How to respond to a "lesbian friend"

[surritter]

I agree with Zachary. It is true that homosexual acts are contrary to “nature” but because of our fallen nature and the instincts of animals that was brought up, it can be a confusing term.

I have found it better to speak about sexuality as being “ordered to procreation.” This connotes that sex is designed for a purpose, and it avoids the problem of having our human failings get in the way of what is right.

The down side of that phrasing is that many people hear it and think that it means that people having sex are “commanded” to procreate. That’s not what “ordered” means in this context – it simply means “rightly ordered according to its design.”

My :twocents:

 

[portarica]

I agree with Zachary. It is true that homosexual acts are contrary to “nature” but because of our fallen nature and the instincts of animals that was brought up, it can be a confusing term.

I have found it better to speak about sexuality as being “ordered to procreation.” This connotes that sex is designed for a purpose, and it avoids the problem of having our human failings get in the way of what is right. One of the things that clouds this thinking is that God designed a few other variations of humans that are not designed in the typical male or female fashion for procreation. In the past all but typical designs were considered abominations and ignore there is more than the just the creation of man and women by God.

The down side of that phrasing is that many people hear it and think that it means that people having sex are “commanded” to procreate. That’s not what “ordered” means in this context – it simply means “rightly ordered according to its design.” And so what is the right order of behavior for those that fall outside of the typical design?

My :twocents:

 

[surritter]

One of the things that clouds this thinking is that God designed a few other variations of humans that are not designed in the typical male or female fashion for procreation. In the past all but typical designs were considered abominations and ignore there is more than the just the creation of man and women by God.

This claim has no basis in reality. Just exactly what type of people did God design if they are neither male nor female?

And so what is the right order of behavior for those that fall outside of the typical design?

Again, there is no such thing as a person created by God who was not DESIGNED biologically for the ordered purpose of which I wrote. Perhaps you are trying to introduce hermaphroditism into the discussion, or even same-sex attraction. That’s fine, but they have nothing to do with the right ordering or design of the human body. They are aberrations, or disorders. The fact that disorders exist does not change the original design of something. They are simply that – disorders. It’s not the fault of the person (usually).

 

[portarica]

There is measurable portion of the population who are born as neither nor or both male and female.

We don’t like to talk about them or post about them.

So lets just pretend that they still don’t exist.

Oh wait, that would be untruthful, but if they exist and God designed all living creatures, no wait, don’t go there, stop, my head is exploding, there are only men and women, say it again and it will be true, there are only men and women, no not men and women, I meant men or women.

Peace

 

[surritter]

Port – you really don’t read the posts, do you? I addressed the issue of those who do not fall into traditional sexuality descriptions.

What don’t you get about the word DESIGN? The world and its creatures were designed by God. But due to Adam’s fall, the world is not as God designed it. But that doesn’t mean we can endorse those defective parts of our world as always being moral and part of the design, does it?

Sexuality is “rightly ordered” to procreation. Those who suffer from a “disorder” are not to be blamed, but their existence does not change the “order,” does it?

Next time, leave out the sarcasm and think about the substance of the discussion a little more.

 

[PaulinVA]

Oh wait, that would be untruthful, but if they exist and God designed all living creatures, no wait, don’t go there, stop, my head is exploding, there are only men and women, say it again and it will be true, there are only men and women, no not men and women, I meant men or women.

Yes, God designed all living creatures.

Yes, there are people who are intersexed, there are people who are hurting because their parents made a decision at their birth about which set of genitals should be removed, there are people who find themselves attracted to people of the same sex; yes there are bad things in the world.

How do we reconcile both of these statements? Either God is a really poor designer, or we are not the way God intended.

Due to the fall of Adam and Eve, or some rejection of God related to free will, we are not the perfect creatures God intended. Bad mutations and other things have entered the human race. The fact that they are here does not make them good.

These individuals should be treated with respect and love. They also should adhere to God’s plan for all of us, which means no sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

 

[Betterave]

Port – you really don’t read the posts, do you?

 

[Betterave]

Actually I disgaree with alot of people whom I find courageous.So your generalization is false.

Courageous? My generalization? What are you talking about?

Read Chaputs reasoning on his website. One of the reasons he is OK with the kids getting kicked out is that he didn’t want them offended by the church’s teaching on marriage and family values.

