Homosexuality

[ladybri77]

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.

Yes, I didn’t mention the Catholic churches teaching this time as I have on numerous occasions in the past to no avail of certain people not believing in it. I was just pointing out the overwhelming study evidence and other people’s experience of God working in their lives coupled with the Holy Spirit’s anointing and conviction in my own life along with scriptural and Catholic teaching on the subject to be more than enough evidence of the sin nature of homosexuality.

 

[crazzeto]

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

With all due respect, your mistake is to ignore the evidence… What was described is the norm, I too have witnessed this exact behaviour in my local community, it is nausaiting… In fact so common is this behaviour, that even the most liberal publications here in the US have begun to cease trying to put a “normal face” on homosexuality (by pretending they have the same exact relationships nomral hetro’s have) and have started evangalizing so called “open relationships” for everyone.

They claim that this is more advanced and better than the old approch of an exclusive relationship

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Here is the evidence - check it out!

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals." The American Psychological Association’s Statement on Homosexuality, 1994-JUL.

 

[ladybri77]

Here is the evidence - check it out!

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals." The American Psychological Association’s Statement on Homosexuality, 1994-JUL.

Here is the latest study by the American Psychological Association regarding the “gay gene” theory:

onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

There always is a “why” the minority of the population has these tendencies. I can send you some studies if you’re interested, once I find them in my repretoire, that is.

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear Laurie,

Thankyou for your acceptance of my apology. I am so very relieved that we can put yesterday’s misunderstanding behind us now, as hitherto we seemed to have been able to disagree with one another without being disagreable and to avoid all bitterness of spirit and expression.

Now without further ado I will respond to your latest post.

Both of the Levitical texts (Lev. 18: 22; 20: 13) prohibiting homosexual deviancy belong to the ‘Holiness Code’ which is the core of this O.T. book. It challenges the Jews to follow God’s laws and not emulate the practices of Egypt or of Cannan. Now these practices included sexual relations within the prohibited degrees, a variety of sexual aberrations, child sacrifice, idolatry and social injustice of diverse kinds. It is clearly within this context that the texts must be read. Moreover, it is specifically stated that the reason for the proscription of homosexual deviancy is because it is an “abomination” in the sight of an all Holy God who is so pure that He cannot behold evil (cf, Habakkuk 1: 13). The reason why such hideous acts are so detestable to God is because they are so unnatural and contrary to His design for human sexuality. As J.R. Porter says, “Homosexuality and beastality bring about uncleaness because they are a violation of nature: men should only have intercourse with women and human beings with human beings” (The Cambridge Bible Commentary, Leviticus, C.U.P., 1976).

The moral law of God is by definition incumbent on men eternally; God could not regard homosexual genital acts an abomination and sinful in O.T. times and then change His mind with the advent of Christianity for that would clearly make Him a very capricious God indeed and, one might add, also utterly unworthy of man’s homage. It is a perfectly reasonable expectation that God should be consistent in His holiness at all times.

Whilst it is quite correct to say that certain ceremonies and rites of the O.T. and the civil precepts are not obligatory today, yet notwithstandinng no man is free from the moral law of God, for that is of perpetual validity. As to the “criterion” of which commands to accept and which to not accept, this surely underscores the reason why we need the authoritative teaching of the infallible Church to ensure that we do not err or embrace false opinions in matters of faith and morals. Witness how the Church of England is all at sea on this very issue of homosexuality, simply because it lacks this authoritative and infallible teaching Voice; it is a quagmire of competing opinions in which every man believes what is right in his own eyes. This is surely a formula for doctrinal bedlam!

What some ‘Catholics in the pew’ are either thinking or saying is of no consequence whatsoever. These people do not speak for the Church; if their opinions on homosexuality, or indeed any other topic, are not consonant with the official teaching of the magisterium then they should be ignored and deemed to be in error. There are people both inside and without the Church who disagree and find fault with its teachings on faith and morals, but that does not render those teachings untrue or mean that they should be revised or re-interpreted to bring them into line with current post-Christian idealogy. Why if that were to happen the Catholic Church would cease to be the Catholic Church and would just be another denomination that trims its sails according to the prevailing winds of contemporary thought, whatever that might be at any given time.

Sorry Laurie but God cannot approve or condone homosexual liasions, for were He to do so He would cease to be the All Holy God of the Old and New Testaments. That God has said that homosexual deviant acts are an “abomination” in His sight and who are we sinful, fallen men to argue with that or rationalize it because it conflicts with our own preconceived notions?

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Here is the evidence - check it out!

"The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals." The American Psychological Association’s Statement on Homosexuality, 1994-JUL.

