Homosexuality

[Portrait]

Thanks again P for your kind reply.

Your argument could go like this.

1. The Church’s teaches the truth.
2. The church teaches that gay sex in wrong
   Conclusion: Gay sex is wrong.

On the other hand I argue:

1. [for many reasons which I can enumerate] gay sex between faithful partners is right.
2. Catholic Church says it is wrong
   Conclusion: Catholic Church is mistaken.

So it all depends where you decide to begin.

However you do decide to give me some reasons.

A] We have a basic intuition, you say, that gay sex is wrong. However I and lots of other people knowing gay couples have an intuition that it is right! When intuitions clash other reasons are needed.

B] Holy Scripture. You do not accept those parts of the OT that prescribe the death penalty for adultery not those parts of the NT that accept slavery. These are products of their time and were not inspired by God. Many believe exactly the same thing about gay sex. [It is just your assertion that sexual matters are somehow excluded from this consideration] The most important consideration ought to be your Lord’s attitude to rules. He said they were made for us not vice-versa. The only rule was that of love. What would he have made of Catholics using old medieval reasoning to deny the life-affirming wonderful and positive gay relationships? [Oddly Catholics never seem to face this one how ever often I repeat it] So reasons are needed as to why the anti-gay verses are valid.

C] Murder, rape… condemned by natural law all cause immense suffering which is why they are wrong. Faithful gay relationships produce much happiness and that is the big difference you ignore and the reason people outside your church and lots within it have changed their mind on this issue. We need reasons then why gay sex, which causes no harm is wrong.

D] It is natural you say for my wife and I to have sex even though being aged we frustrate its reproductive purpose. It is equally natural for gay people [for them] to want to express their love physically. Gay people do not choose either to be attracted by their own sex. Again reasons are needed

Enough already. You still need to show that gay sex is wrong. On every point, more reasons are needed. I don’t think you can proived them but rely on the authority of your church. This authority has harmed countless gay people in the name of a God of Love – it is very wrong so to do.

Best wishes

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Cordial greetings dear friend.

As you quite rightly state, it is our starting point that is at the crux of the whole debate, for this will necessarily determine our premises and therefore our conclusions. This being the case, we are both in a position from which progress is virtually impossible. All one can do is enunciate one’s arguments as cogently and effectively as possible and hope ( and in my case pray earnestly also) that your fellow disputant may have a change of heart.

We must avoid digressing from our topic, but I feel I must say something regarding the the infallibility and authority of the Catholic Church. It is inconceivable that Christ should have founded a Church and then left this Church devoid of a visible guide. Now of all the churches in Christendom it is the Catholic Church alone which provides such an infallible leader in the person of the Pope. Moreover, this conviction is not merely a matter of opinion or taste, but a self evident truth which emerges from God’s character. Thus just as one would infer from the justice of God that deception by Him is inconceivable, so one may reasonably infer from God’s love for His Church and His high purposes for it that it is likewise inconceivable that He should leave it to fall into error and teach falsehood. This is why we can believe and embrace the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, abortion, contraception and any other so called contentious issue. However, this is a topic for another thread elsewhere and I cannot go into further detail here.

As regards the “clash of intuitions” it needs to be remembered that man is fallen and brings a fallen nature, with a bias towards sin, with him when he enters the world. Sacred Scripture makes it clear that sin affects every aspect of human nature and every sphere of human experience. The effects of sin are physical, psychological and emotional as well as moral and spiritual. Thus it is hardly surprising that some people supress the voice of conscience within and convince themselves that homosexual deviant acts are just an alternative variant and definetely not sinful. However, I would contend that so very often subjective reasoning is at work and this can influence a man a great deal more than he would be prepared to admit. In your case Laurie you have a daughter, whom you love very dearly, who is involved in a lesbian liasion. Now this makes it exceedingly difficult for you to speak disapprovingly of this union or to be severely critical of it on moral grounds, especially when you do not have your mind informed by the teaching of the Catholic Church. Many people will sympathise with you, myself included (I am a father also), but this only serves to underline the importance of submiting ourselves to the infallible teaching of Christ’s Church so that we can act objectively as well as compassionately.

