Homosexuality

[ladybri77]

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

Well, certainly people who are living happy lives in the lifestyle and have justified their behavior in some way or another by their own interpretation of scripture, need not look for help out of the lifestyle. It’s only those of us who feel guilty because they know it’s wrong and have had problems in those relationships. But I’ve also met ex-gays who have not had the problems I mentioned, but are convicted by God that what they are doing is wrong and eventually get out of the relationship, come back to Him and live chaste lives. It’s very individual.

In Romans, it states that God gives them over to their passions if they refuse to turn from their sin. In other words, their consciences are “seared” or numbed to their actions. It’s a shame, but there is always hope. God’s transforming power has turned some who were deep into homosexuality around. It can be a struggle, but some are now living happy, heterosexual lives in a marriage relationship.

 

[scapularkid8]

In Romans, it states that God gives them over to their passions if they refuse to turn from their sin. In other words, their consciences are “seared” or numbed to their actions. It’s a shame, but there is always hope. God’s transforming power has turned some who were deep into homosexuality around. It can be a struggle, but some are now living happy, heterosexual lives in a marriage relationship.

Many Biblical scholars claim that Paul’s use of ‘homosexual’ doesn’t translate into the modern idea of a morally responsible gay person, but the word he chose refers to same-sex pagan temple prostitution. I’m just trying to preset other views to show this is not a clear issue, otherwise we all wouldn’t be posting in this thread

Has anyone heard of Sts. Bacchus and Sergius?
I have a Syrian friend that used to live in Damascus near the church that was built over the site of their martyrdom. He says that in the traditions of the Aramaic-Syriac descended, and Greek and Roman descended people living there, they traditionally understand that these two were lovers and that this in conjunction with the fact that they were Christian and refused to worship the emperor was why they were killed… The text of their martyrdom cites them using Greek terms when speaking that were reserved only for lovers.

Pray for us…

 

[ladybri77]

Many Biblical scholars claim that Paul’s use of ‘homosexual’ doesn’t translate into the modern idea of a morally responsible gay person, but the word he chose refers to same-sex pagan temple prostitution. I’m just trying to preset other views to show this is not a clear issue, otherwise we all wouldn’t be posting in this thread

Has anyone heard of Sts. Bacchus and Sergius?
I have a Syrian friend that used to live in Damascus near the church that was built over the site of their martyrdom. He says that in the traditions of the Aramaic-Syriac descended, and Greek and Roman descended people living there, they traditionally understand that these two were lovers and that this in conjunction with the fact that they were Christian and refused to worship the emperor was why they were killed… The text of their martyrdom cites them using Greek terms when speaking that were reserved only for lovers.

Pray for us…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/SerBac.jpg

Thanks for that bit of information. Did you read the rest of Romans 1:26-27 where it says; and the women exchanged natural functions with other women, and men with men working with that which is unseemly, burning in the lust toward one another and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Let’s not leave out the rest of the chapter. I have been convicted in my heart by the Holy Spirit with scripture, the Catholic church, and others who have experienced God convicting them backing it up that it is wrong. I have experienced it first hand. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Portrait]

**Dear scapularkid8,

Regarding your comments on St. Paul’s use of the term ‘homosexual’, I submit the following for your persusal:

In I Corinthians 6: 9 St. Paul uses two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, that are generally considered to refer to homosexual deviant acts. “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (Gr. effeminate nor sodomites)…shall inherit the kingdome of God”. Both C.K. Barrett and Hans Comzelmann, in their commentaries on I Corinthians, take malakoi and *arsenokoitai *to refer respectively to the passive and active participants in male homosexual liasions.

Now it is quite true that there has been some debate among exegetes as to the proper translation of these two terms and this measure of uncertainty is reflected in the renderings of our English translations. Thus, for example, the RSV Catholic Edition simply refers to “homosexuals”, whilst the New International Version reads “male prostitutes” and “hommosexual offenders”. The Authorised Version (King James) reads “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind”.

Whilst both terms are relatively infrequent in the New Testament, Adolf Deismann, has pointed to an occurence of *malako *in the Greek papyri that clearly denotes “effeminate”. The word occurs in a letter from Demophon to Ptolmaeus, a police official (c. 245 B.C.) in Egypt. The term is an allusioi n to the foul practices by which the musician Zenobius eked out his living.

