Homosexual sex acts are instrinsically disordered. Persons who have same sex attraction can live chastely and fully participate in the Church and Sacraments.I think homosexuality is against the church…?
Yes, we will encounter friends, family members, co-workers, etc, who have SSA. If they are living an active homosexual lifestyle, it’s important to separate the person from their sinful actions. It is not “wrong” to have friendships with persons who have SSA. It would be wrong, however, to condone their behavior if they are actively engaging in same sex relationships. It would also be wrong to go to or support “gay” oriented businesses with them or “gay” promoting events such as “gay pride” type events. It is always important to share the truth of Christ.My real question is what about having a friend who is a homosexual?
It is not inherently wrong to watch at TV show that has a “gay” person on the show. It depends on many factors including that person’s activities (are they actively campaigning for immoral causes, for example). Are the portraying immoral activities on the show?Or watching someone on tv who is…Rosie odonnell. Is that considered a sin?
Interesting. It appears that you are not Catholic?Catholic take on this: Yes living a homosexual life style is wrong. But love the sinner so yes you can watch all of those brilliant shows like Will And Grace.
My non religious take on this: No homosexuals and there actions (sex-wise as long as it isn’t rape or anything along those lines) are not sinful there people just like you and they were made like that.
Yet the phenomenon of homosexuality, if equated with same sex attraction, has been and always will be in existence. Simply wishing it away or even praying it away does nothing. Granted, homosexual behavior is unhealthy but there is nothing wrong with same sex attraction. It’s all a matter of definition. As I stated in another thread one can legitimately be a homosexual w/o actually committing any sexual sin.Fr Benedict Groeschel made an interesting comment about homosexuality a couple weeks ago.
He is a Ph.D. psychologist as well as a priest.
He says that “homosexuality” wasn’t defined as a “thing” until Sigmund Freud came along.
Stop and think about it, we’re all under Freud’s fog of thinking, aren’t we? Before then, and for a long time, homosexuality was known only as behaviors.
Do we really owe Freud any thanks for prejudicing us about what homosexuality is? did he make a fundamental discovery? He also made homosexuality something scientific rather than something purely in the realm of morality.
Think of it like this…people are hypocritical perhaps not all (actually I’m sure theres a lot of people HERE who are not) but well a personal experience from me is I got into a HUGE argument with a friend him claiming my bisexuality was wrong because gay sex cannot lead to reproduction then he admitted that he masturbates about once a day almost humorous if he didn’t piss me off so much at the time.I have a bit of a problem and maybe someone can halp with my apologetics.
One of the reasons why same sex marriage is considered immoral because it goes against the normal order. A man and woman are needed to form another human being. Same sex marriages have no way of producing children in a “natural” way. OK, this makes sense, but this is where I get into a bit of trouble. What if a woman had her uterus removed for a medical reasons. She cannot produce children. This can be used to show that homosexual marriage is ok. If I say that she is not able to chose to not have her uterus out, then it can be countered with the fact that homosexuals also cannot chose.
HOw can we show others that homosexual marriage is wrong? Maybe using a more biological way rather then a moral/Biblical argument.
Masturbation is a sin. Your sexuality, by itself, is not a sin. It’s what you do with your sexuality that can be sinful.Think of it like this…people are hypocritical perhaps not all (actually I’m sure theres a lot of people HERE who are not) but well a personal experience from me is I got into a HUGE argument with a friend him claiming my bisexuality was wrong because gay sex cannot lead to reproduction then he admitted that he masturbates about once a day almost humorous if he didn’t piss me off so much at the time.
I agree that that is the catholic take on it but the other person seemed to phrase it as if the sexuality is the sin.Masturbation is a sin. Your sexuality, by itself, is not a sin. It’s what you do with your sexuality that can be sinful.
A woman with her uterus removed who is having sex with her husband is still using her body the way God designed it. Men and women’s bodies are designed the way they are for a reason. Man and woman fit together. Woman and woman, man and man do not fit together. That is not the way God designed us.I have a bit of a problem and maybe someone can halp with my apologetics.
One of the reasons why same sex marriage is considered immoral because it goes against the normal order. A man and woman are needed to form another human being. Same sex marriages have no way of producing children in a “natural” way. OK, this makes sense, but this is where I get into a bit of trouble. What if a woman had her uterus removed for a medical reasons. She cannot produce children. This can be used to show that homosexual marriage is ok. If I say that she is not able to chose to not have her uterus out, then it can be countered with the fact that homosexuals also cannot chose.
