Is homosexuality sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Other_Eric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Homosexuals need to not engage in sex, just as like alcoholics must stay away from alcohol. They may still like and want it, but they don’t have it. It’s all about how you deal with it.

Eamon
 
Lisa N:
Just curious if you know how many “homosexuals” had sexual relationships with the opposite sex either before or during their homosexual days? My experience has been that most homosexuals were heterosexual or at least had normal heterosexual relationships with the opposite sex before deciding their ‘true nature’ was as homosexual…this being helped in no small part by a very strong homosexual lobby that has invaded the media, schools, and entertainment industry. IOW I think that some people feel very validated and rewarded by orienting toward the homosexual world, particularly if they felt marginalized or put upon. It may appear dangerous, glamorous, or exciting. Think about it, that’s what attracts people to other very dangerous behaviors including drugs, smoking, driving too fast.
i know all kinds of “homosexuals”. they come in all varieties. “most” don’t have sex with women prior to having sex with men. but i don’t know what “most” is. that is more common with women though. discussing “the homosexual problem” is a lot like discussing “the homeless problem”. people can sit and talk a whole a lot about causes and solutions, but meanwhile, there are still people dying on the street. trying to categorize what’s contributing to the messed up condition of society isn’t going to change the actions of people. the media devil, the entertainment devil, etc. don’t make a person have sex with someone. yes there are influences that we would do well to remove, but the situation is much more complicated than that. if you are asking if all these things ruin perfectly good “heterosexuals”, the answer is “no”.

people who have sex with people of the same sex are like everyone else committing some sort of sin. they latch onto whatever excuse they can, and when that excuse doesn’t work anymore, they toss it out and use a new one. when they forget why that excuse didn’t work, they just use it again.
I think too often, maybe because of the homosexual lobby, people so totally identify with their current genital practices that they see themselves as a homosexual first, thereby making it even harder to change. People are NOT their behavior. I wish we could make that point better but I know it’s too easy to call someone a homosexual or a drunk or a pedophile. I do it all the time without thinking about it.
a person need not “totally” identify with their sexual preference to make change difficult. men and women who march in parades, etc. are not the average. don’t let that skew your view. oversimplifying the idea of change makes change difficult or impossible. in the subjectivity of the people who have to do the changing, they are their behavior. convince them otherwise in a Christlike way, and you might be able to convince them of other things as well.
Frankly with few exceptions, the people on these boards are not engaged in ‘bashing.’ However they do not back down when homosexuals try to defend their behavior, claim homosexuality is perfectly normal, claim homosexual relationships are equivalent to male/female sacramental marriage, or ignore the incredible damage inflicted by predatory homosexuals on the Church as well as on many individuals.

Indeed some people probably speak very strongly but I would say that is the exception. Please correct me with examples as you may consider statements “bashing” when my interpretation is that they are simply truthful and forthright.
well, if you say so. but you can’t tell by looking.

cutting and pasting examples would take forever, and to what avail? part of the offensiveness is couched in the very words people use. just from the use of the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” we create identity. it is hard to keep people from saying “i am homosexual.” when others are saying “i am heterosexual” or “you are homosexual.” if you want people to believe that you believe that “homosexual” does not identify a person, then stop using it as an identifier. it has to be an adjective and not a noun. i fall into this trap too sometimes, but we have to try. remember that they are people, and we have to treat them that way, even with our words. the statements by some in these forums may seem calm and normal toned to you, but they are deafening to those of us who have to live through it.

btw, i have met far more “predatory” heterosexual males than “predatory” homosexual males. i am far more upset to see men publicly and plainly display lust for, and openly degrade, women. at least in the average situation, when a man sees a man he’s attracted to, he hides his response, instead of making noises, gestures, and comments, and shamelessly spewing his filth all over everyone in the room. “heterosexuals” condone that behavior (even in their own children) because it’s “normal.” if you want to fix society, wage war on that too. cuz let me tell you, sister, if that’s what you’re trying to turn me into, i’ll fight you to my last breath.

john
 
John my own experience with homosexuals is that most had relationships with women, one I know particularly well (he’s a cousin by marriage) married a woman, had kids and was married over a decade. Other homosexuals I know had longterm, serious relationships with women. So I guess it all depends on your particular friends and acquaintences. I do know quite a few homosexuals quite well because of a hobby that seems to attract them. I have pretty well developed ‘gaydar’ unlike people who have not had years of interacting with homosexuals (male).