As regards Sacred Scripture I submit myself to the teaching of the magisterium of the Church. It is now only in the case of murder that “the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2267). The death penalty for adultery is not sanctioned by the Church.

To be continued.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Ladybri
Thanks very much for the references. 281 I think I did answer but if there is something in it to which you feel I did not respond please let me know.

As for 287 and apples and oranges. Attitudes to the status of women and attitudes to sexual matters are different of course. But my point was this - the Bible is incorrect we now think over its attitude to women. Therefore you cannot simply say - the Bible says X so therefore X is correct. Many modern Christians think that the Bible writers, being products of their time, got God’s will wrong when they wrote about homosexuality.

These modern Christians have reasons for thinking this - the wonderful lifes of many gay couples - so you need to give some reasons beyond ‘the bible says’ in answer.

Best wishes

Laure

 

[Portrait]

Con’d.

Dear Laurie,

Your quote “the law was made for man and not man for the law” is actually an erroneous misquote of St. Mark 2: 27, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath”. This saying means that God’s ordinances were intended for man’s good. However, no rule is without its exceptions; and there will be cases where the literal observance of the ordinance would not be for man’s good. In such cases we should prefer man’s good to a slavish obedience to the ordinance. In the context this refers to the Sabbath day of the Jews and by a legitimate extention to the Christian Sunday. However, to seek to employ this verse to justify homosexual liasons is clearly to be guilty of a gross misinterpretation of the Sacred text.

True, fundamental to God’s nature is the quality of love (see I John 4: 16) but we have to move with care for ‘love’ is such a slippery word. Thus we must ensure that we are not duped by the false reasoning that tries to persuade us that any action - even one that breaks God’s moral law - is permissible if it is done lovingly and brings happiness to the law breakers. Jesus clearly did not teach such heresy in the Gospel. He told His disciples that love is law’s headline (St. Matt. 22: 37-40); He never suggested that it is God’s blue pencil which puts a line through the small print underneath (see, for example, St. Matt. 5: 17-20).

It is incorrect for you to assert that homosexual sex “causes no harm”. A basic lesson in human anatomy will reveal the dangers involved in the misuse/abuse of the sexual organs. Medically there is a long list of possible infections that can be aquired in a variety of ways. Among them is a common disease called amebiasis, which causes inflamation of the rectum and colon, resulting in severe diarrhroea and cramps. It is estimated that it effects some 25-40% of homosexual males. Amebiasis is said to be linked chiefly to oral-anal contact, and may occur indirectly by conveyance of the infection from the anus to finger and mouth during foreplay or when using saliva as a lubricant for anal intercourse. That is indeed a heavy price to pay for homosexual deviant activity.

Moreover, mental breakdowns, feelings of guilt, rejection, fits of depression, loneliness, alcholism, drug dependency and even thoughts of suicide are not uncommon in those who engage in homosexual liasions.

The only people within the Catholic Church who have had a conversion to a different view on homosexuality are those who have defected from the moral teaching of the Church. All orthodox Catholics accept their Church’s veto on homosexual deviant activity without question. The progressives who have abandoned this teaching do not speak for the Church and are in a state of revolt.

Whilst some people have a predominant sexual preference, or ‘orientation’, for their own gender, they are still nevertheless responsible and accountable for their actions. True, we cannot blame a man for being tempted in a particular direction. Normally, a man is not responsible for his temptation, but he is responsible for his response to it. Thus the Catholic Church draws a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. It recognises that many homosexuals do not deliberately choose their affliction, which is often a severe trial for them, especially if they are Catholics who are struggling against this predisposition and seeking to live a chaste life in obedience to the Church’s teaching.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the Church’s veto on homosexual behaviour has “harmed countless” homosexual people? Seeking to bring one’s life into conformity with the moral law of God will not harm one, but will, on the contrary, lead to true happiness and spiritual well-being - many within the Church will testify to that, including many former practicing homosexual men and women.

 

[ladybri77]

Ladybri
Thanks very much for the references. 281 I think I did answer but if there is something in it to which you feel I did not respond please let me know.