However, the real controversy centres around arsenokoitai, which is a compound formed from arsen, “male”, and koite, a word with definite sexual overtones (cf. Rom. 9: 10; Heb. 13: 40. The literal etymology of this compound term suggests “males who go to bed with males”. Even if we restrict the reference, as some biblical scholars do, to male cult prostitutes who engaged in sodomy, it is nevertheless clear from the context that such activity is morally culpable. The entire section in I Corinthians 6: 9f. is keynoted by the term adikoi: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Observe that in verse 9 the two terms in question are found in association with other sexual offenders, namely fornicators (pornoi) and adulterers (moichoi).

Clearly these considerations of etymology and the immediate context are exceedingly cogent and convincing. Therefore it is hardly surprising that the conclusion, supported by both the textual evidence and the vast majority of exegetes, is that I Cor. 6: 9 does refer to homosexual sin, and thus deems it to be morally blameworthy activity that can debar the persistent sinner from the Kingdomof God.

Only wild specualtion can avoid the conclusion that St. Paul knew exactly what he meant and how he should be understood when he employed these terms.

Sorry I have not heard of SS. Bacchus and Sergius and there is no mention of them in my Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Perhaps Butler’s Live’s may reference them. However, if they engaged in homosexual acts of depravity they would have commited mortal sin and thus would have surely been morally blameworthy, unless of course they were both penitent and sought absolution from the Church prior to their martyrdom.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

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

Dear Laurie,

Please forgive me if my tone sounds peremptory, but what authority does fallen man have to differentiate between one mortal sin from another? Look, according to St. Paul both adultery and homosexual vice are equally sinful and morally blameworthy and those who persist in them and remain unrepentant will be debared from the Kingdom of Heaven (see I Corinthians 6: 9). The words of the apostle are both unqualified and unnuanced and only the most forced and arbitrary modes of biblical interpretation could conclude otherwise.
No wonder St. Paul warns his readers “not (to) be deceived”.

In any event it is surely a matter of individual perception as to whether or not homosexuality produces “immense happiness”. Many homosexuals would confess, if they were downright honest that is, to feelings of guilt, rejection, fits of depression, social anxiety, loneliness and even thoughts of suicide.

Homosexuals, like all other men, have a God given conscience which acts as a sort of built-in arbiter to judge their thoughts and actions. Although they may try to supress this innate faculty to judge right from wrong, they cannot entirely extinguish it. Thus when they engage in their shameful acts and indulge “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (Rom. 1: 24) they may try to convince themselves that they are making each other happy, but at length their lives will be blighted with feelings of guilt and deep sorrow. My parish priest often tells us that “no one cheats on God”; we cannot engage in improper conduct which dishonours God and expect to get away with it. Whether he likes it or not the moral law of God is written on man’s heart and and he cannot rid himself of it, try as he may. The fact is that men’s consciences do trouble them about many things and will give them no peace until they reform themselves and cease doing wrong.

There is a way of deciding which parts of Sacred Scripture are applicable to us today, namely the magisterium of the Catholic Church. We do not need to struggle with the complexities of faith and morals when we have an infallible Church to guide us into all truth. Even in the affairs of everyday life we consult the expert. Thus we do not attempt to cure our illnesses: we consult our doctor. We do not try to settle our own legal problems: we employ the services of a solicitor. So why make an exception when it comes to abstruse matters of religion and issues involving our eternal destiny and felicity?

Indulging in sin can seem to bring happiness for a season but that “hapiness” is, alas, fleeting; it is false happiness and what truer misery is there than false hapiness or false pleasure? For this reason sin should be doubly hated because it is ugly and false and because sooner or later it defiles and mocks us. It is a little like the happiness of a man who dreams of a feast and awakes so hungry and vexed that he could eat his dream.

As for that homosexual cleric, how can he possibly be a model of virtue to his flock and his parish by living with another man in what one can only describe as an immoral and irregular union? This is deplorable but hardly surprising given the current spiritual declension of so much Protestantism. Moreover, unless he has explicitly informed people that it is a so called “open relationship”, how do they know that it is such and why should they even believe him? At any rate there will always be doubt in people’s minds and that is most unsatisfactory, especially in the case of a minister of religion who is expected to be a man of sound morals. He also semaphores to the entire parish that such a homosexual union is somehow quite permissible and acceptable with God provided that no sexual deviant acts are involved! Moreover, what about the constant source of temptation presented to him daily under his own roof? Why the man is playing with fire -“Can a man carry fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?” (Proverbs 6: 27).

Furthermore, if these men do not consumate their union then clearly it is a union that is necessarily far from perfect and very incomplete to boot, at least from a homosexual standpoint that is. So I am bound to ask, what is the point of it and how could these men ever be, well, “happy”?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Portrait – you write directly so I’ll reply.

