How to explain why homosexuality is sinful?

[Amandil]

But since you asked, and since I now have the time, here is your analysis:

Sochi:

…as the “sin” label is part of the Church’s doctrine only, and pretty sketchy one at that.

“quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…”

Sochi:

People of any religion necessarily have to view through the lens of their belief, or have to change. It is far easier to keep believing. In that case, remember, it is your belief, not fact, or even natural law.

Which must also be necessarily for your “religion” or “belief” system in regard to this statement. So it seems rather your own beliefs commit intellectual suicide.

Sochi:

So good idea to keep the “sin” idea to yourself, until you can get over it. Homosexuality turns up statistically in human and many other populations to some percentage or other.

There are all sorts of self-destructive behaviors which “turns up statistically in human and many other populations”(which begs the question about what “populations” you are referring to) which are known to be objectively immoral. Your Kinsey-an approach to human sexuality commits a post hoc fallacy as well the naturalistic(ought from is) fallacy.

Sochi:

Being against homosexuality may have for some some pretty deep emotional roots, but it is a learned reaction, not natural at all.

Absurd. The abhorrence of homosexual acts stems from the same roots as pedophilia, pederasty, bestiality, etc; the natural moral law we received from God. The existence of such perverse acts is not the fact of nature but the presence of sin related to fallen creation.

Sochi:

So it may be fun or self referentially satisfying to bash homosexuality with counter productive religious ideas, whether christianist or muslim or whatever.

Yes, because Christians care nothing about anyone, nothing about virtue, and only about their own personal self-satisfaction. Looks like someone is attributing his own malice towards others, blindly measuring others according to his own scales.

Sochi:

But the stigma of homosexuality is a totally artificial one concocted by people not mature enough to handle the natural varieties of attraction found among humans. (Some say there are in fact at least twelve gender orientations, as outlined in a book I’m very sorry I can’t find any more.)

Naturalistic (ought-is) fallacy.

What is concocted is the idea that you propose when the truth is that the practice almost always come before the theory; moral sensualism precedes epistemological sensualism.

There’s nothing new under the sun, man has been rationalizing for sin since the beginning of his existence.

Sochi:

There have been societies that completely accepted, or even honored, their homosexuals.

Oh, you mean like Greece? Rome? Where are those societies now?

Sochi:

Of course, like any portion of the populations, even ministers, rabbis, and priests, there have been saints and sinners. But that is not a function of orientation but something else.

The “orientation” is a symptom of the illness which is sin, which in this case is the sin of lust, which is the function which produces any disordered sexual behavior. The reason why societies fall is because they institutionalized sin, created structures for sin to flourish.

Sochi:

Homosexuals of either gender (or any) have enough to trouble them without moralizing religionists of any denomination heaping guilt or worse on them when there is no actual need, other than the emotional immaturity of the pot stirring fear oriented homophobes.

Please spare us. With the overwhelming presence of depression, drug abuse, and suicide among homosexuals, even “out-of-the-closet” homosexuals, its more and more clear that their “orientation” is not the solution to their problem, nor is the “pot-stirring fear-oriented homophobes” the cause of it.

More and more studies are showing that people who engage in homosexual acts only find themselves in deeper emotional depression and/or distress because they believed that being homosexual would solve all their problems when rather they find themselves more and more isolated and empty. But because people like you keep feeding them the lie that they’re “ok” just as they are with your Kinsey-an/Freudian ideals you do more harm than good.

Sochi:

Here’s an idea: if anyone feels it is so easy, go and be a homosexual for a week or a month.

Here’s an idea, why don’t you take your own advice and do your own experiment and do crack-cocaine for a week, or a month, or even a year?

What you fail to realize is that however addictive some of the most powerful drugs that exist are(such as crack-cocaine), sin is even more so.

Sochi:

Some people think it is just a matter of a decision to change behavior.

I don’t know who you think “some people” are, but no one here has said any such thing.

Sochi:

Good luck! It’s your life. You can make barriers or impartially Love, as does God. Just remember, there is not one faith on Earth where God has not in some way been made into a puppet for the private thoughts of someone, or groups of someones, less in stature than the Deity.

Impartial love also means being discriminatory against falsehoods and lies, because you don’t lie to people who you claim to love. You don’t tell people who are destroying themselves physically, emotionally, and spiritually that they’re “ok” just how they are, unless you want to be Jack Kevorkian.

Jesus I know said something about those who cause others to sin or support those in sin, it had something to do with millstones.

 

[Amandil]

I see you are a fan of Samuel Clemens: “The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.” So no need in my case for other than name calling. Suits. Good job, and again, thanks for your unflagging support.