That is so much easier than making sure that the kids are taught in the manner that treats them like they may be the least in guise of Jesus while being true to the doctrine and dogma of the church. [What is that even supposed to mean? ]

I don’t know what your disagreeing with, but I assume it is this?

“The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves. Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.”

If so, your comments are obviously missing the A-b’s point.

Same with the comment by Mother T, it is easier to claim faith and not be actionable toward success. [What, you mean like Mother T? Good grief!] That is the concept behind lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. They didn’t hang Jesus on the cross because Jesus was lukewarm about what He taught.

So now you’re saying we should aim to get ourselves crucified, because that is the mark of success? I have no idea where you’re going with this!

I also sense that you feel that people are not entitled to have opinions formulated by their own review of the fact patterns and resultant individual reasoning. I also find it somewhat ironic that you believe holding people to a higher standard as evidenced by my comments about Chaput is somehow preferable to just making their pronouncements gospel. Chaputs comments are neither church doctrine or in concert with the way most dioceses handle the issue of non devout catholic children attending catholic schools.

You sense, do you? Try to think more and sense less.

We should trust Jesus , but we must also do what he taught. To sit back and just say we are saved because we believe him, is ,I believe a protestant concept, that is being saved by faith alone.I would suggest that is also a lukewarm concept.

Sure; and this is relevant to the discussion how?

Knowing all the consequences of our actions beforehand is what makes the implementation of Jesus’ teachings so difficult, but difficulty is not license for ignoring what Jesus taught. We are all sinners and as such are prone to imperfection, but that is not an excuse to be lazy about implementing what Jesus taught.

Did you even read what I wrote?

I realize that without -]publicized credentials/-] what I say making sense and being accurate and relevant you will not put any consideration into my post. I would suggest that perhaps you compare them to what Jesus taught and then compare the actions and pronouncements of what Chaput actually said and used as defense for his actions and see which has the most congruency with what Jesus taught, most specifically with treating the least like they may be him.

I take it you’re referring to “whatsoever you do to these least of these little ones that you do unto me”? The concept Jesus is teaching here is not that we treat people like they might be him. It’s to love our neighbor as he does and to do so for love of him.

 

[Betterave]

Hi Ashley,

First of all, disregard that stuff about apologizing. That’s not what Christians are supposed to be about. “How dare you offend me” is just not a Christian attitude, in my books. We aren’t supposed to be here to make ourselves feel good and get angry if someone feels like attacking what we believe. As far as I’m concerned, you’re welcome to express your anger and frustration as long as you don’t entirely lose sight of the goal of engaging in constructive dialogue.

Ok, but since we are both Ateists, we have no imaginary friend to offend right?

You raise an important issue here. Do we believe that if God didn’t exist, lesbianism would be inoffensive? If that were the case, this whole discussion would have to first shift to a discussion about the existence of God, rather than about lesbianism per se…

Can you explain to me what, exactly, ‘natural law’ is? And can you claim to know everything about it? Can you claim that your knowledge of natural law is absolute enough for you to know that there is no possible way in which what I am doing is natural? Because to me and my girlfriend, it feels VERY natural.

Well you obviously must have some idea about what ‘natural law’ is yourself. Could you tell us what, exactly, your idea is, then we can see how much we agree or disagree, and try to understand the reasons why?

 

[Ashley42]

Well you obviously must have some idea about what ‘natural law’ is yourself. Could you tell us what, exactly, your idea is, then we can see how much we agree or disagree, and try to understand the reasons why?

I don’t claim to know a thing about natural law for sure. Who knows? Science can tach us a lot, but we can only look for evidence, draw a conclusion and try to make sense of it all. The evidence is clear that homosexuals exist. It is clear that they exist not only in humanity, but also widespread in the animal kingdom. Although it is not clear why they exist, some theorys have been formed. We can’t just ignore the facts and hope they go away, we have to cater for them.

 

[KKendra]

TO “ASHLEY42”:

You want to know why the homosexual act is unnatural, and called a disorder. “Podo2005” explained it really well on his post. Go and read it. That’s why is unnatural and that’s why it’s a dis-order. Nobody is insulting you here, nobody is offending you, however your tone is never peaceful, always defensive, always trying to offend others. Is that why you came to this forum, even though you consider yourself and Atheist? or are you searching for the Truth and the One that can give you happiness and peace? Becuase I for example, don’t go to gay forums insulting people. It’s very interesting that you’ve come here.