Please forgive me if my tone sounds peremptory, but what authority does fallen man have to differentiate between one mortal sin from another? Look, according to St. Paul both adultery and homosexual vice are equally sinful and morally blameworthy and those who persist in them and remain unrepentant will be debared from the Kingdom of Heaven (see I Corinthians 6: 9). The words of the apostle are both unqualified and unnuanced and only the most forced and arbitrary modes of biblical interpretation could conclude otherwise.
No wonder St. Paul warns his readers “not (to) be deceived”.

Why should we accept Paul’s word is always correct? He is wrong on slavery – why not on this?

In any event it is surely a matter of individual perception as to whether or not homosexuality produces “immense happiness”. Many homosexuals would confess, if they were downright honest that is, to feelings of guilt, rejection, fits of depression, social anxiety, loneliness and even thoughts of suicide.

Yes and many are not! And, of course, it is my perception that my daughter has been radiantly happy but I can see no reason why that should be mistaken. [Unless I have an a-priori dogma telling me she MUST be!]

[continued in the next post]

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Homosexuals, like all other men, have a God given conscience which acts as a sort of built-in arbiter to judge their thoughts and actions. Although they may try to supress this innate faculty to judge right from wrong, they cannot entirely extinguish it. Thus when they engage in their shameful acts and indulge “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (Rom. 1: 24) they may try to convince themselves that they are making each other happy, but at length their lives will be blighted with feelings of guilt and deep sorrow. My parish priest often tells us that “no one cheats on God”; we cannot engage in improper conduct which dishonours God and expect to get away with it. Whether he likes it or not the moral law of God is written on man’s heart and and he cannot rid himself of it, try as he may. The fact is that men’s consciences do trouble them about many things and will give them no peace until they reform themselves and cease doing wrong.

**This is nothing but a string of assertions. There are plenty of gays, Christian and none, whose consciences in fact tell them the reverse. **

There is a way of deciding which parts of Sacred Scripture are applicable to us today, namely the magisterium of the Catholic Church. We do not need to struggle with the complexities of faith and morals when we have an infallible Church to guide us into all truth. Even in the affairs of everyday life we consult the expert. Thus we do not attempt to cure our illnesses: we consult our doctor. We do not try to settle our own legal problems: we employ the services of a solicitor. So why make an exception when it comes to abstruse matters of religion and issues involving our eternal destiny and felicity?

I do not accept the infallibility of your church. Historically it has been responsible for many bad things and has promulgated many evil doctrines. [And many good things too I don’t deny] Of course for everyone you will mount a defence but, it seems to me yet another occasion when you think you know the answer and then cast round for an argument to back it up.

Indulging in sin can seem to bring happiness for a season but that “happiness” is, alas, fleeting; it is false happiness and what truer misery is there than false hapiness or false pleasure? For this reason sin should be doubly hated because it is ugly and false and because sooner or later it defiles and mocks us. It is a little like the happiness of a man who dreams of a feast and awakes so hungry and vexed that he could eat his dream.

This is rubbish when applied to many gay couples who by every normal standard are happy and fulfilled. Of course underneath it may all be false but the moon may be made of green cheese.

As for that homosexual cleric, how can he possibly be a model of virtue to his flock and his parish by living with another man in what one can only describe as an immoral and irregular union? This is deplorable but hardly surprising given the current spiritual declension of so much Protestantism. Moreover, unless he has explicitly informed people that it is a so called “open relationship”, how do they know that it is such and why should they even believe him? At any rate there will always be doubt in people’s minds and that is most unsatisfactory, especially in the case of a minister of religion who is expected to be a man of sound morals. He also semaphores to the entire parish that such a homosexual union is somehow quite permissible and acceptable with God provided that no sexual deviant acts are involved! Moreover, what about the constant source of temptation presented to him daily under his own roof? Why the man is playing with fire -“Can a man carry fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?” (Proverbs 6: 27).

Because they do not accept your view on gay love, however they do not have sex because this is offensive to many in their church.

Furthermore, if these men do not consumate their union then clearly it is a union that is necessarily far from perfect and very incomplete to boot, at least from a homosexual standpoint that is. So I am bound to ask, what is the point of it and how could these men ever be, well, “happy”?