As for 287 and apples and oranges. Attitudes to the status of women and attitudes to sexual matters are different of course. But my point was this - the Bible is incorrect we now think over its attitude to women. Therefore you cannot simply say - the Bible says X so therefore X is correct. Many modern Christians think that the Bible writers, being products of their time, got God’s will wrong when they wrote about homosexuality.

These modern Christians have reasons for thinking this - the wonderful lifes of many gay couples - so you need to give some reasons beyond ‘the bible says’ in answer.

Best wishes

Laure

How about experience? And God’s Holy Spirit within me convicting me of right from wrong, Truth and non-Truth, of which Holy Scripture and the Catholic Church back up. After we are born again, most of us receive the Holy Spirit to live within us who is Truth. As scripture says, we will have “the mind of Christ” and will be righteous before the Lord as God sees in us now the righteousness of Christ. And we will be given the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

I know it’s hard to accept when your daughter or son are involved in a homosexual relationship because we don’t want to blame ourselves or think that they are making a mistake. But our children make mistakes all the time, and they learn from them in most cases. If we turn them over to God, He will take care of them and draw them to Himself in time. So, by praying and giving our children over to God no matter which way they go, we and they can’t go wrong!

Blessings in Christ

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Portrait,

Good wishes in return.

My problem with your reliance on your church is this. In the past your church has been grievously in the wrong – the crusades, the inquisition, the divided papacy, the persecution of Galileo… Please do not reply, explaining, excusing etc because I’ll take that as read. The simple fact is – your church has often been mistaken. Why then do you think that 2010 it has reached the wonderful position of always being right?!

You cannot get out of the necessity of thinking for yourself! Particularly when your church’s teaching causes so much suffering as it does over gay sex.

Now, as regards my daughter, as a father nobody is good enough for her as far as I am concerned! Or so I thought, but her gay partner of 20 years is such a lovely person and makes my daughter so happy that I have made an exception in her case. Nice try P but your surmise is way off beam.

As regards intuitions. Either we disregard them because we are fallen creatures in which case intuitions against gay sex are as worthless that those for OR intuitions of fair minded people are fine, in which case those for are as valid as those against.

One last point P. I have lost count of the number of times I have made the point about your Lord being against the following of rules for their own sake. Man was made for the rules not vice-versa. However I have not lost count of the number of replies – ZERO! Perhaps you will break this duck?

Regards and salutations,

Old Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Portrait,

Good wishes in return.

My problem with your reliance on your church is this. In the past your church has been grievously in the wrong – the crusades, the inquisition, the divided papacy, the persecution of Galileo… Please do not reply, explaining, excusing etc because I’ll take that as read. The simple fact is – your church has often been mistaken. Why then do you think that 2010 it has reached the wonderful position of always being right?!

You cannot get out of the necessity of thinking for yourself! Particularly when your church’s teaching causes so much suffering as it does over gay sex.

Now, as regards my daughter, as a father nobody is good enough for her as far as I am concerned! Or so I thought, but her gay partner of 20 years is such a lovely person and makes my daughter so happy that I have made an exception in her case. Nice try P but your surmise is way off beam.

As regards intuitions. Either we disregard them because we are fallen creatures in which case intuitions against gay sex are as worthless that those for OR intuitions of fair minded people are fine, in which case those for are as valid as those against.

One last point P. I have lost count of the number of times I have made the point about your Lord being against the following of rules for their own sake. Man was made for the rules not vice-versa. However I have not lost count of the number of replies – ZERO! Perhaps you will break this duck?

Regards and salutations,

Old Laurie

We don’t blindly follow rules, but is to our benefit to follow the laws of life, i.e. the Ten Commandments, so that we may live full and peaceful lives. God’s laws are given for man that he might not destroy himself. That’s when something is said to be a sin, it’s a warning from God to “stay away”, like a father saying don’t touch the stove, it’s hot! They are for our own good.

For instance, fornication is sin because there is no solid commitment among other things. Oftentimes when people have intercourse before marriage, they get very emotionally involved in the other person which can cause a whole slew of problems and pain if the other person leaves, etc. It can complicate things. The individual can be affected emotionally and physically in a negative way. I know not all people experience this, but it is a sin nevertheless.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Portrait

It is hard to keep up! You have now broken the duck.

