Irrefutable Proof against being born gay?

[michaeldaniels]

Why don’t you ask Mr. Karl Keating…the defense of my position I quoted is from the Catholic Answers website, who I feel is infinitely more competent in apologetics than both you or I am. If you have a problem…take it up with them.

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?

 

[avflf]

But Paul only mentions homosexuality twice (possibly three times) and only mentions it in passing. Hmmm, odd, isn’t it?

That Paul classifies it just as a greater sin as murder, idolatry and sexual perversion shows what he thought of it

 

[hellopeople]

Why don’t you ask Mr. Karl Keating…the defense of my position I quoted is from the Catholic Answers website, who I feel is infinitely more competent in apologetics than both you or I am. If you have a problem…take it up with them.

Karl Keating, if you read this, I challenge you to a DUEL!!!:slapfight:

 

[hellopeople]

That Paul classifies it just as a greater sin as murder, idolatry and sexual perversion shows what he thought of it

The difference is that Jesus was already clear on murder and to a lesser extent idolatry. Obviously he was not very clear on homosexuality though.

 

[fix]

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?

The problem is one of authority. Christ founded a Church, not a book. That you, and others here, want to use the bible as the sole authority, against the Church, really is a non starter. The bible exists because the Church compiled it. What I am saying is the Church is the authority, not private interpreters of the bible.

 

[avflf]

The difference is that Jesus was already clear on murder and to a lesser extent idolatry. Obviously he was not very clear on homosexuality though.

And you assume that he saw it as not very important in the great scheme of things? One could also deduce that he was OK with it, not so?

 

[hellopeople]

The problem is one of authority. Christ founded a Church, not a book. That you, and others here, want to use the bible as the sole authority, against the Church, really is a non starter. The bible exists because the Church compiled it. What I am saying is the Church is the authority, not private interpreters of the bible.

I don’t agree with what the church has to say about a lot of things and I don’t really believe in it’s authority.

 

[larkin31]

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

Apologies for what? Where you offended by someone politely disagreeing with you and asking you to explain???

Some of you guys sure are touchy…

So, Paul mentions it twice, more or less the same phrasing. So, Jesus does NOT mention it (and we were right, so you owe us an apology…just kidding…no offense taken).

And you state that ceremonial requirements can lapse, but not the moral ones? That is convenient. Does this apply to the issues of cleanliness and sex around menstruation? Should women have to sleep in another building because they are “unclean”? This is not a ceremonial point, but a moral one (a violation of purity).

And Paul, well, no offense, but he is just weird about sexuality–about both genders and about celibacy. I don;'t think that he was repeating anything Jesus ever said on the subject; this was his issue, left over from the purity laws of the OT. Which, I think, we are free to drop when they no longer apply.

 

[Evenprimes]

Did you know that up till not so long ago it was illegal in some states to be Gay, we used to execute them at one time and still do in other countries. Gay men are the #1 victim of a hate crime in the sexual orientation group, did you know that Gay men were put into concentration camps by the Nazis and dealt with their own holocaust.

I know this was posted a few days ago, but it needs to be addressed. Do you have sources for the claim that the US used to execute homosexuals? I didn’t see any in a few minutes of Google searching, but that doesn’t constitute an exhaustive study.

There were indeed homosexuals in Nazi concentration camps, but were they put there because of their homosexuality? Here is an article claiming that the “homosexual holocaust” is a myth. I haven’t done the research to be able to vouch for its accuracy, but I can’t find sources to vouch for yours either. I’m interested to hear what sources you’re using. Thanks!

 

[Caroline17]

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

WAY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH! God is working within you, and at times it’s necessary to speak with this kind of passion.

I wish everyone had your knowlegde. Even as I mentioned before from a scientific or biological standpoint even if people are born with a trait for homosexuality, it’s not alright to practice it. God would never make something that leads to our destruction as a species something that we are supposed to partake. Biologically, being part of the animal kingdom, it’s about survival, mating, reproduction, passing on of our genes. Genes do mutute, some mutations are good for a species some are bad, it’s bad if it prevents you from surviving. If being gay were a beneficial mutation of genes, then we would evolve into the majority of us being gay, but then we would be incapable of reproducing and die off. Being born gay is not evil, being born with any undesirable trait is not evil, and I say undesirable because as I’ve heard and read and seen in life, being gay is a hard road to travel.

We all have our crosses to bear. I’m not married I don’t get to have sex, although I’d love to. I practice self discipline. As I said before if you feel like you are suffering because you can’t have sex, remember many people choose this as a way of life to become spiritually stronger. Even if it’s only a temporary choice ask God to make you strong, and if you do want to have sex, ask Him to make you attracted to the opposite sex, and to find a mate. I think we can all agree there is absolutely NOTHING God can’t do, He Loves you, why wouldn’t He help you here if you ask Him.

I’m not saying gay people are evil, I’m a heterosexual, not a virgin and I’m not evil either, I’m a repentant sinner, and we are supposed to go and sin no more.

 

[hellopeople]

WAY TO SPEAK THE TRUTH! God is working within you, and at times it’s necessary to speak with this kind of passion.