**Hang on according to you gay love is OK, it is its physical expression which is not because it goes against the natural law ruling that you must not use your sex organs in a manner that frustrates reproduction. They might be happier if they had sex * but I expect they think a chaste loving union is better than no union at all

But I end where I began in this discussion. The love my daughter and her partner have displayed is so obviously a positive and life-enhancing thing that all the Popes and Cardinals in the world will not change my mind. They might just as well try to convince me that there are no blemishes on the moon’s surface. Further it seems to me that a religion that promotes a God of Love and then condemns love in gay people has condemned itself as bigoted and of the devil. To see love and condemn it – what greater sin? To see good and condemn it as evil – you ‘blind guides’***

Regards

Laurie

 

[Cinette]

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

*Laurie - “millions of gay couples who have happy and fulfilled lives?” Are you SURE of that? Do you have stats on this?

I doubt that you will find 100 000 in the entire world. Their relationships rarely last. There are but few that do.

You know Laurie - as I read your posting I thought you were describing yourself. You are obsessed with the subject and believe what you want to believe.

Good luck to you

God Bless you - I hope you will find Him
Cinette*

 

[camerong]

I do not accept the infallibility of your church. Historically it has been responsible for many bad things and has promulgated many evil doctrines. [And many good things too I don’t deny] Of course for everyone you will mount a defence but, it seems to me yet another occasion when you think you know the answer and then cast round for an argument to back it up.

This is rubbish when applied to many gay couples who by every normal standard are happy and fulfilled. Of course underneath it may all be false but the moon may be made of green cheese.

But I end where I began in this discussion. The love my daughter and her partner have displayed is so obviously a positive and life-enhancing thing that all the Popes and Cardinals in the world will not change my mind. They might just as well try to convince me that there are no blemishes on the moon’s surface. Further it seems to me that a religion that promotes a God of Love and then condemns love in gay people has condemned itself as bigoted and of the devil. To see love and condemn it – what greater sin? To see good and condemn it as evil – you ‘blind guides’

Re: first paragraph. That is true, that we receive what we believe to be the truth, and then come up with explanations for it. But there’s really no alternative, from our perspective. Anything else would just be us figuring it out for ourselves, which, of course, denies the divinity of the Church.

Re: second and third paragraphs. I realize this can sound offense, but please bear with me to see my intent. You seem to judge, at least in part, the morality of relationships based on their apparent happiness. Surely you can see a problem with this. While there may be some correlation between the propriety of the relationship and the satisfaction of those involved, logic–or even our personal experience–shows us this cannot be conclusive. Here’s the part I hope is not offensive, and where I beg your patience: couldn’t the love between, say, a man and a 15 year old boy be positive and life-enhancing? Indeed, many who were formally the boys in such relationships have emphatically claimed this to be true. Given that, there are only two possibilities: either a loving relationship between a man and 15 year old boy is morally correct, or something can be morally incorrect while still seeming, even to those involved, to be positive and life-enhancing.

Please notice I am not equating a homosexual relationship to pedophilia–I’m not even arguing (at least in this post) that homosexuality is wrong. I am merely attempting to show that an immoral relationship can seem positive and life-enhancing.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Hi Camerong.

As I have said before Catholics like yourself start from the teachings of your church conclude that gay sex is wrong. Therefore same sex relationships however good they may seem must be wrong.

Other people, like myself, start with what is before their own eyes - the manifest positive and fulfilling nature of many gay relationships and conclude your church is wrong here.

Both of these arguments is logically sound but which is correct depends on where you start. So far as I am concerned it is bizarre to deny what is in front of my eyes - given that I am not blind!

Now to your point about happiness. I take human happiness to be a good thing. However I do not think that we are justified in pursuing that happiness if it harms other people. The major point about gay sex between faithful partners is that it harms nobody but contributes greatly to their happiness by expressing their love physically. [In cases where this is not so - it is wrong] In the example of the 15 year old they may happy at the time but might regret matters later. We think that before 16 years a person cannot give informed consent.

Thanks

Laurie

 

[Cinette]

Hi Camerong.

As I have said before Catholics like yourself start from the teachings of your church conclude that gay sex is wrong. Therefore same sex relationships however good they may seem must be wrong.

Other people, like myself, start with what is before their own eyes - the manifest positive and fulfilling nature of many gay relationships and conclude your church is wrong here.

Both of these arguments is logically sound but which is correct depends on where you start. So far as I am concerned it is bizarre to deny what is in front of my eyes - given that I am not blind!

Now to your point about happiness. I take human happiness to be a good thing. However I do not think that we are justified in pursuing that happiness if it harms other people. The major point about gay sex between faithful partners is that it harms nobody but contributes greatly to their happiness by expressing their love physically. [In cases where this is not so - it is wrong] In the example of the 15 year old they may happy at the time but might regret matters later. We think that before 16 years a person cannot give informed consent.