No need however to concentrate on one example – the general tenor of Jesus’ teaching re the Pharisees was that they were wrong to concentrate on obedience to the law. What was important was what was behind it.

Agreed we need to be careful about love. Here is couple A – you applaud their love, you think it is a wonderful thing and reflects the love of God. You applaud! Here is couple B who display an identical love but you boo and condemn them because they are gay. Most people cannot for the life of them why the shape of the genitals matters in the slightest. They judge a relationship by the love displayed not by what they do in bed.

Your assertions about gay sex display very poor reasoning. They don’t apply to lesbians and only apply to men who have anal sex without taking sensible precautions. Some gay men do not have anal sex and many take precautions – so by your reasoning they and their lesbian counterparts are OK? But of course you are just scaremongering and I’m surprised you tried this tack!

Some gay relationships cause mental problems and so do some straight ones – so what? I’m surprised there are not more problems re gays given the condemnation of your church and others telling them their love is a perversion.

Regards

Laurie

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Ladybri - Many Christians say that the Holy Spirit tells them the opposite. How do you know you have got it right?

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

Ladybri - Many Christians say that the Holy Spirit tells them the opposite. How do you know you have got it right?

Laurie

Because, like I said, it is backed up in Holy Scripture and the Catholic church.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Ladybri

I think we are starting to go round in circles!

Let me sum up.

Your arguments that gay sex is wrong are:

1. It is against what you think the Holy Spirit has told you.
2. It is against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. There are verses in the Bible which condemn it.
4. It is against Natural Law ethics.
5. Your experience of gay sex has been negative.

However:

1. **The Holy Spirit has told other Christians the opposite so you or they must be mistaken.
2. The Catholic Church has been wrong in the past [Crusades, Galileo] so may be wrong on this.
3. You do not accept all the verses in the bible – perhaps those condemning gay sex are similar?
4. Sex is primarily to express love so, considered correctly; Natural Law ethics does not condemn gay sex.
5. Other people’s experience of gay sex has been very positive.**

Now this does not show that gay sex is OK only that it may be and your best bet might be simply to say that you reckon on the basis of the above it is probable that gay sex is wrong.

But this is where too you need to consider the evidence in favour of gay sex because, as I have shown, you MIGHT be mistaken. The evidence is:

1. There are lots of gay couple who seem to have relationships that are as happy and loving as any straight couple.
2. Some gay people would be very unhappy if they could not express their love physically and had to split from loved partners.
3. Gay sex between faithful loving couples causes nobody any harm and creates great happiness for them and for their friends.
4. God is Love and would not condemn a person for expressing love in a way that causes no harm.
5. Jesus was against the blind following of rules.

Now this vast heap of evidence convinces me that it is probable that the Church has made a dreadful mistake.

[In your case you seem blinded by your own sad experiences]

Thanks very much for conversing with me. I wish you well and hope you can come to terms with your true nature.
With best wishes

Laurie

PS I think I shall check out now – time, time, time…

 

[ladybri77]

Ladybri

I think we are starting to go round in circles!

Let me sum up.

Your arguments that gay sex is wrong are:

1. It is against what you think the Holy Spirit has told you.
2. It is against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. There are verses in the Bible which condemn it.
4. It is against Natural Law ethics.
5. Your experience of gay sex has been negative.

However:

1. **The Holy Spirit has told other Christians the opposite so you or they must be mistaken.
2. The Catholic Church has been wrong in the past [Crusades, Galileo] so may be wrong on this.
3. You do not accept all the verses in the bible – perhaps those condemning gay sex are similar?
4. Sex is primarily to express love so, considered correctly; Natural Law ethics does not condemn gay sex.
5. Other people’s experience of gay sex has been very positive.**

Now this does not show that gay sex is OK only that it may be and your best bet might be simply to say that you reckon on the basis of the above it is probable that gay sex is wrong.

But this is where too you need to consider the evidence in favour of gay sex because, as I have shown, you MIGHT be mistaken. The evidence is:

1. There are lots of gay couple who seem to have relationships that are as happy and loving as any straight couple.
2. Some gay people would be very unhappy if they could not express their love physically and had to split from loved partners.
3. Gay sex between faithful loving couples causes nobody any harm and creates great happiness for them and for their friends.
4. God is Love and would not condemn a person for expressing love in a way that causes no harm.
5. Jesus was against the blind following of rules.