I wish everyone had your knowlegde. Even as I mentioned before from a scientific or biological standpoint even if people are born with a trait for homosexuality, it’s not alright to practice it. God would never make something that leads to our destruction as a species something that we are supposed to partake. Biologically, being part of the animal kingdom, it’s about survival, mating, reproduction, passing on of our genes. Genes do mutute, some mutations are good for a species some are bad, it’s bad if it prevents you from surviving. If being gay were a beneficial mutation of genes, then we would evolve into the majority of us being gay, but then we would be incapable of reproducing and die off. Being born gay is not evil, being born with any undesirable trait is not evil, and I say undesirable because as I’ve heard and read and seen in life, being gay is a hard road to travel.

We all have our crosses to bear. I’m not married I don’t get to have sex, although I’d love to. I practice self discipline. As I said before if you feel like you are suffering because you can’t have sex, remember many people choose this as a way of life to become spiritually stronger. Even if it’s only a temporary choice ask God to make you strong, and if you do want to have sex, ask Him to make you attracted to the opposite sex, and to find a mate. I think we can all agree there is absolutely NOTHING God can’t do, He Loves you, why wouldn’t He help you here if you ask Him.

I’m not saying gay people are evil, I’m a heterosexual, not a virgin and I’m not evil either, I’m a repentant sinner, and we are supposed to go and sin no more.

Considering that homosexuals make up around 10% of the population, it will not lead to destruction. Also, I know someone that is 100% homosexual and has multiple children.

 

[Caroline17]

And you state that ceremonial requirements can lapse, but not the moral ones? That is convenient. Does this apply to the issues of cleanliness and sex around menstruation? Should women have to sleep in another building because they are “unclean”? This is not a ceremonial point, but a moral one (a violation of purity).

.

You say that’s convenient, but that’s part of why Jesus came. I mean baby boys didn’t have to get circumsised after Jesus came either, you might want to group that in with the women on their period argument. I would be happy to sleep in a separate building or room or something, if we’re going to be bringing up such a gross topic. Maybe that helped husband and wives get along. I feel gross, bloated, and am usually too grouchy to be around my man then anyway. I think it’s very possible that I’m uneducated in this area of the OT since we don’t practice these laws anymore, but maybe women were considered unclean at that time because of the fact that a period is a healthy natural thing, but still yes not the cleanest, and was it a “violation of purity?” or was this indeed a more ceremonial or common sense law because it was more difficult to be sanitary about a period in ancient days, just like laws around food were in place for common sense reasons because it was difficult to be as clean as necessary with food storage and preparation. Again these are laws rooted in commen sense for the time right? They don’t apply now for commen sense reasons, not moral reasons, and so we’re not too caught up in thinking formalities will get us into heaven. I admit I could be very wrong, or partially wrong, feel free to correct me.

I also think sexuality can be tricky because it’s so easy to once you try one thing, and sexual temptation is so strong, it’s like well, I’ve already done that so I could try this. I think it’s better to just try to be virtuous and strong. If not it’s so easy to slip deeper and deeper with this type of sin.

 

[hellopeople]

You say that’s convenient, but that’s part of why Jesus came. I mean baby boys didn’t have to get circumsised after Jesus came either, you might want to group that in with the women on their period argument. I would be happy to sleep in a separate building or room or something, if we’re going to be bringing up such a gross topic. Maybe that helped husband and wives get along. I feel gross, bloated, and am usually too grouchy to be around my man then anyway. I think it’s very possible that I’m uneducated in this area of the OT since we don’t practice these laws anymore, but maybe women were considered unclean at that time because of the fact that a period is a healthy natural thing, but still yes not the cleanest, and was it a “violation of purity?” or was this indeed a more ceremonial or common sense law because it was more difficult to be sanitary about a period in ancient days, just like laws around food were in place for common sense reasons because it was difficult to be as clean as necessary with food storage and preparation. Again these are laws rooted in commen sense for the time right? They don’t apply now for commen sense reasons, not moral reasons, and so we’re not too caught up in thinking formalities will get us into heaven. I admit I could be very wrong, or partially wrong, feel free to correct me.

I also think sexuality can be tricky because it’s so easy to once you try one thing, and sexual temptation is so strong, it’s like well, I’ve already done that so I could try this. I think it’s better to just try to be virtuous and strong. If not it’s so easy to slip deeper and deeper with this type of sin.

If Gentiles should convert to Judaism to become Christians was a big topic in the early church. Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism. Jesus followed the law as well.

 

[Caroline17]

Considering that homosexuals make up around 10% of the population, it will not lead to destruction. Also, I know someone that is 100% homosexual and has multiple children.

That’s right! Exactly, because if it were beneficial biologically we would evolve toward homosexuality, that would help our species survive. It’s only 10% because it in actually prevents us from carrying on as a species. A smaller percentage I’m sure were born that way. If 90 percent of us were gay, we would die out I believe. They didn’t reproduce with someone of the same sex, I know that. If they got artificially inseminated then I personally don’t think that’s natural either. Not sure personally about the Church teaching on it. If they adopted kids, then I’m thankful those kids have a permanent home rather than being bounced around in foster homes, and think we shouldn’t even be discussing gay adoption or fertility in this thread if that’s what you mean they did to be gay and have multiple children. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could happen unless they used to be straight.