Which is another way of saying: “I really have nothing of substance so I’m just going to attack you.”

Words such as yours are so full of empty air its really no problem to “support them”; I’ll hold them up for all to seem them for the falsehoods and absurdities that they are.

 

[Sochi]

Which is another way of saying: “I really have nothing of substance so I’m just going to attack you.”

Words such as yours are so full of empty air its really no problem to “support them”; I’ll hold them up for all to seem them for the falsehoods and absurdities that they are.

Again, thank you for your invaluable support.

 

[Amandil]

Again, thank you for your invaluable support.

Again, nothing of substance.

You’re welcome.

 

[Sochi]

Amandil, I have no argument with you in that yo believe what you do at this time. What bothers me, in general, is that the nature of most religions is that they arrive at a final and adamantine principles which they,as an institution, will not go beyond at any cost. That, especial for their members, is potentially, well, not useful, to say the least.

 

[Amandil]

Amandil, I have no argument with you in that yo believe what you do at this time. What bothers me, in general, is that the nature of most religions is that they arrive at a final and adamantine principles which they,as an institution, will not go beyond at any cost. That, especial for their members, is potentially, well, not useful, to say the least.

Are you presupposing that religion or morality is limited to pragmatic theory of truth(i.e. truth is “what works”)?

 

[Sochi]

Are you presupposing that religion or morality is limited to pragmatic theory of truth(i.e. truth is “what works”)?

This is off thread, but relevant in that the views on here are primarily christainist. No, I feel, if I understand you correctly, that religion is anything but pragmatic, even and in some cases especially in spirituality, in which it is, form my perspective, in the same camp as atheism and science. At least science has the grace to understand that it is a methodology, and not a final result. If religion had that flexibility, there would be, in my opinion, far more consideration of possible explorations into who and what it is that “has” religion and why, and less tenet and dogmatism, which in my book is just Phariseeism in the guise of Christ worship.

 

[kittensrule]

Is your friend Catholic? If not, don’t bother, as the “sin” label is part of the Church’s doctrine only, and pretty sketchy one at that. People of any religion necessarily have to view through the lens of their belief, or have to change. It is far easier to keep believing. In that case, remember, it is your belief, not fact, or even natural law. So good idea to keep the “sin” idea to yourself, until you can get over it. Homosexuality turns up statistically in human and many other populations to some percentage or other. Being against homosexuality may have for some some pretty deep emotional roots, but it is a learned reaction, not natural at all. Ask any kid who is part of a family with same sex parents.

So it may be fun or self referentially satisfying to bash homosexuality with counter productive religious ideas, whether christianist or muslim or whatever. But the stigma of homosexuality is a totally artificial one concocted by people not mature enough to handle the natural varieties of attraction found among humans. (Some say there are in fact at least twelve gender orientations, as outlined in a book I’m very sorry I can’t find any more.) There have been societies that completely accepted, or even honored, their homosexuals. Of course, like any portion of the populations, even ministers, rabbis, and priests, there have been saints and sinners. But that is not a function of orientation but something else. Homosexuals of either gender (or any) have enough to trouble them without moralizing religionists of any denomination heaping guilt or worse on them when there is no actual need, other than the emotional immaturity of the pot stirring fear oriented homophobes.

Here’s an idea: if anyone feels it is so easy, go and be a homosexual for a week or a month. Some people think it is just a matter of a decision to change behavior. If so it ought be no trouble for you to be a homosexual for a while. Cool. That means it can go the other way too. Really. Go be a genuine homosexual for a while and see what it is about. Then you might have a partial ground for saying something other than what is a knee jerk reaction that was learned and is reinforced by others who also don’t know–other than that someone taught them, just like racism, or prejudice against another faith. Fortunately, some people are getting real about this, as communication is opening up to some extent, and ignorance is being dissipated to some degree.

Good luck! It’s your life. You can make barriers or impartially Love, as does God. Just remember, there is not one faith on Earth where God has not in some way been made into a puppet for the private thoughts of someone, or groups of someones, less in stature than the Deity.

(sorry for the late reply)
Um, so you’re basically telling me I’m judgmental and that I don’t know anything? And no, I would not like to become a homosexual for a month, thanks. If I was judgmental, she wouldn’t be my friend.

 

[Sochi]

(sorry for the late reply)
Um, so you’re basically telling me I’m judgmental and that I don’t know anything? And no, I would not like to become a homosexual for a month, thanks. If I was judgmental, she wouldn’t be my friend.

No problem. here are many reasons in many directions for “late” replies of even dropping the ball.