God bless you.

 

[portarica]

Yes, God designed all living creatures.

Yes, there are people who are intersexed, there are people who are hurting because their parents made a decision at their birth about which set of genitals should be removed, there are people who find themselves attracted to people of the same sex; yes there are bad things in the world.

How do we reconcile both of these statements? Either God is a really poor designer, or we are not the way God intended.

Due to the fall of Adam and Eve, or some rejection of God related to free will, we are not the perfect creatures God intended. Bad mutations and other things have entered the human race. The fact that they are here does not make them good.

These individuals should be treated with respect and love. They also should adhere to God’s plan for all of us, which means no sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

Oh so these people were not designed by God to be as they are, but exist as the manifestations of the sins of others?

What about Jesus that we are not responsible for the sins of our fathers?

And as you said they are bad? That explains a lot of things.

Peace

 

[Alexia2000]

Why not just let her be what she is and concentrate on your own salvation and not hers?

You have no idea why she is the way she is.

We are a fallen species and each and every time you encounter someone, you are encountering a sinner who has done something ugly in the eyes of God, and many of us do that because of something ugly done to us for example sexual, physical or emotional abuse as a child or an alcoholic parent, or some other deep wound.

The first person, BTW, to encounter is standing in front of the mirror. We all have some part of ourselves that is deeply flawed in God’s eyes, some temptation that is warped. But He loves us anyway, and gave up His only son for it.

If you really feel you MUST do something to try to get your friend back on track, I suggest praying for her would be at the same time the most efficient, and the least offensive.

But please, please don’t go on about your opinion’s of the Church’s view on same-sex activity.

Because for you to avoid that particular sin is extremely easy. For her it is a huge struggle, and therefore, it wouldn’t be fair to hold her up a to standard which is easy for you but hard for her. Think of your worst recurring sin, and how hard it is for you to overcome it, how you repeatedly struggle and fail. Maybe that will be a tiny bit like walking a mile in her shoes. She’s probably had enough judgement to last a lifetime.

Just be her friend and love her to pieces (and I don’t mean that sexually, I mean in the spirit of Christian love).

I couldn’t agree more with this post

I love my partner to bits but am not attracted to any other woman. We are in a Civil Partnership (‘same-sex civil marriage’, for those who are unfamiliar with the concept of Civil Partnership). Technically all this makes me a lesbian; however, we do not have a physically intimate relationship (baring perhaps holding hands or hugging, which we consider a private matter and which happens only when we are alone together)

At Church, we keep an appropriate distance from each other; we have no wish to offend other people. We find open displays of physical affection equally offensive between heterosexuals and between gay men and therefore feel that the same rule applies to us

Some people in our parish are aware that we live together; our explanation, if ever asked, would be that we are good friends, both single and it makes sense for us to live together to provide each other with companionship. Since we don’t ask others to provide the nitty-gritty details of their lives, we will find it rude for others to presuppose that they have some kind of a right to ask us about the same

So, to the person who started this thread: I do not believe that it is any of your business to spread the word of God; those, like us, who want the word of God to be revealed to us will seek for it ourselves. My parish Church is listed on the internet and that is how I first found it. If your friend seeks to get closer to God and Jesus then she will search herself. She might even ask you; until that time, stay out of her personal life same as she does not give you advise on who you should or shouldn’t love

Now, will you please all stand in an orderly queue, choose your rocks carefully and take the greatest of pleasure in stoning me to death

 

[portarica]

Yes, God designed all living creatures.

How do we reconcile both of these statements? Either God is a really poor designer, or we are not the way God intended.

.

Why do you suggest that God is a poor designer ? Since we are as God intended that is your conclusion.

The form of everything on this earth is as God intended since He made the original design and was aware of how everything would turn out. Being omnipotent He knew the form every person would take , even before Adam and Eve stepped upon the earth.

So why do you feel God was a poor designer?

Or is it that perhaps we judge some of His designs as being poor when in fact in His view they are as perfect as any other ?

Peace

 

[PaulinVA]

Why do you suggest that God is a poor designer ? Since we are as God intended that is your conclusion.

The form of everything on this earth is as God intended since He made the original design and was aware of how everything would turn out. Being omnipotent He knew the form every person would take , even before Adam and Eve stepped upon the earth.