Now this vast heap of evidence convinces me that it is probable that the Church has made a dreadful mistake.

[In your case you seem blinded by your own sad experiences]

Thanks very much for conversing with me. I wish you well and hope you can come to terms with your true nature.
With best wishes

Laurie

PS I think I shall check out now – time, time, time…

Laurie,

We disagree about sex’s primary function. It is the primary function of sex to reproduce. We all know that you can love someone in a relationship without having sex with them.

Here is a Devotional by Terri Foy that you will probably find interesting:

"Choosing God’s way over what I want has got to be the biggest struggle I’ve ever been in in my life. I’ve never hurt so bad, I’ve never cried so much. I’ve never struggled so much with choosing God’s way over my way. Why? Because my way, taste good, feels good, looks good, it’s appealing to the flesh, to the emotions and Satan convinces you, you cannot live without it.

But choosing God’s way – making yourself, making your emotions or making your thoughts line up with the Word of God will bring you the greatest peace you’ve ever had in your life. It will bring you joy like you’ve only dreamed about, God will begin to pour His blessing and favor on your life when you choose His way. But your decisions have to start lining up with the God’s destiny or you will spend your entire life circling the same mountains."

I’ll ask this question to you. Where in God’s Word does He say homosexual sex is good? We know the scripture verses where He says it’s against His plan and we know where He intended man and woman to become one flesh, but where does He say it is good?

Thank you and God Bless

 

[Portrait]

Portrait,

Good wishes in return.

My problem with your reliance on your church is this. In the past your church has been grievously in the wrong – the crusades, the inquisition, the divided papacy, the persecution of Galileo… Please do not reply, explaining, excusing etc because I’ll take that as read. The simple fact is – your church has often been mistaken. Why then do you think that 2010 it has reached the wonderful position of always being right?!

You cannot get out of the necessity of thinking for yourself! Particularly when your church’s teaching causes so much suffering as it does over gay sex.

Now, as regards my daughter, as a father nobody is good enough for her as far as I am concerned! Or so I thought, but her gay partner of 20 years is such a lovely person and makes my daughter so happy that I have made an exception in her case. Nice try P but your surmise is way off beam.

As regards intuitions. Either we disregard them because we are fallen creatures in which case intuitions against gay sex are as worthless that those for OR intuitions of fair minded people are fine, in which case those for are as valid as those against.

One last point P. I have lost count of the number of times I have made the point about your Lord being against the following of rules for their own sake. Man was made for the rules not vice-versa. However I have not lost count of the number of replies – ZERO! Perhaps you will break this duck?

Regards and salutations,

Old Laurie

Dear Laurie,

Firstly, the Church claims infallibility not impecability. It has never taught heresy as touching faith and morals and has consistently taught the truth down through the ages. God’s Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from officially teaching error. If the Church is to do what our Lord said it would do, then clearly it must be able teach infallibly, otherwise the gates of hades would most certainly prevail against it, and that they never have nor ever will do. Any good book on Catholic Apologetics will treat of the examples you cite which are old chesnuts that have been rebutted many times.

Secondly, it is not a question of renouncing one’s thinking faculty but rather of bringing it into harmony with the authoritative teaching of the Church.

Thirdly, whatever the love-quality of your daughters liasion and however happy she and her partner are, this can never justify a violation of God’s moral law, no more than the happiness and loveliness of some adulterers or fornicators can likewise justify their immoral behaviour.

All men do have a basic ethical intuitive sense that certain behaviours are wrong, thus we perceive, for example, that beastality or child molestation, are detestable and depraved. No right thinking person would try and defend these abhorrent sins and yet the veto on beastality occurs in the very same chapter as the bible’s proscription against homosexuality (see Leviticus 18: 22,23) and yet man in his arrogance seeks to differentiate between the two because that serves his own sinful desires.