 

[Caroline17]

He healed on the Sabbath! And all kind of other technicalities/formalities for which the Jewish High Priests criticised. Yes He practiced Judaism, but transformed it as Christianity.

To show it’s about doing the right thing, not about what day it is, again, so that we don’t go thinking that a formality is what gets us into Heaven it’s asking God to work in us and guide us, accepting Him in our lives.

 

[hellopeople]

That’s right! Exactly, because if it were beneficial biologically we would evolve toward homosexuality, that would help our species survive. It’s only 10% because it in actually prevents us from carrying on as a species. A smaller percentage I’m sure were born that way. If 90 percent of us were gay, we would die out I believe. They didn’t reproduce with someone of the same sex, I know that. If they got artificially inseminated then I personally don’t think that’s natural either. Not sure personally about the Church teaching on it. If they adopted kids, then I’m thankful those kids have a permanent home rather than being bounced around in foster homes, and think we shouldn’t even be discussing gay adoption or fertility in this thread if that’s what you mean they did to be gay and have multiple children. Otherwise, I don’t know how it could happen unless they used to be straight.

This person was never straight. I think he had sex with a woman that knew he was gay only to have children. He used a means to get to an end. It was nothing more to him.

 

[Evenprimes]

Considering that homosexuals make up around 10% of the population, it will not lead to destruction.

Actually, I believe the 10% statistic is one of Kinsey’s. Legitimate studies suggest that the actual number is below 5% of the US population. (Proportion of world population is obviously a much more difficult question.)

 

[larkin31]

You say that’s convenient, but that’s part of why Jesus came. I mean baby boys didn’t have to get circumsised after Jesus came either, you might want to group that in with the women on their period argument. I would be happy to sleep in a separate building or room or something, if we’re going to be bringing up such a gross topic. Maybe that helped husband and wives get along. I feel gross, bloated, and am usually too grouchy to be around my man then anyway. I think it’s very possible that I’m uneducated in this area of the OT since we don’t practice these laws anymore, but maybe women were considered unclean at that time because of the fact that a period is a healthy natural thing, but still yes not the cleanest, and was it a “violation of purity?”…

1. You sleep with a man but are celibate?
2. There is nothing unsanitary about menstruation, not then, not now.
3. I called menstruation a violation of “purity” because the separation of women during it is listed in the middles of a long list of purity laws. (I, personally, don’t think it has anything to do with “purity,” which is an artificial concept to begin with).
4. That you feel “gross” enough to live in isolation then is irrelevant to whether the purity code around it is moral or not and valid or not.
5. If you are going to argue that the law is more pragmatic than moral (and as such can be dismissed when we see the the truth of the matter more clearly), then I want to argue the same for homosexuality. So, can I make the same argument for gay sex (on practical terms), or are you reserving that only for sex with menstruating women?

 

[larkin31]

That’s right! Exactly, because if it were beneficial biologically we would evolve toward homosexuality, that would help our species survive. It’s only 10% because it in actually prevents us from carrying on as a species…

1. You are making false assumptions here. In both sentences.
2. Gays have always participated in reproduction, and still do today.
3. That homosexuality persists despite the fact that its purest form does not reproduce (when practiced exclusively) suggests that it is a persistent element of human sexuality. And this even despite having to exist in a culture with the world’s largest religion aligned against it!

 

[Penser]

1. You are making false assumptions here. In both sentences.
2. Gays have always participated in reproduction, and still do today.
3. That homosexuality persists despite the fact that its purest form does not reproduce (when practiced exclusively) suggests that it is a persistent element of human sexuality. And this even despite having to exist in a culture with the world’s largest religion aligned against it!

Have we not evolved in our understanding of sexuality since Paul? I tried to make this point earlier (badly) - that the Church has, at times had to review its way of thinking - I could get out the Catholic History book to point out a few challenges that it had to deal with - papal authenticity, political affairs, periods of reform (some to the extreme), corruption etc. - in all it has progressed. Vatican II covered a lot of ground. I believe that the Church’s understanding of sexuality is under review. Copernicus/Galileo underwent a period of condemnation for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe.
Those that suggest that homosexuals are born with this nature also get a swift kick.

I understand that the moral implications for having a same sex tendency are separate from the debate and very difficult to bring up without inflaming a certain wrath of scriptural condemnations (not only in the Catholic Church). For those who practice self discipline and remain chaste, that is a great gift in the eyes of faith. For those who are living in a committed and loving relationship and who are sexually intimate - is that not as equal a gift? Even with all that I have read and understand, I remain uncomfortable with the thought that we, as a Church, have decided to condemn a portion of the population for wanting to live and love in the same way we would applaud heterosexuals; that is living in a loving and committed or what they might consider a sacred union as a couple.

Please receive these comments as one person trying to think these things through. For those trying to hit me in the back of the head with a 2x4, because I am slow to understand - be patient. I ask a lot of questions.

(Thank you Larkin for your sincere investigation of this topic).