Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debora123 said:
They are both mortal sin if done with full knowledge and consent of the will. One is not worse than the other.

(a side note: sodomy is not a sin between a married couple, as long as the man finishes in the “right place”… sodomy in itself is not a sin)
Click to expand...
Show me the evidence of your last statement.
 
James1215 said:
I think you’re right to point out sometimes it seems that many opinions/arguments are repeated by different posters with apparently little regard for what has already been said. I will try and avoid being guilty of this myself! I reacted haughtily because I thought you had just generalised what ‘my kind’ (atheists…) say about these sorts of things, yet it seemed you were adding nothing by pointing this out, because my post was not to you!

I was clarifying something asked by Mathematoon, but on the issue of expectations of gay/straight people, it just so happens that gay people face a much more long-term requirement than married straight people. Clearly this fact can be acknowledged without an implicit value assertion.
Click to expand...
Two things. First, do you see that little gray button down to the lower right in this post. down there. see it? It says Quote? now use it! 😛 LOL

Second, I do not agree with this statement of yours:
on the issue of expectations of gay/straight people, it just so happens that gay people face a much more long-term requirement than married straight people.
Click to expand...
well, let me back up. You threw in the word “married” which totally changes the dynamic of our discussion. What **I ** compared was 2 people, identical in all respects, except that one was attracted to those of the same sex and one was attracted to those of opposite sex. Both unmarried, both the same age, both the same gender, both Catholic. You added the condition of “married”.

Let’s break this down, shall we?

Ann is 40 years old, single, never married, straight, Catholic.
Beth is 40 years old, single, never married, attracted sexually to other females, Catholic.
Cathy is 40 years old, single, married, Catholic

All three women are called to chastity.

Cathy, because she is married, can morally engage in sex with her husband.

Ann and Beth are both called to chastity in exactly the same way. Neither can be sexually active. Period. Ann might fall in love with a man and get married. Beth might fall in love with a man and get married.

Ann might NEVER find the right man. She might DIE at the ripe old age of 92 without ever having been married. Same with Beth.

On the other hand, Beth might fall in love with a man by the grace of God and get married and live happily ever after.

There is NOTHING special or unique about the call to chastity for any human being. the chastity might last 6 months or 60 years. no one knows the future.
 
Michelle, I take your valid points, but the fact I was trying to state remains nevertheless.

While you say that ‘There is NOTHING special or unique about the call to chastity for any human being’ there are undeniable systematic differences between gay and straight people on the very issue of chastity.

Whereas a straight person MAY marry someone of the opposite sex in future and hence break the condition for moral restraint, a gay person will NEVER do the same. This can be stated value-free, but I brought it up originally to question whether the apparent equality of treatment of all sinners matched the equality of discipline they are required to show.
 
buffalo said:
How are risky behavior health care costs not born by taxpayers or insurance members?
Click to expand...
I was speaking as a tax-payer, ie as a citizen who has a tiny say over the government’s spending. So in terms of spending our financial/political capital how we please, it is a moot point!
 
James1215 said:
question whether the apparent equality of treatment of all sinners matched the equality of discipline they are required to show.
Click to expand...
I think that I understand you to be saying this: some people appear to need more discipline to adhere to the moral code of conduct. If this is what you are saying, then the problem is that you are using subjective standards.

If I broke my leg and you broke your arm, it would be irrational for someone to come along and say that I was suffering more pain than you just because my leg is longer than your arm.

There are Saints who, when on this earth and fully mortal, threw themselves into briar patches and icy water to combat satan’s fleshly temptations. do you seriously argue that because those were OSA they were somehow less than SSA temptations?

In your attempts to justify homosexuality, you’ve boxed yourself into a corner of saying that chastity is easy for heterosexuals. I dare you go find 10 devout Catholic men who are single and ask them how easy their chastity is.
 
TimothyH said:
You are reading too much into the Catechism, things which it does not say.

The Catechism does not say that it is not a choice. It simply says that the reason why some experience same sex attraction is UNEXPLAINED. A “Condition” refers to a status, or a state. “Condition” does not refer to the cause of the status or state. A condition, status or state can be chosen or caused by something outside of one’s control

I’m not arguing the cause of homosexuality and prefer not to engage in such a discussion. I am however, challenging your intepretation of the Catechism. The words in the Catechsim do not state that it is not a choice. They state that the reason is simply unexplained.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
It is not MY interpretation of the Catechism, it is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Ask any knowledgeable Catholic if we, as Catholics, believe that gay people CHOOSE to be attracted to a person of the same sex. Really, ask an apologist or something. Or maybe your priest. And then you can get back to me again.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Show me the evidence of your last statement.
Click to expand...
Show me Catholic evidence against it (and I don’t mean some old testament story in the bible). Sodomy is OK as foreplay… as is oral sex and mutual masturbation. It’s gross, but it’s not a sin.
 
