L
ladybri77
Guest
Right you don’t have to because if you’ve accepted Christ into your heart, He’s already changed it!
- Status
L
ladybri77
Guest
But it’s not a part of God’s plan, the orientation resulted from the fall, when sin occurred in the garden.
L
ladybri77
Guest
No, not necessarily with heterosexual feelings, but no longer seeing yourself as a “homosexual” child of God but just a child of God.
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
How can one be homosexual without one seeing oneself for how they really are? This is honest confusion, please don’t take as sarcasm. So you basically have to lie to yourself, or a least hide something from yourself so you don’t think about it?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Finding oneself with Same Sex Attraction is a burden. I would not like to live with such a burden.
You are who you are - a child of God, who, like all of us, has an inclination to sin.
I think the last couple of posts are confusing who someone finds themselves to be, and what they do with that. You can have SSA and be a Christian. Of course. But, how you see that SSA and how you form your “allegiances” are very important.
To put it bluntly - even if celibate, which side are you playing for? Are you aligning yourself with the Christian agenda (love your neighbor, feed the poor, try not to commit sin), or are you aligning yourself with the gay agenda (acceptance of all things gay, same sex marriage, gay ‘rights’, etc)
You are who you are - a child of God, who, like all of us, has an inclination to sin.
I think the last couple of posts are confusing who someone finds themselves to be, and what they do with that. You can have SSA and be a Christian. Of course. But, how you see that SSA and how you form your “allegiances” are very important.
To put it bluntly - even if celibate, which side are you playing for? Are you aligning yourself with the Christian agenda (love your neighbor, feed the poor, try not to commit sin), or are you aligning yourself with the gay agenda (acceptance of all things gay, same sex marriage, gay ‘rights’, etc)
D
dbaseII
Guest
This is correct. While homosexuality has never been proven “genetic” (and heaven knows folks have really tried to prove this) it also has been observed by some scientists that our sexual orientation is a combination of our environment for the first five years of life and our personalities etc. Some say it may also be societal pressure. i.e. some of us who were “tomboys” as children were made to feel that we were “different” in gender by our parents (I was one of these for example) when in fact we were just athletic and some of us “tomboys” are actually more feminine when it comes to it than those girls who sat and played dolls but it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy for some tomboys to have a different orientation.
Eric Erikson in CHILDHOOD AND SOCIETY did long observations of young children for years to find out what WERE the gender differences and so forth. He opined that most humans are able to enjoy both same and hetero unions and that which way we go is very environmental but formed during the first five years.
Bottom line, adults do NOT seem to have a choice in what they are attracted to that way.
BUT what the church teaches is that if that IS our attraction, i.e. homosexual, that we are being called to celebacy by God as those of that attraction cannot have intercourse without committing sin.
Truly only 25 percent of the Catholic population can have intercourse without committing sin. This includes those who are:
In a Sacramental marriage AND not contracepting AND (of course male and female) AND physically able.
The other 75 percent of us are called to celebacy which has been expressed in the following manner:
“God picks some roses to be in HIS OWN special garden to love HIM and Him alone in an intimate manner”
A society which indulges in sexual gluttony may not appreciate celebacy but that of course, doesn’t make it a bad way of life if one is thus called.
And before you say it’s easy for me to say since I have been in a Sacramental marriage for 42 years and am too old to contracept, guess again. Remember 80 million men in this country have erectile dysfunction. My husband had a vasectomy in the 1970’s and stupid me who looks EVERYTHING ELSE up in the Merck manual failed to look up the repercussions (not all of which were known then like the significantly greater risk of prostate cancer). But one LISTED repercussion is that a man can lose up to 53 percent of his ability to enjoy s/ex. That happened to my husband and diabetes took care of the rest. The last time for us was in 1992. So we are NOT in that 25 percent… we are in the 75 percent the church calls to celebacy.
Since we received that call, we have greatly strengthened our Agape love, we are ultra affectionate and are best friends and it has caused a spiritual renewal in my husband and yes, I DO have his permission to talk about it here.
Our church isn’t called mother church by accident… it IS our Mother, gently guiding us in the right direction if we allow.
If only Catholics would believe the Magesterium and the Bible with as much faith as they believe the lying news media!