Well, you clearly “know” a lot. And I do believe you are very sincere in your belief. And of course, since you are friends, you aren’t judgmental about her except you believe that her homosexuality is a sin. Why? The church teaches that in itself it isn’t. How could it be? That’s not a choice someone makes. That is why I suggested the attempt to make it. You can’t choose to be homosexual even if you faked it, because you aren’t.

But why ask the Church or anyone on here how to explain something? Why don’t you just ask your friend what it’s *really *like to be in her shoes, and listen to your heart, the one you had before you thought you are a Catholic? That’s all.

 

[RosslynV]

Sochi is here for comic relief. Guess these forums would be boring if we all thought alike.

But when “Catholics” such as Sochi have such beliefs contrary to Church teaching, it is my hope they abstain from Communion!

 

[kittensrule]

No problem. here are many reasons in many directions for “late” replies of even dropping the ball.

No, actually the reason for my “late reply” was because I haven’t been on the forum as much anymore and I’ve been very busy.

 

[Sochi]

No, actually the reason for my “late reply” was because I haven’t been on the forum as much anymore and I’ve been very busy.

Good reason!

 

[kittensrule]

Good reason!

I don’t appreciate the sarcasm. This is supposed to be a friendly environment.

 

[dmar198]

I don’t appreciate the sarcasm. This is supposed to be a friendly environment.

I really don’t think he was being sarcastic. I know I stop posting sometimes even when not doing so could look like dropping the ball to some people, so I don’t think that’s what people are doing when they stop replying. Sometimes I just get sick of posting. There’s no netiquette rule that says you have to respond all the time.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I find that the postings of Sochi are troubling in that he believes the world is the generator of truth. (at least what I can surmise from his postings). We as Catholics follow the revelation of God who has made himself known over time. God is all knowing and is the giver of all of life. Therefore I and others follow what is good and holy knowing that is what is best for us and His creation. There are many things we can believe about life but only what has been revealed from a higher source is the correct way to bring true happiness. For we live for a world that is not here but in a much better place.

I know some homosexuals and many of the ones I have met seem to have a deep sadness that is not always manifested. I know that some are happy on the outside but on the inside it is a different story. Maybe it is not living properly and natural law has subconscious affects on the psychological. I just know that there is an interior joy from doing things right which I guess Sochi would say a lack of guilt.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

I have a friend who is homosexual. She knows that I don’t agree with it but I am always lost for words when she or someone else asks me why I believe homosexuality is sinful. I don’t want to sound cruel but I want to make sure I’m saying the right things in these debates. Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hello Kittensrule, Being homosexual / gay in it’s self may not be sinful but sex among
homosexuals is a grave sin!
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.

Matthew

 

[kittensrule]

Hello Kittensrule, Being homosexual / gay in it’s self may not be sinful but sex among
homosexuals is a grave sin!
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.

Matthew

Thank you! Yes, I think I worded that question wrong when I wrote it but I understand now

 

[frobert]

Hello Kittensrule, Being homosexual / gay in it’s self may not be sinful but sex among
homosexuals is a grave sin!
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.

Matthew

Are you saying a 2000+ religious teaching has bearing on today’s religious and/or civil laws? If you are may I suggest you read all the Rabbinical laws and laws found in Leviticus and contemplate on which ones you would be comfortable having in religious teachings and in civil laws that you live under. To give you an example of what the task would involve. Of the 613 Rabbinical laws, 247 come from the book of Leviticus.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Are you saying a 2000+ religious teaching has bearing on today’s religious and/or civil laws? If you are may I suggest you read all the Rabbinical laws and laws found in Leviticus and contemplate on which ones you would be comfortable having in religious teachings and in civil laws that you live under. To give you an example of what the task would involve. Of the 613 Rabbinical laws, 247 come from the book of Leviticus.

The short answer is yes in the sense that all covenants after the Mosaic Covenant still had the ethical principles. The rules may not have to be kept perfectly but they have been transformed into a higher level in succeeding covenants. For example, the ten commandments are perfected by the sermon on the mount.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Are you saying a 2000+ religious teaching has bearing on today’s religious and/or civil laws? If you are may I suggest you read all the Rabbinical laws and laws found in Leviticus and contemplate on which ones you would be comfortable having in religious teachings and in civil laws that you live under. To give you an example of what the task would involve. Of the 613 Rabbinical laws, 247 come from the book of Leviticus.

What has changed since then for you or anyone to determine that this Law / teaching
is no longer valid? I don’t need to contemplate on anything! Civil laws and moral laws are quite different. The Catholic Church is the only authority on the teachings of faith and morals. As far as i know this law/teaching has not been repealed.
If anything this law/teaching applies more today than ever.

Matthew