Because of this changeable nature, I really think homosexuality is something that becomes a pattern rather than something that becomes hardwired. I can certainly see the appeal of the homosexual lifestyle for a young hormonal and impulsive man. Shoot all the sex you want, no strings attached, an exciting nightlife, getting to act wild and crazy. Now I think someone who has strong heterosexual inclination is certainly not going to be swayed but I think there are plenty of people who are confused and particularly if they are slight built, effete in mannerism, are often rejected by women and thus ‘thrown into the arms of a man.’ At least this is the way one of my homosexual friends explained it. As a skinny, pimple faced adolescent with coke bottle glasses he said that girls were cruel and rejecting, while men were welcoming and encouraging. Not hard to see how that might have swayed his way of thinking.

As to more predatory heterosexuals, good heavens! Of course there would be more in number. Heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by what 98% to 2%? However I have to wonder WHERE you have observed this predatory behavior. Sure a cute girl walking by a construction site is going to get the usual whistles and catcalls. But I can’t say that in my life I’ve seen such boorish behavior as you’ve described. But then I don’t go to bars or hang out with the drinking/drugging crowd so maybe I’ve avoided that loop.
Again maybe you can describe where these kind of encounters took place. I think that has more to do with the kind of behavior encountered than the sexuality of the people.

Lisa N
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
Not it doesn’t. CCC#2333 reads as follows:

Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual *difference *and *complementarity *are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

It doesn’t include anything like the sentence you quoted. But in the first non-definitive edition of the Catechism in #2358, the sentence you quoted was present. But this sentence was excised in the second, definitive edition and is replaced with this sentence:

“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

You can read all the changes made in the 2nd edition from the 1st edition here:

scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm

And be careful when looking at a website online to check that it is the 2nd edition and not the 1st. And be especially wary of www.christusrex.org as their online catechism mixes and matches the 2nd and 1st editions.

But they do choose it if by ignoring therapy that is viable they choose to remain in that state. Whether or not they initially chose to be in that emotionally disordered state, by disregarding therapy that works and isn’t costly, they would then be choosing to remain in it.

Right, and having this homosexual disorder can be an occasion of sin, in which case you are obliged to “avoid” it if feasible. Getting rid of it is a way to “avoid” it.

If one can get rid of these temptations and these temptations are an occasion of sin, then one has an obligation to get rid of the temptations if that is feasible. Saying that temptations are inevitable is no excuse since these particular temptations are not inevitable if there is indeed effective therapy that can get rid of them. If this effective therapy is not costly and one chooses to not use it then one is choosing to keep one’s self in an occasion of sin.

There’s no special rule. Same thing would apply to any condition that is a near occasion of sin.
A) Thanks for the info. on the Catechism. I need to buy the final copy.

B) I still don’t think their souls are in danger if they don’t seek therapy. The Church doesn’t say this and I doubt she will. A temptation is different than a sin. Just because one is tempted doesn’t mean one has sinned.

C) I’ve known people who have conquered it through continence, prayer, recourse to the Sacraments, and sacrificial living. Therapy may work, but it cannot be laid on people as a requirement for salvation.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
I think that testimonials by former male homosexuals saying, “I was a practicing homosexual! But, now I’m a happily married heterosexual!,” are self-delusion by mostly heterosexual bi-sexuals. They really aren’t good precedent for the concept that homosexual inclinations are changeable.

I think that homosexual inclinations are the product of substantially permanent imprinting, and that cultivation of social pressure upon homosexuals to subject themselves to “conversion therapy,” based on a philosophy that homosexuality is changeable, rather than on a philsophy that God requires only that they be celibate, is itself sinful.
You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.
Neil Whitehead says that only 5% of people with same-sex attractions have biological pre-dispositions to become homosexual - the rest is caused by a constellation of environmental events.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
B) I still don’t think their souls are in danger if they don’t seek therapy. The Church doesn’t say this and I doubt she will. A temptation is different than a sin. Just because one is tempted doesn’t mean one has sinned.
It’s absolutely true that just because one is tempted that that doesn’t mean one has sinned. I agree 100% with that. But if one needlessly exposes one’s self to temptation, then that does mean one has sinned.
C) I’ve known people who have conquered it through continence, prayer, recourse to the Sacraments, and sacrificial living. Therapy may work, but it cannot be laid on people as a requirement for salvation.
If they can effectively deal with it through those means, then I think it may still be a sin for different reasons. If the therapy works and is not costly then rejecting the therapy is rejecting the way God made you. It would be choosing to be an unhealthy person. That’s not what God wants. He wants us to be healthy – physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually healthy.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
C) I’ve known people who have conquered it through continence, prayer, recourse to the Sacraments, and sacrificial living. Therapy may work, but it cannot be laid on people as a requirement for salvation.
Amen.