Debora123 said:
Show me Catholic evidence against it (and I don’t mean some old testament story in the bible). Sodomy is OK as foreplay… as is oral sex and mutual masturbation. It’s gross, but it’s not a sin.
Click to expand...
Where you got these ideas, I’d really like to know! But here is some evidence from: catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm

Possible mortal sins:

Abortion,
Anger,
Adulterers,
Amending the words of the Holy Bible,
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (Eternal sin)
Carousing,
Cowards,
Defrauders,
Dissensions,
Disrespect towards parents,
Drunkenness,
Enmities,
Envy,
Factions,
Faithless,
False witness (liars)
Fornicators,
Greed,
Holy Communion received while in a state of mortal sin,
Idolatry,
Impurity,
Jealousy,
Licentiousness,
Love and practice falsehoods,
Male prostitution,
Murderers,
Polluted,
Quarrelling,
Sodomites,
Sorcery,
Strife,
Thieves (steal/robbers).
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Where you got these ideas, I’d really like to know! But here is some evidence from: catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm

Possible mortal sins:

Abortion,
Anger,
Adulterers,
Amending the words of the Holy Bible,
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (Eternal sin)
Carousing,
Cowards,
Defrauders,
Dissensions,
Disrespect towards parents,
Drunkenness,
Enmities,
Envy,
Factions,
Faithless,
False witness (liars)
Fornicators,
Greed,
Holy Communion received while in a state of mortal sin,
Idolatry,
Impurity,
Jealousy,
Licentiousness,
Love and practice falsehoods,
Male prostitution,
Murderers,
Polluted,
Quarrelling,
Sodomites,
Sorcery,
Strife,
Thieves (steal/robbers).
Click to expand...
I think this was referring to homosexual acts. I will ask an apologist to make sure, but I’ve always heard that like oral sex, anal sex is fine as long as the man finishes in the right place.

So far, I’ve found this:

saint-mike.org/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=101
 
James1215 said:
N2 and Buffalo - as we’re talking about our own money, this is a moot point!
Click to expand...
James1215 said:
I was speaking as a tax-payer, ie as a citizen who has a tiny say over the government’s spending. So in terms of spending our financial/political capital how we please, it is a moot point!
Click to expand...
So even collectively, it doesn’t bother you that you are presently and will be so more in the future forced to pay higher taxes for the ill health of people that engage in high-risk or blatently unhealthy behavior?

Joe Blow decides to ride his motorcycle without a helmet. He gets into an accident and has a closed head injury, which let’s say in his case would not have happened if he had worn one. Private and government subsidized insurance pays, then passes the cost on to other subscribers and taxpayers…i.e. you and I.

This doesn’t bother you? Really? You must have coin to spare.
 
Maybe this cost is not relayed to literally you and me, because I live in the UK and you may well be American? That’s only to say I’d be paying tax, not insurance .

The difference is that I think people should have gay sex, but not ride their bike without a helmet. In terms of government revenue use/taxation, I need only give a personal preference or secular arguments. To save the digression, I’ll leave it as my personal preference.
 
James1215 said:
Maybe this cost is not relayed to literally you and me, because I live in the UK and you may well be American? That’s only to say I’d be paying tax, not insurance .

The difference is that I think people should have gay sex, but not ride their bike without a helmet. In terms of government revenue use/taxation, I need only give a personal preference or secular arguments. To save the digression, I’ll leave it as my personal preference.
Click to expand...
The cost of deviant and/or risky behavior is born by everyone both economically and socially.
 
michelleds said:
I think that I understand you to be saying this: some people appear to need more discipline to adhere to the moral code of conduct. If this is what you are saying, then the problem is that you are using subjective standards.

If I broke my leg and you broke your arm, it would be irrational for someone to come along and say that I was suffering more pain than you just because my leg is longer than your arm.

There are Saints who, when on this earth and fully mortal, threw themselves into briar patches and icy water to combat satan’s fleshly temptations. do you seriously argue that because those were OSA they were somehow less than SSA temptations?

In your attempts to justify homosexuality, you’ve boxed yourself into a corner of saying that chastity is easy for heterosexuals. I dare you go find 10 devout Catholic men who are single and ask them how easy their chastity is.
Click to expand...
No, I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. What I was saying was simply that all things being equal, having to wait for a period before sex is defined as not a sin is easier than being told your desire for sex will forever remain unfulfilled, unless you want to go to Hell.
 
If there is an equality of regard for people based on the view that ‘we are all prone to sexual sin’, I was questioning whether there is an equality of treatment.
 
But whether it is good or bad to provide healthcare in this situation is reflective of one’s view of society. Democracy as a form of politics recognises that citizens have many different views of the way society should be, and allows multiple voices - yours and mine too.
 
James1215 said:
But whether it is good or bad to provide healthcare in this situation is reflective of one’s view of society. Democracy as a form of politics recognises that citizens have many different views of the way society should be, and allows multiple voices - yours and mine too.
Click to expand...
Society works for the common good, not the exceptions.
 
Debora123 said:
I think this was referring to homosexual acts. I will ask an apologist to make sure, but I’ve always heard that like oral sex, anal sex is fine as long as the man finishes in the right place.

So far, I’ve found this:

saint-mike.org/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=101
Click to expand...
As far as I’m concerned, sodomy is anal penetration. In any case it certainly doesn’t sound very safe or healthy to be going from the anus into the vagina. Nasty infections come to mind. And it certainly is against nature, which is, in my mind, against God, which equals sin.
 
James1215 said:
Maybe this cost is not relayed to literally you and me, because I live in the UK and you may well be American? That’s only to say I’d be paying tax, not insurance .

.
Click to expand...
That could very well be. Across the pond here, most of us working folks get hit with both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top