay sex was wonderful but just as daft to say that it never can be!

 

[phoooiee]

I would like to stress something.

I was a raging atheist. I have spent many long hours questioning the teachings of the Catholic Church- not just this one- but all of them. I questioned these teachings before I was a believer, and questioned them still for longer after I became a believer.

Each and every time I questioned, I found the Church’s teaching to be sound. In many cases this was very hard for me to accept. It was a very painful process as I found so many beliefs that I had previously held to be true shattering under the weight of careful, rational examination. I had to give up a lot that I had held dear, and a lot that was familiar and comfortable. I cannot describe what this was like.

The primary evidence for me was the transformation in my own life. Teachings which at first seemed to me to be very negative, in fact led me to greater strength, and I gradually found more and more kindness and compassion within myself.

I was careful throughout this process to ask for feedback from those around me, religious and atheist. Everyone said the same thing- that I was becoming a kinder, more compassionate, better person to be around as I became more and more faithful.

Eventually, after going through this intense process of questioning, examining all the reasoning, all the evidence, asking the opinion of everyone around me, experimenting by alternately following and not following the Church teaching to see what results each path gave- HUNDREDS OF TIMES, concerning countless different teachings, even when I didn’t expect it at all, I found the Church teachings each, one by one, to be both rational and true.

After that, I am comfortable accepting what the Church teaches on faith.

There are so many logical arguments that “prove” that homosexuality is wrong, and so many that “prove” it is right. It depends on what evidence you select.

The primary evidence that I am hearing for your belief that it is definitely, irrefutably right rests on the testimony of your daughter that it is fulfilling for her and necessary for her. In order to accept this testimony, you have to have tremendous faith- that your daughter is in fact incapable of making a mistake concerning what is right or wrong for her.
I believe that this is an extremely dangerous idea- what human being could be expected to have that kind of perfect judgment all the time? I don’t know anyone who isn’t prepared to say that at one time or another, they believed that something was right for them, only to discover that it was not after more reflection.
This is why I cannot accept your logic. It is based on the flawed premise, which continues to seem faith-based to me, that your daughter is in fact incapable of such error.

If our strongest determination of what is moral and right is each individual’s perception of what is right for them, just about anything becomes morally permissible to at least someone. That is not what Catholicism is about. It is about following a specific path with strict restrictions that we believe will shape us into better people. If someone does not desire to follow this path, no one forces them to. If they don’t believe in the path, then why would they be concerned with the consequences? There cannot be any threat here unless the person actually wants to follow the path, but only under their own conditions.

The act of changing the path to suit oneself negates the whole purpose of the path, which is to become free of one’s need for control and one’s own free will.* (Obviously, as a Catholic it is my belief that this shapes my will specifically to conform as closely as possible to the will of God, but as I can’t hold you or anyone else to that belief, it’s not necessary for the sake of logic to specify that).

It is anyone’s right to not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, unless they do, they will not get the benefits of doing so. It is up to each individual person to decide if they truly want those benefits. However, the Church has no obligation to change teachings which have been of benefit to so many.

I am actually curious about who personally walked up to your daughter to specifically say that her physical relationship is sinful or an abomination. No Catholic should do it unless asked. The pulpit, and books intended for Catholics, are of course an exception because the asking is implied.*

 

[phoooiee]

Scipture also says…

“Love thy neighbor”… Lev.19:18…Mark 12:31
“Love thy enemy”…Mark 16:16
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” …Matt 7:1
“Love one another”…John 13:34
“Let your love be genuine”…Romans 12:9
“Love is a good thing”…1 Cor 8:1
“Do all things with love”…1 Cor 16:14
“Let brotherly love continue”…Hebrews 13:1
“By love serve one another.” Galations 5:13

“Let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” 1 John 3:18

“Don’t fight, be humble, and look after the needs of others”…Philp. 2:3-4

People need love^^^

God was pretty clear that we should LOVE one another REGARDLESS.

This is so true. The definition of what love is and how to practice it- this is what is so difficult!

 

[Bishop93]

This is so true. The definition of what love is and how to practice it- this is what is so difficult!

Love is love.

Compassionate,deep love toward one another is very important…God said so.

It’s not our place to put a definition on love…Jesus didn’t.

He said countless times to love with all you’re heart.

If 2 people of the same-sex love one another compassionately,deeply with all their heart…It’s not our job to define it,judge it or try to change it.

If marriage will make that love more complete…It’s not our job to dictate it.

I love,you love…Everybody needs to love somebody.

It’s not our place to tell people who that somebody^^ should or shouldn’t be.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Thanks for your detailed reply.

You have made the judgement based on your past experience that the Catholic church is right. I understand that but:

1] Other people have made exactly the same call but about other religions.