HOw can we show others that homosexual marriage is wrong? Maybe using a more biological way rather then a moral/Biblical argument.
The primary purpose of marriage is to insure that any child born has two reponsible parents, a mother and a father, who are committed to that child and to eachother. It is NOT to force people to have children but rather to guarantee that if children are born, this environment is provided. When two people marry, regardless of whether a child is planned or whether they know for sure that they are able to have children, they are participating in activity which CAN produce children. A woman who may have had a hysterectomy is stil engaging in procreative activity, whether she bears a child or not. THAT is what the state’s interest is in marriage.What if a woman had her uterus removed for a medical reasons. She cannot produce children. This can be used to show that homosexual marriage is ok. If I say that she is not able to chose to not have her uterus out, then it can be countered with the fact that homosexuals also cannot chose.
HOw can we show others that homosexual marriage is wrong? Maybe using a more biological way rather then a moral/Biblical argument.
If a woman entered into a marriage before her uterus was removed, and went in with the intent to be truly married, which includes intending to have children, and if she chose to have her uterus removed for an acceptable reason, then she is still married. Once married, always married.One of the reasons why same sex marriage is considered immoral because it goes against the normal order. A man and woman are needed to form another human being. Same sex marriages have no way of producing children in a “natural” way. OK, this makes sense, but this is where I get into a bit of trouble. What if a woman had her uterus removed for a medical reasons. She cannot produce children. This can be used to show that homosexual marriage is ok. If I say that she is not able to chose to not have her uterus out, then it can be countered with the fact that homosexuals also cannot chose.
How can we show others that homosexual marriage is wrong? Maybe using a more biological way rather then a moral/Biblical argument.
What is your conclusion, I may be missing it. Is it that if someone says what is right, but commits sin, that what they say is right, is actually wrong? Saying what is right, but not doing it, is not hypocritical. Unless you suggest that all sinners are hypocrits, which would mean that we are all hypocrits by definition of us all being sinners. But, you say that we are not all hypocrits. Now you have me really confused about what you were trying to say.Think of it like this…people are hypocritical perhaps not all (actually I’m sure theres a lot of people HERE who are not) but well a personal experience from me is I got into a HUGE argument with a friend him claiming my bisexuality was wrong because gay sex cannot lead to reproduction then he admitted that he masturbates about once a day almost humorous if he didn’t **** me off so much at the time.
Not true. At least according to the Catholic Church. Marriage has two primary purposes. The creation of new human life, and for the salvation of the spouses. Ensuring that two responsible parents is not primary, but flows naturally from the other two. Marriage does not force people to have children much is the same way that remaining single does not force you to have sex. But it is not possible to get married without intending to have children. This would be disordered. Succeeding is not necessary, but intending is. But considering your last statement, perhaps what you way is true considering a civil perspective. However not true in the real sense.The primary purpose of marriage is to insure that any child born has two reponsible parents, a mother and a father, who are committed to that child and to eachother. It is NOT to force people to have children but rather to guarantee that if children are born, this environment is provided. When two people marry, regardless of whether a child is planned or whether they know for sure that they are able to have children, they are participating in activity which CAN produce children. A woman who may have had a hysterectomy is stil engaging in procreative activity, whether she bears a child or not. THAT is what the state’s interest is in marriage.
There is nothing morally wrong with SSA in itself. However, this does not logically imply that SSA is “healthy”. A predominant SSA is an indicator of an underlying psychological disorder.Granted, homosexual behavior is unhealthy but there is nothing wrong with same sex attraction. It’s all a matter of definition.
It is helpful to distiguish the person from their disoredered sexual attraction, i.e., “one can legitimately be a person with a homosexual attraction w/o …”. IMO, this helps to keep distinct the disordered attraction from the dignity of the person made in God’s image and likeness, as in one would not go about declaring themself to be a “bipolar” personage. A fine but significant distinction that can too easily get lost add to the confusion and agenda of the pro-gay activists.As I stated in another thread one can legitimately be a homosexual w/o actually committing any sexual sin.
Marriage does not force people to have children much is the same way that remaining single does not force you to not have sex. (What is right is not always what we choose.)
Dan