lisa,
thank God you haven’t been exposed to pigs. it is the behavior. that is my point exactly. heterosexuality doesn’t make them predatory. being predatory makes them predatory. and if they made it as obvious to women as they do to their peers, they’d wind up very lonely. it’s in bars, on the street, in libraries, supermarkets… i’m just saying let’s keep our problems in perspective. our diseased society infects far more than just “2%”. focusing on just one of the symptoms won’t cure the disease.

sorry for the disgression.
40.png
tuopaolo:
If they can effectively deal with it through those means, then I think it may still be a sin for different reasons. If the therapy works and is not costly then rejecting the therapy is rejecting the way God made you. It would be choosing to be an unhealthy person. That’s not what God wants. He wants us to be healthy – physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually healthy.
well, as long as it stays a sin. if they’re sinners for doing it, make 'em stop. when they stop, make 'em sinners again. don’t you worry, we got plenty of sins, no matter what!

what exactly would therapy be for, if the problem is effectively dealt with by Grace? how could there still be any sin, even if not going were a sin, which it’s not.

this well-ya-gotta-be-crazy-to-be-a-fag mentality drives me nuts. but i suffer from the ya-gotta-be-crazy-to-think-a-person-has-to-be-crazy-to-be-a-fag mentality.
 
40.png
Riley259:
You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.
Neil Whitehead says that only 5% of people with same-sex attractions have biological pre-dispositions to become homosexual - the rest is caused by a constellation of environmental events.
And that’s great. 1/3 totally cured and 1/3 with a significantly diminished problem is pretty fantastic (if only we did that well with actual physial diseases). 1/3 not making any progress isn’t that bad statistically. But what we’re talking about is the final state of their souls. I don’t think we can say that the 1/3 who experience diminished problems (implying that they might still have some) or the 1/3 who experiences no relief are in danger of damnation unless they are acting out, ie, sodomy, solitary sin, etc. If they are (and I cannot help, but use this turn of phrase) carrying their cross and following Christ, praying for constant conversion, turning to Him in moments of temptation, and esp. rec. His Most Precious Body and Blood, I don’t think they’re lost, nor do I think the Church will ever say they are. We don’t send people to therapists as a condition for absolution and absolution is what forgives us (though God may choose to act outside His Sacraments). If reparative therapy works, great. Better for the world and all in it. I just think what is being suggested by some here is very bad theology.
 
40.png
Riley259:
You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.
Neil Whitehead says that only 5% of people with same-sex attractions have biological pre-dispositions to become homosexual - the rest is caused by a constellation of environmental events.
Riley, I have long believed homosexuality is MUCH like drug or alcohol addiction. Having worked with several social sevices agencies I’ve seen the same thing, treatment works ONLY when the person is motivated to change. As long as the ‘reward’ of the abnormal behavior is perceived to be greater than the reward of sobriety, treatment will be relatively ineffective.

As a professional in this business, do you see the analogy between homosexual activity and drug/alcohol abuse?

Lisa N
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
It’s absolutely true that just because one is tempted that that doesn’t mean one has sinned. I agree 100% with that. But if one needlessly exposes one’s self to temptation, then that does mean one has sinned.*** Only by an exterior act or by an interior act (thought) that is ENTERTAINED and ENCOURAGED.***
To not get therapy is not the same.

If they can effectively deal with it through those means, then I think it may still be a sin for different reasons. ***Then why use the word “effectively?” You have set a course that the Church has not set forth and I do not believe that She ever will.***QUOTE]

I quite simply disagree with this and I think the Church can be found to as well.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Only by an exterior act or by an interior act (thought) that is ENTERTAINED and ENCOURAGED.
To not get therapy is not the same.

A sin can be by omission as well as deed and thought and word. Surely you know that?:

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.

**CCC#1853 **sins in thought, word, deed, or omission.

This is taught in the Mass too.

Then why use the word “effectively?!?”

Huh? There seems to have been some kind of miscommunication. I used the word effectively because that was describing – I thought – the situation you were describing.
 
JKirkLVNV,

It looks like I maybe misunderstood what you meant by “conquered it …” I thought you were just speaking of being able to effectively resist temptations. Maybe you were instead speaking of getting rid of one’s homosexual inclination altogether. If so then I apologize. If someone finds an alternate way to get rid of one’s homosexual inclination then they would not, obviously, need to seek therapy to get rid of something that doesn’t anymore exist.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
A sin can be by omission as well as deed and thought and word. Surely you know that?:

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.

**CCC#1853 **sins in thought, word, deed, or omission.

This is taught in the Mass too.

Huh? There seems to have been some kind of miscommunication. I used the word effectively because that was describing – I thought – the situation you were describing.