Dear Laurie,

This is nothing more than the conclusions of a secular body and in any case just how reliable or impartial are the “studies” upon which the conclusions are based? As we all know “studies” can be utilised to support almost any theory or position. At any rate it is theologically and biblically wide of the mark when it states that homosexuality is not moral depravity. Underlying such an erroenous remark is the rejection of the Fall and Original Sin and hence a repudiation of fundamental Catholic Dogma.

In 1974 the same Association voted to drop homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. This change of perception rests on the presupposition that the homosexual predisposition is biologically determined and unchangeable. Much of the current literature focuses on the need to help homosexuals embrace their sexuality (in other words help them embrace sin) and cope with discrimination. As I understand it some in this Association have even been clamouring for an official ban on therapy to change the condition (reparative therapy). Thus it would seem that they are quite happy for homosexuals not to be rid of their affliction. Even if they are unable to change their orientation, at least the Catholic Church insists that they strive to live a chaste life.

Now that homosexuality has attained ‘nonpathological status’ it is increasingly difficult to ask fundamental questions or to undertake research which challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. As one commentator has put it “this is an area, par excellence, where scientific objectivity has little chance of survival” (J. Bancroft in Homosexual Orientation: The search for a biological basis, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994).

Such a statement makes very sad reading and should be distrusted because it is at variance with Catholic teaching.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Cinette]

*Laurie I agree with the arguments based on the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I believe that we must strive to be Holy and I cannot imagine being Holy and indulging in a lifestyle that is not Holy.

When I think of my relationship with my husband I do not regard the orgasm as the ultimate goal if you will - (I am not entirely satisfied with my words…) When one has achieved the orgasm there is the love that envelops the couple, the depth of feeling and happiness…

I have never been in a homosexual relationship but one reads about it (in your face!!!) While I have never been in an “Adult” shop I have heard radio programmes and seen advertisements for sex toys etc. I understand that such items are part of homosexual activity. In a heterosexual loving relationship there is no need for such deviant items. Oh I know that heterosexuals also go overboard and use these things. I doubt very much that a couple truly in love need to resort to these things.

Laurie, you sound like a very nice person but as I perceive you, you believe what you want to believe and you want to justify your daughter’s (whom you love and respect) homosexuality precisely because you love her so much. As I said I have a lesbian friend and I love her dearly. I am friendly and gracious to her partner (when we meet because most times I meet with my friend without her partner). I just cannot accept your argument that the homosexual lifestyle is something that can be embraced and condoned. *

 

[scapularkid8]

Cinette-

To judge all homosexuals based off of what you heard happened in one gay club (since from what I read you didn’t look for yourself, pardon me if I read to little or incorrectly) seems very wrong.

 

[Cinette]

Cinette-

To judge all homosexuals based off of what you heard happened in one gay club (since from what I read you didn’t look for yourself, pardon me if I read to little or incorrectly) seems very wrong.

Judge?

Yes I heard that some of the students had seen gays fornicating in broad daylight. I was never interested to go look.

I SAW men’s underpants lying next to a table on the pavement in front of the club. I could not avoid it because in order for me to go into the garage of my building I had to drive into the lane between the building and the gay club and the entrance to the garage was right at the beginning of the lane. I would also often SEE condoms in the lane. We experienced abuse when we complained when a truck was offloading beers parked in front of the entrance of the garage - my husband was threatened by what looked like a bouncer.

Laurie is right to say I should not put all gays in the same basket. That is why I separate gays from homosexuals as I have explained before.

My lesbian friend (let us call her Mary) is black and she has a son. She told me she tried very hard not to be lesbian. I never questioned her - she felt the need to speak about it to me. I loved her before and still love her. The other day we met for lunch with another black friend Gloria who is a devout Catholic. Gloria and I do not approve of the “gay” lifestyle but it doesn’t make a difference to our friendship. The Father of Mary’s son has had 5 other children with 5 different women. We live in a terrible world.

The family is very important to a healthy society and we should practice our Christian Faith and try to live Holy lives.

The other day (I might have mentioned this) a neighbour came over for a chat. I had been on this thread and the subject came up. He said “It doesn’t matter what you do with your body” He is a philosopher (inherited money and is not working at the moment) and very friendly person but you can see he is homosexual - he never admits it, just defends it. I can see there is a longing in him. But I tell you he is a relativist, a product of today’s secular age and by the time he left I was ready to vomit. It was a sad encounter and my husband was equally nauseated.

I will continue to be friendly and greet this man but he is not one I would like to spend time with. Mary, my lesbian friend, is a lovely, friendly, shall I say normal person. She expressed desires to join a Christian church where she can find satisfaction.There is a longing for Truth.

No friend I will try not to judge but to love. However, I can never condone this orientation.