Thanks

Laurie

*Sin separates us from God.
Are we to pursue our personal happiness at all cost? Is there no restraint?
Do we not need to please God?
Of course, if you do not believe in God you will not feel the need to follow His precepts.
You have already found “mistakes” in the bible.
So if it looks good and feels good - then it is good!

We have been given free will. You have obviously made your choice.

Cinette

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

It is surely reasonable for us to pursue our happiness provided it does not hurt other people.So we certainly should not pursue our own happiness without restraint - we must take others into account too. Now as to what God wants…

**Why would a good God make a rule that does not allow a person to be happy - when that happiness does no harm - indeed it does great good? **

I am not sure if you know any long-term gay couples - I do and they are no different from straight couples in terms of commitment, love, self-sacrifice, devotion etc. Open your eyes!
[Of course some gays are promiscuous but what does that show - loads of straights are too]

Best wishes
Laurie

PS Your end tag ‘love changes everything’ is of course EXACTLY what a gay person would say to you. Are you really saying that you or God is going to deny them love and call it sin? Think about it! Your church MAY be wrong you know - just consider the matter on its own merits for a moment and ask if what you have been taught stands up. Being loyal to your church is fine and admirable but don’t let that blind you to the most important thing there is -LOVE!! All the best.

 

[Cinette]

It is surely reasonable for us to pursue our happiness provided it does not hurt other people.So we certainly should not pursue our own happiness without restraint - we must take others into account too. Now as to what God wants…

**Why would a good God make a rule that does not allow a person to be happy - when that happiness does no harm - indeed it does great good? **

I am not sure if you know any long-term gay couples - I do and they are no different from straight couples in terms of commitment, love, self-sacrifice, devotion etc. Open your eyes!
[Of course some gays are promiscuous but what does that show - loads of straights are too]

Best wishes
Laurie

PS Your end tag ‘love changes everything’ is of course EXACTLY what a gay person would say to you. Are you really saying that you or God is going to deny them love and call it sin? Think about it! Your church MAY be wrong you know - just consider the matter on its own merits for a moment and ask if what you have been taught stands up. Being loyal to your church is fine and admirable but don’t let that blind you to the most important thing there is -LOVE!! All the best.

*The bible tells us not to judge, to leave that to God. We are told to love and to forgive. These are all very sound precepts. I believe you love your daughter and admire people in her group of friends who are also homosexual. It is like me and my friend who is lesbian. She came to see me one day some years ago with the sole purpose of telling me of her lesbianism because she wanted to see how I would react. She came with a close friend who is not lesbian who was also known to me. Of course I reassured her that I was still her friend no matter what.

There is no easy answer here. The priest who started the gay and lesbian group at my parish said they needed support and assurance that they are loved.

Well Laurie - you are a good person and you fight to support those you love. I cannot condone the lifestyle but as you know I just love my lesbian friend also.

God love you
Cinette

 

[camerong]

Hi Camerong.

As I have said before Catholics like yourself start from the teachings of your church conclude that gay sex is wrong. Therefore same sex relationships however good they may seem must be wrong.

Other people, like myself, start with what is before their own eyes - the manifest positive and fulfilling nature of many gay relationships and conclude your church is wrong here.

Fair enough. I certainly respect your position–I held it for a long time. But I wonder if you’re looking too narrowly at the Church.

As you noted, there are two possible ways to go: 1) conclude the Church is right, and follow it on everything, or 2) analyze the Church’s beliefs on everything, and if all of those beliefs match what you happen to believe, then (maybe) believe the Church is right.

I think the second way is fundamentally flawed. Is it not true, that our views on practically everything change drastically over time? Say, for the sake of argument, that Catholics are correct. If everyone analyzed the correctness of Catholicism by the degree to which it matched their own, independently-reached beliefs, no one would be Catholic. I’m not even sure I would today, and certainly not when I joined the Church. On the other hand, if the Church really is correct and divine, wouldn’t we expect that it would hold some positions considerably different from those we would have come up with independently? If God exists, do you really think He would agree with you on everything?

The other perspective is to evaluate the likelihood of the Church being true, based upon its fundamental claims about the reality of the universe, about the historical person of Christ, and about itself. This would take us far off-topic to analyze any of these, but I think you will find that nearly all intelligent converts to Catholicism went this second route. They didn’t look at each social teaching individually, but looked at Christ Himself, and becoming convinced of Christ’s existence as God, they found His authority to speak on moral matters to be obvious.