2] It is a pretty big step from saying that Catholicism is correct to saying that every single things the church says is correct. You know that opinion in the church has changed in the past - it may do so again.

3] What you are, in effect, saying, is that you cannot find an answer to my reasoning and so have decided to rely on ‘faith’.

4] I have explained how some natural law thinkers argue that the church has a mistaken approach and you have not responded.

All I rely on is the testimony of my daughter and countless other gay couples, who seem perfectly rational etc that sex is an integral part of their loving faithful permanent relationships. Of course it is possible that they are all deceiving themselves but it seems unlikely and rather a desperate exedient on your behalf to rely on it.

God bless

Laurie

 

[phoooiee]

Thanks for your detailed reply.

You have made the judgement based on your past experience that the Catholic church is right. I understand that but:

1] Other people have made exactly the same call but about other religions.

2] It is a pretty big step from saying that Catholicism is correct to saying that every single things the church says is correct. You know that opinion in the church has changed in the past - it may do so again.

3] What you are, in effect, saying, is that you cannot find an answer to my reasoning and so have decided to rely on ‘faith’.

4] I have explained how some natural law thinkers argue that the church has a mistaken approach and you have not responded.

All I rely on is the testimony of my daughter and countless other gay couples, who seem perfectly rational etc that sex is an integral part of their loving faithful permanent relationships. Of course it is possible that they are all deceiving themselves but it seems unlikely and rather a desperate exedient on your behalf to rely on it.

God bless

Laurie

I am actually relying on my own experience and the experience of many other homosexuals. You are relying on your daughter’s testimony and that of many other gay couples. Both approaches are equally reasonable, and both have elements of faith (unless you have personally observed your daughter’s sexual relations with her partner while reading her mind). So here is what I am attempting to say, please tell me if you disagree with any of the following:

1. People have free will and can choose whatever religion, belief or path they want (including no religion).
2. People must follow the teachings of that religion and if they do, this has consequences, positive or negative for that person. This also has consequences for others as a person’s moral beliefs shape them and affect how they interact with others.
3. It is okay for people to state a difference of opinion with one another based on their religious or moral beliefs.
4. It is not okay when people’s religious beliefs cause them to become angry, judgemental or hateful.
5. It is not okay to demand that another religion must change its beliefs because they disagree with yours and that bothers you.

It is not my opinion that the Church will change on this issue, and it is not up to you or me to make that decision for the church anyway.

 

[phoooiee]

Love is love.

Compassionate,deep love toward one another is very important…God said so.

It’s not our place to put a definition on love…Jesus didn’t.

He said countless times to love with all you’re heart.

If 2 people of the same-sex love one another compassionately,deeply with all their heart…It’s not our job to define it,judge it or try to change it.

If marriage will make that love more complete…It’s not our job to dictate it.

I love,you love…Everybody needs to love somebody.

It’s not our place to tell people who that somebody^^ should or shouldn’t be.

I agree with you completely. But whether it is our place to put a definition on love or not- love still has a definite nature and it is so easy to do something in the name of love that is in fact hurtful. Our human nature ensures this- we are easily led to deceive ourselves and to be deceived.
And you’re right about marriage. It is not the job of any human being to define marriage- it is God’s job.

 

[ladybri77]

Scipture also says…

“Love thy neighbor”… Lev.19:18…Mark 12:31
“Love thy enemy”…Mark 16:16
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” …Matt 7:1
“Love one another”…John 13:34
“Let your love be genuine”…Romans 12:9
“Love is a good thing”…1 Cor 8:1
“Do all things with love”…1 Cor 16:14
“Let brotherly love continue”…Hebrews 13:1
“By love serve one another.” Galations 5:13

“Let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” 1 John 3:18

“Don’t fight, be humble, and look after the needs of others”…Philp. 2:3-4

People need love^^^

God was pretty clear that we should LOVE one another REGARDLESS.

I agree 100%. We are to love the sinner, hate the sin. Love in its right context, the scriptures are not talking about erotic love here but brotherly, agape love. We all need love, most especially homosexuals…

 

[ladybri77]

I agree with you completely. But whether it is our place to put a definition on love or not- love still has a definite nature and it is so easy to do something in the name of love that is in fact hurtful. Our human nature ensures this- we are easily led to deceive ourselves and to be deceived.
And you’re right about marriage. It is not the job of any human being to define marriage- it is God’s job.

Do you really think God intends for two people of the same sex to be married??

 

[phoooiee]

Do you really think God intends for two people of the same sex to be married??

Does anything about my posts indicate that I think that?

 

[ladybri77]

Does anything about my posts indicate that I think that?

You said this - “It is not the job of any human being to define marriage- it is God’s job.”

Some of us have been defining marriage as being between one woman and one man, the way it’s always been, believing that that is how God ordained it to be from the beginning. See Genesis.