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
While i totally agree with your statement that it’s how one sees their homosexuality, there is one thing I don’t understand. Can’t one support homosexual marriage and still feed the poor? That is, support Christian values and equality at the same time?
L
ladybri77
Guest
I’m saying you don’t have to identify yourself with your weakness any longer. Homosexuality, a weakness and part of the sin nature, gone in Christ. So we no longer have to say we’re a homosexual. It’s a weakness just like anything else is, gluttony, laziness, etc, but we don’t have to give into those things either. I’m not going to call myself a glutton, it just may be a weakness I have of which I’m choosing not to give into.
Jesus came to make all things New, all of us New in Him, so we throw off the old ways, the old sins, and become new creatures in Him as Scripture says. God would see us with our old sin nature unless, but when we accept Christ, God sees us through him as His bride, thoroughly washed and cleansed. We are now the righteousness of Christ. We don’t identify with the old anymore.
D
dbaseII
Guest
A Catholic is not supposed to support gay marriage because marriage according to the magesterium and the Bible is ONLY between ONE man and ONE woman. Anything else is friendship, not marriage and if intercourse occurs outside of a Sacramental marriage then it is the serious sin of fornication.
Remember admonishing the sinner is considered a “spiritual act of mercy” by the Church.
There are many practical reasons why intercourse in unnatural ways is not a good idea so by supporting “gay marriage” you may not be doing someone a favor.
There are also several studies which suggest that anything other than a male/female marriage may not be a good environment for a child.
And in states which have legalized “gay marriage”, the fallout in some areas has been rather ugly. For example s/ex education in schools in those states includes education on gay unions, teaching kids that an alternative lifestyle marriage is equal to a traditional one and parents have NOT been able to opt out if they do not want their kids taught this (in Mass, there are several lawsuits going as we speak).
CDC stats show that the greatest risk of AIDS in the USA is to gays and second greatest to heteros who have intercourse with those who swing both ways. So medically, it may not be a good idea.
I think those who support gay marriage mean well but it’s best for Catholics to follow the Bible and the Magesterium… to approach homosexuals as they are - children of God but to not encourage any type of fornication - same sex or heterosexual.
Website giving more info from a Catholic POV on this topic
Catholicism to me is about a very personal intimate relationship with Our Lord and Savior. I call the “rules” in the Bible good health rules and a side benefit. These “rules” appear in many non religious sources and are time tested to work the best.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Ah, your last sentence is the problem.
Yes, you can feed the poor and respect the inherent dignity each human person has.
But, all things are not equal. Homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are not equal, even though the participants are equally loved by God and have the same inherent worth before Him. There are many good articles and whole books written about why these are not equal - I won’t rehash them here.
There is a gay agenda and there is a Christian agenda. These agendas are not compatible. You can be a gay Christian, I think. You must subscribe to the Christian agenda, however.
A good example of this the former priest from Fresno, Geoff Farrow. He decided that he was gay, even though he was supposed to be celibate, and has become a gay activist. He didn’t need to do that. He could have continued to live as a celibate priest, but he decided to publicly identify as a gay activist.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well of course one can support homosexual marriage and feed the poor. But then they don’t have anything whatsoever to do with each other.
Can answer me this. If the church is wrong about homosexual behavior being sinful how I know there are also not wrong about their admonition to feed the poor? How do I know they are not wrong about loving your neighbor? The resurrection? The divinity of Christ?
D
dbaseII
Guest
Here are a couple of links about Catholicism and homosexuality:
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
I know they are not related, that’s why I clarified by saying “support homosexual marriage and Christians values”
Even if the church was wrong about feeding the poor and loving your neighbor, they are still based in human love, not necessarily faith. As far as the resurrection and Christ’s Divinity, there are multiple statements, prophecies and miracles that happened because of it, I’m sure you’ve even experiences miracles in your own life. Homosexuality, on the other had, was not mentioned by Christ, nor was it even the same behavior that it titled as homosexuality today.
L
ladybri77
Guest
Jesus spoke against “perversion” in the New Testament of which the act of homosexuality certainly is. Also, in Romans 1, (please read), Paul mentions the gravity of homosexual sin.
Also, if the church is “wrong” about this, it is wrong about many things. Church doctrine is guided by the Holy Spirit.