St. Paul alludes to this instinctive feeling within when he says, “When the Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them” (Rom. 2: 14,15). You see our conscience, which is God given, acts as a sort of built-in arbiter to judge our thoughts and actions; indeed it is that innate faculty to judge right from wrong. The conscience may have been dulled because of sin but it has not been utterly extinguished. Whether he likes it or not the law of God has been indelibly written on man’s heart; the imperfect witness of conscience convicts man of his sin so that he is without excuse. Moreover, our conscience is an evidence of our indestructible moral nature and a verification of the fact that God bears witness to himself in our hearts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

I was not going to reply but what you say has made me very angry.

How dare you equate the 20 years of love and support that my daughter and her gay partner have had, the happiness it has given them, the fulfilment they have had through it etc etc [Don’t you dare deny any of this - you do not know them and I do and am as certain of this as I am of anything], how dare you equate all this with bestiality etc?

A person who cannot see their love as good is a person whose eyes are tight shut because their mind is closed to anything that goes against their church. Such a person I can forgive and will try to gently reason with them.

But a person who thinks that such a loving relationship is as bad a child-molesting is a person who has lost all his moral sense. [Like Catholics and others who felt their God of Love told them to burn heretics.] Shame on you! When your religion turns you into a moral monster beware what Jesus said to the Pharisees.

Laurie

 

[Portrait]

Portrait

It is hard to keep up! You have now broken the duck.

No need however to concentrate on one example – the general tenor of Jesus’ teaching re the Pharisees was that they were wrong to concentrate on obedience to the law. What was important was what was behind it.

Agreed we need to be careful about love. Here is couple A – you applaud their love, you think it is a wonderful thing and reflects the love of God. You applaud! Here is couple B who display an identical love but you boo and condemn them because they are gay. Most people cannot for the life of them why the shape of the genitals matters in the slightest. They judge a relationship by the love displayed not by what they do in bed.

Your assertions about gay sex display very poor reasoning. They don’t apply to lesbians and only apply to men who have anal sex without taking sensible precautions. Some gay men do not have anal sex and many take precautions – so by your reasoning they and their lesbian counterparts are OK? But of course you are just scaremongering and I’m surprised you tried this tack!

Some gay relationships cause mental problems and so do some straight ones – so what? I’m surprised there are not more problems re gays given the condemnation of your church and others telling them their love is a perversion.

Regards

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

You will be pleased to hear that this will be my final post today - must take a breather old chap.

The problem with the Pharisees is that they focused too much on obedience to the* letter of the law to the neglect of the spirit* of it. However, be that as it may, our Lord did not encourage the breaking of the moral law, which is eternally binding, and thus would not have condoned homosexual acts of depravity which God’s moral law expressly proscribed against. Neither did He speak disparagingly of the law - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (St. Matt. 5: 17,18). Unbelievers have always begun by slighting the Old Testament but the Old and New Testaments stand or fall together; those who attack the O.T. are demolishing the very foundations of Christianity itself. In this verse Jesus Himself set His seal to the truth of the O.T., including all those passages that treat of the subject of homosexuality and its condemnation.

Jesus generally upheld the Old Testament laws on sexual behaviour (see St. Matt. 5: 27-30; St. Mark 7: 21-3). Indeed, He only spoke of sexuality in the context of lifelong heterosexual marriage (see St. Matt. 19: 4-9). He certainly emphasised the need for love, but nowhere Laurie did he teach that a motive of love can justify any kind of behaviour. Moreover, as I have already remarked, He never taught His disciples that because of ‘love’ they were at liberty to ignore the O.T. moral law (St. Matt. 5: 17).

There is no proof whatsoever that “most people” now accept homosexual liasions as a normal expression of human sexuality, notwithstanding unrelenting media indoctrination to normalize homosexuality. Given the current moral degeneracy of Britain and the U.S. it will not be long before some people are clamouring for the normalization of beastality and Paedophilia. If there are no moral rules to observe and obey, then who is to say that they are wrong or immoral?; are there ethics any worse than yours? By what criteria can we judge such depraved persons? Indeed who are you or I to call them depraved?

It surely speaks volumes that homosexual men have to take such precautions in order to indulge in thier hideous vices; this per se should flash up the warning cones that their is something very unnatural and repulsive about homosexual behaviour. Husbands and wives do not have to take such “precautions” before engaging in carnal copulation.

