How should a Catholic respond to growing evidence against church teachings on LGBT parenting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrettK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Though they part ways on one element. I am assuming the teachings of Jesus Christ as we find in the Bible is your guide to Christian principles.
Click to expand...
Jesus never actually mentions anything about gender identity or sexual orientation.
Rau said:
I don’t know what that expression means. If it means “see same sex sexual relationships as consistent with the Christian vision of marriage” - I’d suggest that’s a mistake.
Click to expand...
The Bible never condemns same-sex relationships and neither does Jesus.
 
TheBomb.Com said:
Jesus never actually mentions anything about gender identity or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
Jesus also never forbade genocide.

However, there are plenty of passages in the Bible (including Jesus’ own words) that forbid sexual expression outside of marriage (man and woman)
 
Same-sex parents can raise a child within the christian faith and impart the moral values in the same way
Rau said:
He spoke about marriage. Man & woman. There is no wrong in one feeling sexually attracted to a person of the same sex.
Click to expand...
He spoke about one form of marriage. This does not mean there aren’t other expressions of marriage that aren’t immoral.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
Jesus also never forbade genocide.
Click to expand...
He actually does when he commands us to love our neighbor. The Law condemns it as well: “Thou shall not kill.”
 
Last edited:
TheBomb.Com said:
Jesus never actually mentions anything about gender identity or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “mention”? That he doesn’t give an explicit sermon about it? This takes us down a path of absurdity. There also isn’t an explicit mentioning of rape, among many other things.

Besides which, that’s not true. Jesus affirms the existence of the sexes and the exclusive union between male and female.

Matthew 19: 1-12
And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan; and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery. The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry. But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The Christian denominations which have abandoned this teaching are committing a grave sin and they are leading other people into grave sin.
 
Last edited:
TheBomb.Com said:
He spoke about one form of marriage. This does not mean there aren’t other expressions of marriage that aren’t immoral.
Click to expand...
I see, Jesus simply forgot to mention the other forms and on any occasion he did address marriage it just happened to be man+woman. :roll_eyes:
 
You seem to have messed up that post as I don’t say what it says I did…
 
When responding to growing scientific evidence against Catholic Church Teaching on any issue, a Catholic should first remember that the “science” in question is most likely founded on finite livelihood. Since Church Teaching concerns herself with infinite livelihood, we should know we are preaching a contradictory message to “science.”

Second, as Catholics we should offer up the removal of logs in our own eyes to God for the wisdom to help remove the speck from their eyes.
 
TheBomb.Com said:
He spoke about one form of marriage. This does not mean there aren’t other expressions of marriage that aren’t immoral.
Click to expand...
What are you basing this on? What Biblical/early Christian teaching? Can you provide links?
 
Jesus talks about divorce here. I’m not sure why you mentioned. Never does he say, “Marriage exists ONLY between one man and one woman.” This is just it’s traditional form.
 
TK421 said:
For the minority of homosexual couples who adopt a child, I do know off the top of my head that they are vastly higher in the economic and social ladder compared to the average, and so that makes comparisons between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. Did these studies control for that?

I was also thinking that hetero couples tend to just…have children regardless of circumstances. Accidental or planned. While gay couples who adopt would have to go through a process so that they can be deemed as good parents before having a child (like straight couples who adopt). Would this be another factor as well? One would think they would factor all of this in.

I don’t think a child would definitely be messed up with gay parents (or at least not more than straight parents with similar circumstances) , but i do wonder how the data is being collected
 
Last edited:
That’s like having murderous parents tell their kids not to steal while still normalizing the kids to murder.

Same story here, they are murdering their souls in a sense and the kids grow up normalized to it which in turn damages their souls.
 
Last edited:
Lea101 said:
That’s a good point. Did these studies control for that?

I was also thinking that hetero couples tend to just…have children regardless of circumstances. Accidental or planned. While gay couples who adopt would have to go through a process so that they can be deemed as good parents before having a child (like straight couples who adopt). Would this be another factor as well? One would think they would factor all of this in.
Click to expand...
Not if they have A) an agenda, and B) are afraid.

The statistics for destructive behavior among practicing homosexuals is overwhelming. Homosexuals that adopt children are a highly selective group and these couples wouldn’t even be allowed to adopt if they failed to meet a long list of criteria, which makes comparison between heterosexual couples and the modern homosexual marriage experiment absurd.

This all gets swept under the rug because the APA consists of frail human beings that are every bit as desirous to fit in and to be respected and liked as anybody else. It’s a sham that lacks the academic rigor that once existed, and that is one reason among many why the wealthy West is on a slow march of decline and being replaced by betters.
 
Last edited:
This entire thread is basically ”science says same-sex parenting is fine and same-sex relationships are normal so get off your high horse and stop saying it’s a sin you Catholics.”

Forgive me if I feel targeted for being Catholic on a Catholic forum with this thread
 
KMC said:
So what is your take on Matthew 19:4-6?
Click to expand...
God indeed created both males and females. However, we evolved to have at least 5 biological sexes.
KMC said:
Leviticus 18:22?
Click to expand...
That verse doesn’t condemn homosexuality. It condemns pederasty in the original hebrew. Even if it meant what you thought it meant, what would that mean for lesbians?
KMC said:
Romans1:26-27?
Click to expand...
This is a reference to shrine prostitution actually.
KMC said:
1 Cor 6:9-10?
Click to expand...
The word “arsenokoitai” does not translate into homosexual.
KMC said:
1 Tim 1:9-10?
Click to expand...
“Malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” are not references to homosexuality.
Rau said:
I see, Jesus simply forgot to mention the other forms and on any occasion he did address marriage it just happened to be man+woman. :roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
What’s so hard to understand about this? Same-sex marriage was not the norm in that part of the ancient world.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
What are you basing this on? What Biblical/early Christian teaching? Can you provide links?
Click to expand...
I’m basing this on the original greek translations of the Bible. The word “homosexual” didn’t even appear in the Bible until 1946. Martin Luther himself, a raging homophobe, did not translate the “clobber passages” to condemn homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top