"It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." (Luke 17:1-2)
It is true that sometimes posters are not clear about whom they are dicussing, but overall *the Church *teaches not that homosexuals need to be put “in their place” but instead treated as we treat others, no differently.
It is hard to grasp, esp when one is looking at it from a point of disagreement.
I’d like to respond, but don’t want to waste any time if you’re just being sarcastic. Are you interested in knowing what the Catholic Church teaches or are you just trolling?
Trolling? No. Sarcastic? Perhaps a bit.
If Catholic teaching was fully dependent on Leviticus you might have a point. But is isn’t.Trolling? No. Sarcastic? Perhaps a bit.
I find it hypocritical to point to Leviticus in order to label homosexuality as an abomination, and then simply decide (or declare) that the other parts of Leviticus no longer apply. As I see it, it’s all in or it’s all out, can’t have it both ways.
PS… With your post count, don’t think you count as a newbie anymore. Just sayin.
The same thing you would say if I point to a Steven King novel as evidence that their’s nothing wrong with it. That the chapters and verses you quoted were merely the opinions of (a) man (or perhaps woman). I do not believe that books written by man are divinely inspired. (Note: ‘Steven King novel’ is merely a hypothetical example, I don’t know that he writes about homosexuality at all, much less endorses it, so please don’t argue that.)
‘Natural Law’ as I’ve seen it described, opposes homosexuality because they cannot reproduce, and the ‘purpose’ of the genitals is reproduction. However, I believe that sex for the sake of recreation is a legitimate and ‘Natural’ use of the genitals, too, ergo the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce is irrelevant. I cannot reproduce, well, my wife cannot, yet we have sex just for thrills.
I think you’re confusing right and wrong with how such is punished.Trolling? No. Sarcastic? Perhaps a bit.
I find it hypocritical to point to Leviticus in order to label homosexuality as an abomination, and then simply decide (or declare) that the other parts of Leviticus no longer apply. As I see it, it’s all in or it’s all out, can’t have it both ways.
PS… With your post count, don’t think you count as a newbie anymore. Just sayin.
I owe no allegiance to St. Paul, nor do I understand why you think you (and the rest of us) do. He was just some dude that lived (and died) thousands of years ago, and his proclamations carry no more weight to me than does something a pharaoh might have said around the same time.
What is the purpose of your questions? if you did some research, esp on the last point or question you “asked” ; this has been explained and expounded on by prominent Jewish and Christian theologians, not to mention from very knowledgeable people on these boards… The fact that you don’t like or agree with their conclusions is irrelevant to what faithful Catholics believe. That old saw has been an old strawman argument used to shut down legitimate debate on this issue before.
So by what moral standard do you hold yourself to if you do not believe in Inspired Scripture or Sacred Tradition? I sure hope you are not going to tell me your own conscience.
You can only make that argument if you reject sex for pleasure as legitimate. Other than religious reasons, I see no ‘Natural’ reason to reject recreational sex. When having recreational sex, whatever is pleasurable is natural, for if procreation is not your intent, you need not be limited to PIV sex.
Sorry, meant to answer this too, was a bit too quick on the release.
I often wonder how some homosexual sex can be considered “pleasure”. It must be extremely painful for one party. Not natural.
Not to mention the amount of anal reconstruction procedures.
While I can’t speak to that from personal experience (other than to say my wife genuinely enjoys it from time to time), it’s irrelevant to the points at hand.
your “butt” is basically a one-way check valve not a sexual organ. You harm it’s function by engaging in the non-natural act. Slice and dice it all you want, from a scientific veiw, anal sex is not natural
A: You haven’t established that, merely declared it.
St. Paul’s writings are a part of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church holds Sacred Scripture as…well…Sacred. I am a Catholic Christian. I don’t owe St. Paul any “allegiance” per se, but as he was the author of a good part of the New Testament and the Catholic Church, of which I am a part believes his writings to be divinely inspired, I take his writings as if directly from God.