I think you will find that there is a higher incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Thankyou for discussing this very emotive subject in a courteous manner without rancour, that is, alas, uncommon nowadays.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

I was not going to reply but what you say has made me very angry.

How dare you equate the 20 years of love and support that my daughter and her gay partner have had, the happiness it has given them, the fulfilment they have had through it etc etc [Don’t you dare deny any of this - you do not know them and I do and am as certain of this as I am of anything], how dare you equate all this with bestiality etc?

A person who cannot see their love as good is a person whose eyes are tight shut because their mind is closed to anything that goes against their church. Such a person I can forgive and will try to gently reason with them.

But a person who thinks that such a loving relationship is as bad a child-molesting is a person who has lost all his moral sense. [Like Catholics and others who felt their God of Love told them to burn heretics.] Shame on you! When your religion turns you into a moral monster beware what Jesus said to the Pharisees.

Laurie

Dear Laurie,

May I offer my sincere apologies for offending you and being the occasion of any distress, this was most certainly not my intention dear friend. Please forgive me.

Look I think you may have misunderstood my meaning old chap. The comparison in the third paragraph that I was drawing was not between homosexuality and beastality, but rather between homosexuality and adultery and fornication. Indeed, I have more than once acknowledged the “love-quality” of your daughters liasion and their happiness. My point was that this could not justify a violation of God’s moral law, no more than adultery or fornication could. That is merely stating biblical and Church teaching.

It was in the fourth paragraph, where I did not refer to your daughter, that I mentioned beastality and child molestation. Here I simply remarked that the bible’s proscription of beastality occurs in the very same chapter as the proscription on homosexuality (i.e. Leviticus 18). My point here was that men are not consistent because they will accept the veto on beastality as being unnatural and worthy of censure, but not on homosexuality. At any rate your daughter was not mentioned in this paragraph at all. I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick on this occasion dear friend.

Laurie, I am truly sorry for upsetting you and it bothers me much that you are upset. Sometimes on the internet people can all too easily write in a more trenchant way than they would speak to one another inter parties. There is, alas, also plenty of scope for misunderstanding: people may not explain themselves well, or they might cause offence with a comment that was intended to be lighthearted. I always endeavour to respond to posts in a calm, rational and charitable manner; my aim is to win souls for Christ not to win arguments. On this occasion it seems as if I have failed and for that I am truly sorry.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

|Portrait

Peace

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Portrait,

Thanks for your apology which I completely accept. It shows that teachings have consequences and to apparently or actually bracket bestiality with gay sex is deeply offensive. Both MAY be sins but they are of a quite different order. The man who lies to the Nazis and the man who lies to make money may both have sinned but the latter is obviously worse that the former.

I am not going to reply to all your points in detail because time means I must bow out and, in any case, I’ve made most of the points I can.

However Leviticus. In that book people are told not to sow two different crops in the same field, to cut their beards in a certain way, not to wear clothes made of two different materials and, I think, to stone adulterers. Obviously therefore you need criterion to distinguish the commands you continue to accept and those you do not. A tribal people had to keep up its population due to war, famine and disease, so gay men who had no children would be condemned. Today the situation is different which is why lots of people think the situation should be reviewed. The half dozen or so ‘catholics in the pew’ that I know have already done - which proves nothing I know!

The whole matter comes down to this - when you see the wonderful love displayed by my daughter and her partner you just know that a good God would approve - and I am afraid that all the Popes, Cardinals and Catholic apologists in the world could not get me to deny what is in front of my face. The best analogy I can think of is the members of the church who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they ‘knew’ there could be no blemishes on the moon.

But do not worry - I feel no offence after what you have said in your post. Thanks.

Good wishes

Laurie

 

[Cinette]

You are correct to say that from a purely biological point of view our sex organs are designed for reproduction.

=>

From that you infer that if we do something that ‘frustrates’ this purpose, it is wrong. [This you call ‘unnatural’[/COLOR].

So how do you make the step in this reasoning? Well because you assume that if something is ‘unnatural’ as defined it is wrong.

