I'm a gay guy. Should I marry a woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy_82 said:
Which is the problem here: being gay in itself is not a sin. Nor is it ever defined as such anywhere in scripture or other understood literature per our modern understanding of the matter. Therefore, by rejecting what we merely don’t understand as being sinful we are are committing the sin of discrimination by not loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Click to expand...
Sexuality is not sinful, it is the misuse of sex which is a mortal sin. Thus Jesus spoke about sexual immorality as things that defile man from within; even merely having a lustful thought toward someone he describes as having committed adultery in the heart. Jesus explains that “It is out of the heart that evil thoughts come, as well as murder, adultery, sexual immorality, stealing, false testimony, and slander.”-Matt. 5:19 Sexual immorality is anything outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus knew the law well, and that adultery and sodomy were sins that had the death penalty in Mosaic Law. We see how he treated the woman caught in adultery, and how He specifically told her to “Go and sin no more." Elsewhere, when he meets with a man whom he had healed, Jesus told the man: “_See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.”_John 5:14

And there are plenty of other passages where Jesus warns about hell and the consequence of sin, exhorting us to cut off everything in our life that us leading us to sin. He was also quite harsh speaking about those who teach little children how to sin: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Thus robbing children of their innocence, by teaching them that homosexual behavior is normal, and confusing them with gender theory, and polluting their mind with pornographic Sex Ed, is to do the work of the devil. As Pope a Francis described gender theory as a Satanic attack against the family and the Holy Spirit
 
Biologically they make tremendous sense as we find in virtually all species that God created that homosexual sex is very much a function of bonding between members of the same sex. While the penis was created to, yes, ejaculate, that it also provides pleasure when used for such means that it has more than one function. It’s when we use that function to abuse that it becomes a problem. Not when that function is to display affection for another.
 
Andy_82 said:
The problem with your argument is that you’re defining that which isn’t sinful as being so when there’s really no standing for it to be so beyond a misunderstanding of historicity of the texts. Therefore, if a person hasn’t committed a sin beyond an incorrect perception of it as being so, they are not actually sinning. There’s a rapidly growing number of Catholic theologians that fall into supporting homosexuality as being treated as the same as heterosexuality for that reason. There is no reference to it as being sinful as we currently tend to treat it. If anything, as I mention in another comment, the sin being committed here is one of discrimination: by not treating our neighbors as we would ourselves thanks to our being in the wrong, we are the ones committing the sin.
Click to expand...
If you want to paint me has having a problem, let me put this forth…

The problem you are having is that you are referencing the Book of Andy and I am referring to the Bible and the Catholic teachings…

I said earlier, the text is in the Bible, both Old and New Testament bear out that same sex relationships are an abomination in God’s eyes and law…not my words or beliefs, but that of God. You can easily search or read and find all the instances God addresses it as well as the NT passages.

You may not like it, you may kick against the goads, you may with lawyer like zeal try to circumvent it.
That does not make it any less true.
In the end we are all responsible for our own sin…and I am in no way saying homosexuality is somehow a greater sin than any other (aside from grave mortal sins) that puts us at odds in fellowship and communion with our Lord and Savior.

I know I am not going to change your mind on this, nor do I wish to try…However, I do not wish to further this so as to remain friendly…let us agree to disagree…

Peace,

M
 
Last edited:
CCC 2357
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

Under no circumstances can they be approved

you’re arguing with the Church at this point, bud…
 
Edward_H said:
But isn’t it notable that no other group of people do this with such predictibility?
Click to expand...
Where do you think that gay people would be today if they had not banded together on the basis of their sexual orientation? We would be politically powerless. And we would not have gained all the rights and protections that we have today, the right in some places not to be discriminated against in housing and employment on the basis of our sexuality, the right after the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence vs Texas not to have the police arrest us for having consensual sex in private. And if we had not banded together, I’m sure that homosexuality would still be listed as a mental illness in the DSM and we would still be subjected to barbaric methods to try to make us change.
 
We need to remember, though I pored over this in my initial comment on this thread, that sin is contextual per the time in which it occurs. The reason why Jesus is depicted as having forgiven just the woman is that only she alone had committed adultery? Where was the man for surely he had committed it as well. Or, per the standards of the time, had he? Men at the time generally could do as they pleased as per the standards of the time the act of fornication meant the use of a woman’s sex organs beyond the bounds of marriage and she was the one invariably held to account in such moments. Not generally the man. The only time a man really was called on the carpet was if he was found in the act per the law of violating a woman’s chastity and/or fathered a child by it. Then he had to pay her family a marriage fine and/or marry her to see to the care of both she and the child that resulted from it. Where was the man in the story? Probably being let off the hook as the standards of the time almost always blamed just the woman for having tempted the man. Fornication and adultery at the time was about who owned the capability of a woman to procreate. Not just the act itself. As is so often the case and the problem with scriptural interpretation, we don’t have a lot of comparisons to be directly drawn these days. Sexual sin occurs when the sex of a person is violated or abused for one’s own, selfish gain. That can’t be said when two people give of themselves to another in a time when both are considered equal under the law. That wasn’t so in the time of Christ or even until recently.
 