Cinette

 

[Portrait]

Here is the latest study by the American Psychological Association regarding the “gay gene” theory:

onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

There always is a “why” the minority of the population has these tendencies. I can send you some studies if you’re interested, once I find them in my repretoire, that is.

Dear ladybri77,

Thankyou most kindly for that interesesting link, which surely confirms my suspicions that the APA is anything but unbiased and objective and would appear to hold a brief for homosexual activists.

Contrary to what some misguided people may say or think, no “gay gen” has ever been actually discovered and it remains in the minds of some men as unproven, and some of us would say, an unproveable theory.

Whilst gentic influences and predispositions may contribute to any unwanted behaviour, it is vitally important that those on both sides of the debate are not misled by unsound research asserting that the homosexual condition is inborn or gentic.

Some homosexuals wish to remain celibate, whereas others want very much to change the way in which they respond to their sexual preferences. Homosexuals do not need, however, to pursue their preferences anymore than their heterosexual counterparts who, outiside of wedlock, must excercise chastity and a disciplined response to their own kind of sexual preferences.

Whilst it may not be fshionable with the avante garde or the APA, who consider homosexuality a perfectly permissible alternative variant, the fact is that it is, in terms of orientation, desire and temptation one of the effects of the Fall and Original Sin. That the intelligensia and suppodedly enlightened men find such dogmas risible does not thereby render them untrue or ‘exploded myths’. God’s truth will always be found to be correct and wholly trustworthy no matter who challenges it.

Unfortunately the world today is not as it originally came from the good hands of God; mankind has rebelled and fallen into a deplorable state of sin and misery. Unfortunately we are born into an already fallen and imperfect world and we bring a wounded fallen nature that is continually seeking to raise its ugly head. Our personalities are complexes of all manner of sinful desires; no aspect of our personality escapes unscathed and that includes our sexuality. We may inherit various tendencies to rebel against God’s order of things and we may respond in a sinful way to the diverse evil influences to which we are subjected, whatever they may be.

Since mankind is fallen and wounded as a consequence of Original Sin, it is incorrect for some men to say “God made that way” or “its my genes that did it”. That is utter balderdash. Notwithstanding Freud, a man is always responsible for his sins; he may not be responsible for his temptation but he is always responsible for his response to it.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[WatchingMedia]

*Laurie, don’t let your pride get in the way.
Sin is sin. Never not tolerate Sin. But Love the sinners.
Abide by God’s will, not your will to justify certain situations.
Form a correct conscience. Your eternal life depends on it.
Pray for the sinners daily.

ANY sexual activity outside of marriage (- between one man and one woman) is a Sin.*

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.

 

[ladybri77]

Laurie, a question for you:

Based on what you said earlier about things written in the bible not being correct, then:
If gay sex is not wrong, then can we say adultery is not wrong either? Just wondering.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Ladybri,

I am intending to stop posting but, as you ask me a direct question, I shall answer it.

Adultery is wrong because it causes lots of suffering and involves breaking a promise. Gay sex between faithful gay couples seems to produce immense happiness by expressing their love without any harm being caused.

The point I made about the bible was not that all the moral rules given in it were wrong - of course many are fine - it was that some are correct and some are not hence we need a way of deciding. If something causes lots of unhappiness then it must be wrong - unless there are some strong reasons otherwise. If something causes happiness and the bible bans it, then that is grounds for questioning it?

Here is a question for you. I know of a clergyman round here who lives in an open gay partnership - but they do not express this physically. Is this acceptable do you think?

Suppose you say, ‘Yes’ then let me ask if it would be OK for them to hold hands.
What about kissing? Cuddling?

Where will you draw the line?

Regards for a little longer.

Laurie

 

[Cinette]

Ladybri,

I am intending to stop posting but, as you ask me a direct question, I shall answer it.

Adultery is wrong because it causes lots of suffering and involves breaking a promise. Gay sex between faithful gay couples seems to produce immense happiness by expressing their love without any harm being caused.

The point I made about the bible was not that all the moral rules given in it were wrong - of course many are fine - it was that some are correct and some are not hence we need a way of deciding. If something causes lots of unhappiness then it must be wrong - unless there are some strong reasons otherwise. If something causes happiness and the bible bans it, then that is grounds for questioning it?

Here is a question for you. I know of a clergyman round here who lives in an open gay partnership - but they do not express this physically. Is this acceptable do you think?

Suppose you say, ‘Yes’ then let me ask if it would be OK for them to hold hands.
What about kissing? Cuddling?

Where will you draw the line?

Regards for a little longer.

Laurie

*Laurie - one cannot say that just because one does not like some of the things in the bible then it must be wrong!

