F
fix
Guest
I already have stated it.
Here again you said:
And I said the Church does not claim heterosexual inclination is moral simply because it is found in biology.
- Status
Here again you said:
F
fix
Guest
Sorry, but why do using terms like loving and consenting make wrong acts right? Would two brothers be ok using your standard? What about a married man with another woman?
R
Robster7
Guest
I believe that the homosexual inclination is influenced by environment. Although we are born physically male or female, our sexuality learned. Sexuality is how we relate to others as males and females, as influenced by our environment, our experiences, and our reactions and choices made in respect to them. It depends on how we relate to our parents, who are among the first influences on how a person of a certain gender acts.
Also depends on whether we have a good or bad experience with our parents, and how we react to that experience.
I suspect that when someone is going through adolescence and has strong sexual desires and urges to satisfy them, they may take advantage of any immediately available opportunity to do so. So, for example, if you’re surfing the internet and come upon gay pornography and your sexual desires are at maximum, you may be strongly influenced by it. Ditto for heterosexual porn. Or any sexual opportunity, for that matter. It depends on how much you continue in the habit, which requires making choices at each point.
In any event, the morality question concerns matters concerning right and wrong, and making freely willed choices in these matters. Subject of course to ignorance, strong desires, etc., which may mitigate culpability.
But homosexual sexual acts are nonetheless morally wrong. However, the person’s culpability may up to a point, be mitigated.
Just some thoughts of mine.
Also depends on whether we have a good or bad experience with our parents, and how we react to that experience.
I suspect that when someone is going through adolescence and has strong sexual desires and urges to satisfy them, they may take advantage of any immediately available opportunity to do so. So, for example, if you’re surfing the internet and come upon gay pornography and your sexual desires are at maximum, you may be strongly influenced by it. Ditto for heterosexual porn. Or any sexual opportunity, for that matter. It depends on how much you continue in the habit, which requires making choices at each point.
In any event, the morality question concerns matters concerning right and wrong, and making freely willed choices in these matters. Subject of course to ignorance, strong desires, etc., which may mitigate culpability.
But homosexual sexual acts are nonetheless morally wrong. However, the person’s culpability may up to a point, be mitigated.
Just some thoughts of mine.
L
larkin31
Guest
I can’t help but say that this must be false. Most of the heterosexual boys, horny as they were, were and are surrounded by other males. Boys and girls travel in packs in those years, huddle together, confide together, and sleep over with each other, etc. This does not result in any significant homosexuality rate, since something fewer than 5% of the population is gay. And gays existed in societies long before porn became prevalent or accessible. It just is not about these factors…
H
hellopeople
Guest
I agree. What about gay people that are not exposed to a gay lifestyle at all? What about gay people that are brought up in a society and culture that actually hates gay people and is not tolerant to them at all? How do gay people exist in these societies if there is not something specific with in them.
Also, to be honest, I have no problem with homosexual sex in a meaningful loving relationship. I refuse to call it a sin when it is a way for two people to show their love for each other just as much as having regular sex in marriage. Also, in my opinion, I don’t think that any of the passages in the bible are about this type of relationship. Find me a passage directly talking about a monogamous homosexual couple in the Bible. You cannot, because it is not there.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
This is just ridiculous…
H
hellopeople
Guest
Which part? And please show me somewhere in the Bible that gay sex within a relationship is condemned? Every time I see homosexuals mentioned in the Bible, it is easy to see that the type of gay sex being talked about is people that go around having orgies and use “sex as their god.” This was common in the Roman empire when the NT was written as well. Homosexuality is barely talked about at all in the NT and wasn’t mentioned once in the Gospels. Jesus must not have thought it was too big a deal if his followers didn’t think it was important enough to mention. And Paul only mentions it a couple times in passing. He spent a lot more time talking about head dresses that people should wear in church than he did talking about homosexuality.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
And this one is moving into the realm of asinine…Why should I feel the need to try and disprove a fallacious point…it is incumbent upon you, the one who is making this false accusation to prove it.
H
hellopeople
Guest
Well, it is a fact that in the gospels Jesus never mentioned gay sex. That is a fact.
Homosexuality is mentioned in pass in 1st Corinthians, Romans, and in Timothy (which is a disputed letter that Paul most likely did not write himself.)
In Romans 1:24-27 Paul is talking about Gentiles and says this:
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Seems as though these people already received due penalty for their perversion…so he is obviously talking about a specific group of people. He keeps on talking about lust though. Honestly, I think the issue is lust here and not homosexual actions.
Here is one from Corinthians:
Code:
1Cor.6,9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (NIV: nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, NJB: the self-indulgent, sodomites),
1Cor.6,10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.And from Timothy:
Tim.1,8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully,
1Tim.1,9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Tim.1,10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Tim.1,11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Once again, sodomites are just in a list of people that aren’t great. Not too specific.
Honestly, if we judged a sin by how much it was in the NT, dishonoring the rules of wearing a head dress in church would be far more sinful than homosexuality. Look at this whole thing Paul wrote on headdresses in 1st Corinthians.
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,** since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
But Paul only mentions homosexuality twice (possibly three times) and only mentions it in passing. Hmmm, odd, isn’t it?**
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
So you are telling me that Paul, more than likely, is not the author of Corinthians, Romans, and Timothy?
L
larkin31
Guest
Why?
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
Seriously…are you joking? Is this your defense? LOL
L
larkin31
Guest
He/she was not joking as far as I could tell. Why don’t you address the point? I will make it also: The Gospels and NT do not emphasize sexual sin, nor homosexuality specifically, nearly to the degree that it is referenced in the OT. If it is such a grave sin, then why this lack of emphasis and no mention from Jesus?
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
Fine…You want it, you got it:
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.
How do you like them apples…CHECK MATE! Apologies will be accepted
catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
Reinterpreting Scripture
To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.
Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them” (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).
All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.
How do you like them apples…CHECK MATE! Apologies will be accepted
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
Oh and just wondering…do you think lust is just defined by “relations”…no my friend, “relations” means sexual intercourse
H
hellopeople
Guest
Paul is DEFINITELY the author of Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians. Timothy is a disputed letter and many scholars believe he did not write it.
H
hellopeople
Guest
Well I guess we should kill our children if they curse us!
Leviticus 20:9 (New International Version)
9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
If you want I can throw out some other ridiculous rules that you don’t agree with.
Why do we keep the ban on homosexuality but not keep the law about killing our children if they curse us?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Then why do you debate with Fr. Irvin? Did you know Oscar? If not, then like everybody else you rely on historians (people who read other people’s mail) just like the rest of us.
That evil is a corruption and a negation of the good are not contradictory.
- Status