E
estesbob
Guest
But the sinfulness of the immoral sexual behavior is a Christian value also.
If we believe that Scripture is inspired word of God it does not matter whether something is mentioned by Christ or not as every word in Scripture comes from God. Christ did not, for instance mention, pediopilia or rape or incest but I’m sure you are not going to claim that these are okay because Christ didn’t mention them.
The idea that homosexual behavior day is different homosexual behavior in the past is specious.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Um, you seem to be missing the ‘not brought up in the same household’ part. Even when their environments are different, a person with a gay sibling is more likely to be gay than is a person without a gay sibling. It is not purely environmental. Genetic coding has a demonstrable influence.
Of course, you are right about the fact that identical twins are not always of the same orientation. Genetic coding is not determinant.
In other words, genetic coding is not 100% determinant, but neither is it 0% determinant: it is somewhere between ‘decisive’ and ‘irrelevant’.
Like other behavioural traits, it is not accurate to reduce it to simply genetic determinism or to environmental chemical influences or to psycho-social factors. Human beings are complex creatures, and we are influenced by everything around us.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I understand what you are saying. However, even if we could track down all of the biological (and psychological) factors and ‘cure’ someone’s sexual orientation, attempting to apply such a ‘cure’ would require the presumption that the sexual orientation is a disease which requires curing, and not merely another one of the natural variations amongst humans. It is not the existence of a method but the existence of the motivation to apply it which would “make it happen”.
What matters most is not whether it is possible to alter a given trait, but whether there is a belief that the trait should be altered. The kind of nation-state which would enforce such alteration is the stuff of nightmares.
It really, really isn’t at all hopeless. I live in a country where gay people marry: it is under the label ‘civil union’, but is absolutely identical in the law, and so quite a few straight people have civil unions instead of weddings. We get on just fine, and straight people have not stopped marrying.
Broadening the legal definition of marriage so that it includes same-sex couples has “destroyed marriage” no more than including women and non-white people in schools or governments has destroyed those.
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
I’m not claiming the behaviors are different, but the terms given to different types of behaviors are. The homosexuality that was referred to by Paul and others is what you would consider promiscuity in the present age. There was not a term for a monogamous, same sex couple in Biblical times. It is unfortunate that, etymologically speaking, the term changed meanings and thus caused something that was never spoken for or against in the Bible to be considered bad.
I’m confused, what are these practical reasons? Just to make sure, we’re both considering monogamous, consensual actions, correct?
How is it any more damaging than a broken house hold, or an abusive family? In fact wouldn’t a loving household (even if between two of the same sex) be better than the aforementioned two?
I agree 100% this it is a personal relationships with God (granted community can be equally important), but what if man’s logic on God’s rule book for good health are ill formed (See above?) If a healthy relationships with God still exists, if the individual makes sure it exists, what is wrong? But as for time tested to be the best, just because something is the only thing tested does not prove it to work the best.Catholicism to me is about a very personal intimate relationship with Our Lord and Savior. I call the “rules” in the Bible good health rules and a side benefit. These “rules” appear in many non religious sources and are time tested to work the best.
L
ladybri77
Guest
Perhaps it could be genetically influenced, but I’ve seen more of the other, environmental, with the possibility of a small group with biological reasons (look at the percentage of people born with biological abnormalities), a very small percentage. I know my sister and I who were brought up in separate households actually like some of the same kind of things. So I believe there is also some psychological connection with a twin or sibling even if brought up in separate households.
N
NoMoreGames
Guest
That connections which you peak of would be genetic. In this case, there are genetic components that create proteins in the brain that cause it to react a certain way to different stimuli, and but you and your sister must have received similar genetic components from your parents.
And as far as there being a small number of individuals born with biological abnormalities, I beg to differ. My research has shown that with the abnormality has no biological effect, either positive or negative (but that does not mean it is not present), or that there is no visible physical change. Take allergies for instance. That is a biological abnormality, but I’m guessing that a fair number of people you know have them in one way or the other.
Don’t take this as me saying homosexuality is purely genetic, i feel it is a combination of genetic factors that make an individual prone to certain experiences in a specific way, and actually encountering those experiences at an influential time as determined by the genetic component. This would still mean the individual would have no control over the outcome. I just wanted to clear up some potential confusion on genetics.
- Status