God sets the standards - He decides. We follow! For some people adultry must be tempting - there are gorgeous women who throw themselves at married men. So must men yield because it feels nice? What if the Mother of his 4 children is a little worn? Must he then yield to the advances of the gorgeous brunette in his office? It FEELS so G O O D! So it must be right. Once the deed is done how good does it feel then?

Being a Christian is not easy my friend. I am so sorry that you do not understand the Christian Faith and culture. I am really sorry because life is so short and Eternal Life is forever.

God bless you Laurie
Cinette*

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Cinette thanks for your concern.

Yes, adultery might feel fine to the two adulterers but it causes great suffering to their partners, their children etc hence it is wrong.

Sex between faithful gay partners is not like that at all - it causes nothing but happiness and well-being. How extraordinary then that a good God condemns it - or so you think!

You have gay friends who have loving partnerships you say - if you were not a Catholic you would see nothing wrong with them and would rejoice in their love. Why not do that and not let the old men in your religion blind you to the love in front of your eyes?

Laurie

 

[Cinette]

Cinette thanks for your concern.

Yes, adultery might feel fine to the two adulterers but it causes great suffering to their partners, their children etc hence it is wrong.

Sex between faithful gay partners is not like that at all - it causes nothing but happiness and well-being. How extraordinary then that a good God condemns it - or so you think!

You have gay friends who have loving partnerships you say - if you were not a Catholic you would see nothing wrong with them and would rejoice in their love. Why not do that and not let the old men in your religion blind you to the love in front of your eyes?

Laurie

*Laurie perhaps what you should do is pray to God. “God if you exist reveal yourself to me. Teach me the Truth.” You might be surprised and you will certainly be a happy man.

Cinette*

 

[ladybri77]

Ladybri,

I am intending to stop posting but, as you ask me a direct question, I shall answer it.

Adultery is wrong because it causes lots of suffering and involves breaking a promise. Gay sex between faithful gay couples seems to produce immense happiness by expressing their love without any harm being caused.

The point I made about the bible was not that all the moral rules given in it were wrong - of course many are fine - it was that some are correct and some are not hence we need a way of deciding. If something causes lots of unhappiness then it must be wrong - unless there are some strong reasons otherwise. If something causes happiness and the bible bans it, then that is grounds for questioning it?

Here is a question for you. I know of a clergyman round here who lives in an open gay partnership - but they do not express this physically. Is this acceptable do you think?

Suppose you say, ‘Yes’ then let me ask if it would be OK for them to hold hands.
What about kissing? Cuddling?

Where will you draw the line?

Regards for a little longer.

Laurie

Nope, not okay since there’s something called emotional dependency that is also present in gay relationships, where if you are “in love” thinking of the other as a mate even though you don’t have sex, that is also not good for you, hence, sin. God did not intend for us to be “in love” with the same sex no matter what form it takes. Healthy same sex friendships are the best for each party involved.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

But I thought the objection to gay sex was that it was using the sex organs in such a way that conception was not possible, hence unnatural and therefore wrong.

If two men are emotionally dependent - but do not have sex - how does this fall under the prohibition above?

Laurie

 

[ladybri77]

But I thought the objection to gay sex was that it was using the sex organs in such a way that conception was not possible, hence unnatural and therefore wrong.

If two men are emotionally dependent - but do not have sex - how does this fall under the prohibition above?

Laurie

Because emotional dependency is a form of over attachment just as if one was dependent on alcohol, one is instead dependent on the other person to fill his or her needs which can lead to a fall sexually, and in itself is sin since one is looking to the other to meet their needs.

Believe me, I know all about this from being in the lifestyle and from participating in an ex-gay ministry. In this ministry, we learned all about it in the Living Waters program by Andy Commiskey, I recommend his website for more information about it. I’ve also read many books on the subject and know first hand what it’s all about. Maybe you could read some of his books, such as Living Waters.

Desert Stream

I wish you well.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

You do not know all about it! You do not know about, or will not see the millions of gay couples who have happy and fulfilled lives.

What you seem to know is that you have had a hard time coming to grips with your sexuality and so you generalise to all gay people and say they must be the same. You are only into reading ‘facts’ that agree with your prejudice and cannot accept that, although agreement has not be reached on the cause of homosexuality, the condition itself is not a defect, not unnatural to the people concerned and need cause no emotional problems - that is the generally accepted position of impartial observers. Only people who have already made up their minds have ‘produced’ evidence the other way.

You seem obsessed with this subject and post on little else! It suggest to me, I may be wrong, that you have not really come to terms with your own sexuality.

Please, please, raise your eyes, look at all the gay couples who are happy, and see, what everybody else sees.

With every good wish

Laurie