The NT doesn’t deal with homosexuality in the way you’re applying it. The only real portion that comes close to dealing with it is Paul’s use of a Greek word that he coined as it hadn’t existed before or really since his use of it in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and again in Timothy 1:10: arsenokotai. This word when read in Hebrew doesn’t mean, contextually speaking, what it appears to in Greek. Arsen means man and kotai means bedding. In Hebrew, this doesn’t mean what it does in Greek as the Hebrew method of referring to a sexual act wasn’t to say ‘sleep with one’ as it does in Greek and Latin. It means to make or form a covenant or contract. By pairing it with Arsen, he was referring to men forming wrongful contracts with one another and not talking about sex at all. By incorrectly turning our fellow man away for reason of our inability to understand, we are the ones committing the sin. Not they.
 
Andy_82 said:
Ritual sex, revenge and domination and sex slavery were why that particular passage pertained to it as that is what the surrounding pagans used it for.
Click to expand...
Yet ancient societies also had same sex relationships that were not always related to prostitution!
 
We’ve been over this before, homosexual acts did not mean in the time of Christ what they do today and the synod of Bishops that John Paul II did not yet understand that in our time and by our definition of homosexual behavior that it wasn’t disordered in the way the bible speaks of it. Which, I’ve pored over a thousand times already: until the 16-17th centuries homosexual acts were not considered to be something inherently wrong. They could be if they were involving abuse, ritual or sex slavery (such as human trafficking). As such the Catechism there doesn’t speak of homosexual acts as a matter of bonding or love. It speaks of them in the form of abuse. Which, most of the time today they are very much not.
 
He was speaking to the woman at the well, because the men sent the women out to fetch the water…the man wasn’t there so how could Jesus speak to him?
She went at the time of the day she did because she was ashamed and most likely shunned due to her sin…I suggest you really go back and read scripture and pray for discernment…and if you are Catholic then read a good commentary on the text.

Your really off the rails in your thinking and interpretation in contrast to Catholic and biblical Teaching/Truth.
Trying to justify sin is dangerous ground my friend…

I also strongly urge you to read this…

https://aboutphilippines.ph/files/Confession_-_Its-Fruitful-Practice.pdf

Ok, THAT is my last word in this thread…PM me if you like Andy as I do not want to muddy this marathon thread any further…😎

M
 
Last edited:
As I’ve described as well as in that context that it was also often times used in other forms of abuse. The ancient Hebrews in speaking as they did in Leviticus are speaking from that angle in reference to ‘laying with a man’ as being akin to what their mortal enemies do in such instances. They were not speaking in terms of homosexual love. If for any reason they simply hadn’t a reason to bother writing about it as there wasn’t any outcome of two men having sex for them. There was no child or potential one involved. So, they didn’t waste ink on the matter.
 
How so? Do you have proof for those assertions?

if that applies here, why not to beastiality?
 
The story never speaks of it in that context at all. The well was there as in Hebrew written tradition water is a purifier or a source of truth. By having this incident happen at the well Jesus was being depicted as dispensing of the truth. Hence the reason why water plays such a role in his story. You’re applying a context that doesn’t exist here. I strongly urge you to pray for such a truth.
 
Does any source other than yourself support these assertions? I think its impossible for the Church to be wrong for such a long time
 
Andy_82 said:
They were not speaking in terms of homosexual love.
Click to expand...
How do you know? These ancient societies had many forms of Homosexual sex! Some of which regarded two consenting adults. This is merely a hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Because, as I mentioned before, the text is pertinent to time and context. In our time and our context sex with animals is bad and there are many, many practical reasons for this. Sanitation being a pretty good reason for it. Another, apart from the fact it’s just a disgusting thing to do, is that it was considered by the authors to be a pagan context and a low class thing to do. Sex with animals was what madmen and those being punished did. For instance, it was a common punishment for female criminals in the Roman arena to be raped by an animal such as a bear before being killed. For proof, the fact the term ‘homosexual’ didn’t appear in any bible until 1946. (go on, google it)
 
The church hasn’t been wrong for long at all. We’ve only accepted gays as a normal part of society for about thirty years and as not being diseased since the early 70’s. So, it’s not that the church has been wrong for that long. It’s more that we as a whole have been.
 
Not really. As I just mentioned to Maximillian, the bible didn’t feature the word ‘homosexual’ until 1946 as we really didn’t have a hard separation between gay and straight until it became a political punching bag in the decades leading up to the French Revolution. Prior to then it was just considered a kind of sex outside of marriage. Which, men were pretty much let to do all the time back then. Not that it was right in that context. But, it does provide us with a template to understand this from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top