My point is that while it may be logically sound to reject the Church’s position on homosexuality, it is not sound to reject the Church because of this position. Instead, a better way to evaluate the Church’s position on homosexuality is to consider the Church as a whole, rather than to try to judge an entity which claims to be divine by merely comparing it with your own beliefs.

 

[ladybri77]

It is surely reasonable for us to pursue our happiness provided it does not hurt other people.So we certainly should not pursue our own happiness without restraint - we must take others into account too. Now as to what God wants…

**Why would a good God make a rule that does not allow a person to be happy - when that happiness does no harm - indeed it does great good? **

I am not sure if you know any long-term gay couples - I do and they are no different from straight couples in terms of commitment, love, self-sacrifice, devotion etc. Open your eyes!
[Of course some gays are promiscuous but what does that show - loads of straights are too]

Best wishes
Laurie

PS Your end tag ‘love changes everything’ is of course EXACTLY what a gay person would say to you. Are you really saying that you or God is going to deny them love and call it sin? Think about it! Your church MAY be wrong you know - just consider the matter on its own merits for a moment and ask if what you have been taught stands up. Being loyal to your church is fine and admirable but don’t let that blind you to the most important thing there is -LOVE!! All the best.

We in the Catholic community don’t call having sex with another of the same sex love. As we believe it to be sin, it would be unloving to hurt each other in this way either physically, emotionally or spiritual, yes? Although I think they probably generally care for one another, true love wishes only the best for the other in every aspect of their being.

 

[ladybri77]

*Laurie - “millions of gay couples who have happy and fulfilled lives?” Are you SURE of that? Do you have stats on this?

I doubt that you will find 100 000 in the entire world. Their relationships rarely last. There are but few that do.

You know Laurie - as I read your posting I thought you were describing yourself. You are obsessed with the subject and believe what you want to believe.

Good luck to you

God Bless you - I hope you will find Him
Cinette*

Good point.

 

[Cinette]

*I firmly believe that our Faith is not “a matter of opinion”. “I don’t agree with this teaching or that teaching” It doesn’t make sense. In some circles it is called “Cafetaria Catholic”. The Church was founded by Jesus and he taught us how to be… We either accept or reject - believe or not believe. We just can’t tell God what makes us happy.

We all have a cross to bear. Some people, despite being born with terrible defects like cerebral palsy, manage to accept their lot and persevere and find happiness. I remember once hearing of someone who became quadroplegic through an accident and later said that he had never been so happy in his life. Sounds incredible! But sometimes through suffering we are able to find God in a way we might never have otherwise. Suffering is a huge thing. Some people can endure more than others but it is said that God will never give you a cross you cannot bear.

I know that in trials and tribulations we often grow closer to God. When everything is going fine in our lives we often forget God and it takes a terrible trial to bring us back. After all what is more important in our lives than the path to Eternal Life with God.

I remember watching an interview with a convert to the Catholic Church who had been atheist and homosexual. He was deeply unhappy and struggled with his sexual orientation because it was not satisfying. After his conversion he decided to be celibate - it has not been easy but he is a happier man.

Cinette*

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

You see LADYBRI that when I see the relationship that my daughter has it just seems blindingly obvious that it is good. Of course I may be mistaken but, as I said the moon might be made of green cheese.

If I were a Catholic I would have to conclude that the Church was mistaken about this one matter. Catholics who I know do just that!

Regards

Laurie

 

[davidv]

You see LADYBRI that when I see the relationship that my daughter has it just seems blindingly obvious that it is good. Of course I may be mistaken but, as I said the moon might be made of green cheese.

I see that what you see is seen through the distorted lenses of the lie that homosexual physical contact is not a sin. And as such, what you see is what you want to be, rather than what it really is.

If I were a Catholic I would have to conclude that the Church was mistaken about this one matter. Catholics who I know do just that!

Regards

Laurie

And you would be standing beside many other hypocrits that say one thing (I’m Catholic) but blatantly do something else (disregard Church teaching).

 

[Cinette]

You see LADYBRI that when I see the relationship that my daughter has it just seems blindingly obvious that it is good. Of course I may be mistaken but, as I said the moon might be made of green cheese.

If I were a Catholic I would have to conclude that the Church was mistaken about this one matter. Catholics who I know do just that!

Regards

Laurie

*What would prefer Laurie - that your daughter be in her present relationship or that she have a family and bear little grandchildren for you?

Cinette*