So why do you feel God was a poor designer?

Or is it that perhaps we judge some of His designs as being poor when in fact in His view they are as perfect as any other ?

Peace

You missed the entire point of my post.

God is not a poor designer.

We are not as God intended. Through the Fall, sin entered the world, and because of that we need redemption. The physical manifestation of the Fall is that there are birth defects, mental illness, and a host of other bad things.

 

[portarica]

You missed the entire point of my post.

God is not a poor designer.

We are not as God intended. Through the Fall, sin entered the world, and because of that we need redemption. The physical manifestation of the Fall is that there are birth defects, mental illness, and a host of other bad things.

If God designed Adam and Eve and Knew of every ramification of His design then everything that followed was a result of God’s original design.

If He didn’t know every ramification, then He isn’t all knowing and omnipotent.

To suggest that God designed birth defects and mental illness and other horrible things to punish people for sins they didn’t commit, begs a host of questions.

Peace

 

[PaulinVA]

If God designed Adam and Eve and Knew of every ramification of His design then everything that followed was a result of God’s original design.

If He didn’t know every ramification, then He isn’t all knowing and omnipotent.

To suggest that God designed birth defects and mental illness and other horrible things to punish people for sins they didn’t commit, begs a host of questions.

Peace

Your thinking is inconsistent.

If God designed us and intended that we have birth defects and mental illness, than, yes, that is problematic.

But, that is not what I said. I said that God created us with free will. We rejected God. That rejection caused us to basically be on our own, and introduced all of those things like birth defects and mental illness.

God knew that we would ultimately reject Him, but gave us the free will to do so.

 

[portarica]

Your thinking is inconsistent.

If God designed us and intended that we have birth defects and mental illness, than, yes, that is problematic.

But, that is not what I said. I said that God created us with free will. We rejected God. That rejection caused us to basically be on our own, and introduced all of those things like birth defects and mental illness.

God knew that we would ultimately reject Him, but gave us the free will to do so.

You are missing a point that you made, He designed the system , He designed the information going into the system, he knew the results before they happened because he designed how the events would happen. Since God controlled all the initial (name removed by moderator)uts there could be no change possible.

Placing a causal effect upon the sins of others either calls into question free will or the omnipotence of God or how we judge the perfection of His designs.

Peace

 

[PaulinVA]

You are missing a point that you made, He designed the system , He designed the information going into the system, he knew the results before they happened because he designed how the events would happen. Since God controlled all the initial (name removed by moderator)uts there could be no change possible.

Placing a causal effect upon the sins of others either calls into question free will or the omnipotence of God or how we judge the perfection of His designs.

Peace

I’m not going to restate what I said a third time.

Perhaps you should read some Catholic sources that explain original sin and the Fall.

 

[Betterave]

I couldn’t agree more with this post

I love my partner to bits but am not attracted to any other woman. We are in a Civil Partnership (‘same-sex civil marriage’, for those who are unfamiliar with the concept of Civil Partnership). Technically all this makes me a lesbian; however, we do not have a physically intimate relationship (baring perhaps holding hands or hugging, which we consider a private matter and which happens only when we are alone together)

At Church, we keep an appropriate distance from each other; we have no wish to offend other people. We find open displays of physical affection equally offensive between heterosexuals and between gay men and therefore feel that the same rule applies to us

Some people in our parish are aware that we live together; our explanation, if ever asked, would be that we are good friends, both single and it makes sense for us to live together to provide each other with companionship. Since we don’t ask others to provide the nitty-gritty details of their lives, we will find it rude for others to presuppose that they have some kind of a right to ask us about the same

So, to the person who started this thread: I do not believe that it is any of your business to spread the word of God; those, like us, who want the word of God to be revealed to us will seek for it ourselves. My parish Church is listed on the internet and that is how I first found it. If your friend seeks to get closer to God and Jesus then she will search herself. She might even ask you; until that time, stay out of her personal life same as she does not give you advise on who you should or shouldn’t love

Now, will you please all stand in an orderly queue, choose your rocks carefully and take the greatest of pleasure in stoning me to death

What, I’m supposed to throw rocks at my computer? I’m sure the library staff wouldn’t like that!

Anyway, what do mean “technically all this makes me a lesbian”?