**Question 1 - How do you justify this assumption?

Question 2 - Sex has a social purpose which is to demonstrate love. It could be argued that this is more important than its biological purpose. [Human sociability is a higher order activity than reproduction]. Why is it wrong then to have sex for this purpose alone as gay people do?**

Question 3.- A celebate person frustrates the purpose of his sex organs but this is not considered wrong. Why?

Question 4 - A couple who cannot have children, a couple who practise natural birth control [Which is actually not natural at all!] are frustrating the purpose of sex but they are not doing wrong. Why?

Question 5 - Suppose we assume that not being able to have children is a negative feature of gay sex. It is also the case surely that expressing their love is a positive feature. Could you explain why the former outweighs the latter.

Question 6 - You worship a God who is, you claim, all love - please explain how he can be if he denies gay people the right to express their love physically. You may say that it is because he has made some rules which imply that this is wrong. My question is - why did he make those rules and not others?

No need to answer all these questions - suggest you try 1, 2, and 6

Best wishes

Laurie

*We once had a business in a building near 4 Gay Clubs - they were all next to each other. Our business was a computer programming school and the students were between the ages of 19 and sometimes 40 or more as some of them were sent by their companies.

From the windows which were on the 3rd floor they were able to see the “goings on” at the gay clubs - especially from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning (sometimes students would come in on a Sunday to work on the computers. Nowadays almost everyone has a laptop so it is not necessary. They witnessed sex in the open air. Gays consider sex to be recreation. I made a point of never looking out of the windows at the back of the floor but could not avoid the pavement (sidewalk) tables and chairs where I on more than one occasion saw condoms - there was a lane separating the premises of the club and the entrance to the garage and as I would drive into the garage I would see the place littered with condoms - I even saw a man’s underpants lying next a table…

It is nauseating to even think of the activities. I have read that often those indulging in gay sex do so with individuals whose name they do not even know. It could happen in a bar (lavatory) or on a train or anywhere where there there are public lavatories. I know the feeling after intercourse with someone you love deeply (my husband) and I imagine that the feeling one must have after intercourse with someone you even barely know. It is a release of desire with an anonymous person. Can that give happiness and satisfaction?? Certainly not.

Gay sex must smell because the penis is inserted in the anus from which the body defecates. Oh man!!!

You call that enjoyable? You call that natural?

I always make the distinction between homosexuals and gays. To be gay is to be part of a decadent subculture. It is unfortunate and CANNOT bring love. There may be some exceptions but very few.

Yesterday I spent a few hours with two very good friends one of whom is lesbian and lives with a partner. I loved her before and I love her still - even after she told me that she was lesbian. She is good and I try not to think of what she does in bed although it cannot be as bad as what gay men do.

I am sorry but I cannot call this lifestyle good. I just cannot!

Still, I would befriend, love, defend and support a person with an orientation different from mine but that depends on other factors of the person’s character.

I believe many people who have been sucked into the gay lifestyle through circumstances can reverse their orientation and find real happiness.

I do not like what I have seen and I was not one who looked out the window to see the men fornicating like dogs. Love and sex are beautiful but not that. Sorry!

It might be an idea to seek God and His beauty.

God bless you
Cinette*

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Cinette - your mistake is to judge all gay people by the men at the decadent club you overlooked. What if I judged all straight people by what goes on in some wife-swapping clubs?

Via my daughter I have met many lesbian couples and they seem no different from straight couples, once you look past their orientation.

All the best

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

God did not differentiate between monogamous or nonmonogamous homosexual behavior when He said homosexuality is wrong. I know this to be true from what God has let me know through His Spirit living in me and from all the evidence from studies done on why people have homosexual tendencies; i.e., trying to get their needs met for mother or father love or attempting to be affirmed of who they are by someone of the same sex because of a perceived lack of it in the developmental process, and/or a deep hurt or violation by an influential person in their lives.

 

[WatchingMedia]

You don’t need to take anyone’s word for anything on homosexuality. And certainly should not take anyone’s personal opinion.

Homosexuality and homosexual behavior are covered in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II, and first printed in the USA in March of 2000.

These are the “REQUIRED” beliefs of all those who choose to call themselves Catholic.
If you don’t have a copy, get one and study it.