I asked because of what you said several posts back, that even if they were dealing with it effectively, it would be a sin for other reasons! Dealing with it effectively would mean there wasn’t a problem! Yes, I’m aware of the sins of omission. I fail to see how not going to reparative therapy is one. I think the Church would fail to see it as well, esp.inasmuch as there is that 1/3 who experience a diminishment (again implying that they have some trouble) in reparative therapy and the 1/3 who experience no diminishment at all. That’s from NARTH’s site, those stats, by the way. I think we are still failing to distinguish between temptation (something we will all face until we are dead) and sin. That’s is not in line with Church teaching. I can’t think of any confessor of any stripe who would agree with this. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
 
tuopaolo said:
JKirkLVNV,

It looks like I maybe misunderstood what you meant by “conquered it …” I thought you were just speaking of being able to effectively resist temptations. Maybe you were instead speaking of getting rid of one’s homosexual inclination altogether. If so then I apologize. If someone finds an alternate way to get rid of one’s homosexual inclination then they would not, obviously, need to seek therapy to get rid of something that doesn’t anymore exist.

No, no, you were dead on. I don’t think one has to get rid of the inclination altogether or be damned, I think one has to avoid the actions/attitudes/, that the inclination has the potential to lead to or be damned. I completely disagree with you, on the terms that you understand me to be disagreeing with you. I guess the word “potentiallity” would sum it up for me, really. “Potential” isn’t sin, “actual” is sin. But that is my take on it. I respectfully disagree.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I asked because of what you said several posts back, that even if they were dealing with it effectively, it would be a sin for other reasons! Dealing with it effectively would mean there wasn’t a problem! Yes, I’m aware of the sins of omission. I fail to see how not going to reparative therapy is one. I think the Church would fail to see it as well, esp.inasmuch as there is that 1/3 who experience a diminishment (again implying that they have some trouble) in reparative therapy and the 1/3 who experience no diminishment at all.
Not getting into the sin issue, but questioning your logic. Even if reparative treatment does not have a 100% success rate (nor do most treatments of physical illnesses FWIW) does that excuse not TRYING to obtain that diminishment of desire, if available? IOW if you go into therapy with sincere desire to change the inclination, even if you fail, at least you’ve tried. I see this as similar to repenting of another kind of sin, and while you might stumble along the way, a sincere effort has some value doesn’t it?

Lisa N (not trying to split hairs just understand your point)
 
Lisa N:
Not getting into the sin issue, but questioning your logic. Even if reparative treatment does not have a 100% success rate (nor do most treatments of physical illnesses FWIW) does that excuse not TRYING to obtain that diminishment of desire, if available? IOW if you go into therapy with sincere desire to change the inclination, even if you fail, at least you’ve tried. I see this as similar to repenting of another kind of sin, and while you might stumble along the way, a sincere effort has some value doesn’t it?

Lisa N (not trying to split hairs just understand your point)
Lisa: That’s all I was addressing: the issue of culpability. I’ve no problem with the concept of reparative therapy, because I tend to lean toward the environmental origin, though I haven’t ruled anything out. Sort of the “sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children” thing, in my view, not in any juridicial way, but in a natural consequence kind of way. This can still mean they don’t choose the orientation, but may unfortunately choose the activity, by the way. And if people can control (diminish, deal with, etc.) or even eliminate completely the desire, either is good, as far as the soul’s state before God goes, IMHO. But even if it’s a struggle to their death bed, and they never give into it, but only faithfully suffer from it, offering up that struggle to the One Who died for us all, then I believe they are rec. by God in His Mercy. You spoke of sincere effort: the folks I spoke of are making that.
 
40.png
Riley259:
You seem to be speculating here. Nicolosi and other researchers including Spitzer (the person who was the impetus behind declassifying homosexuality as a disorder in the DSM) have found that 30% of subjects undergoing reparative therapy are completely successful in reversing their sexual inclinations and another 30% or so are moderately successful. It seems to be a question of motivation - does the subject really want to change and if they do they have to work real hard because the sexual desire for a same-sex individual has probably been conditioned for many years. I’m a behavior analyst and know all too well the power of behavioral conditioning especially something as reinforcing as sexual desire.
Neil Whitehead says that only 5% of people with same-sex attractions have biological pre-dispositions to become homosexual - the rest is caused by a constellation of environmental events.
To the best of my knowledge, your experts’ perspectives are at war with one another.

As far as I know, Dr. Nicolosi is currently teaching my perspective, that male homosexual imprinting is permanent, and can’t be changed, but can only be averted if the prospective male homosexual is identified as such and his family subjected to appropriate conditioning if this is all done before imprinting occurs at around age 4.

Dr. Nicolosi’s work, though much despised and attacked by gay lobbies who resent being viewed as a “dysfunction,” appears promising.

Those here who think that homosexuals have a moral burden to attack their own imprinting, rather than merely be celibate, should beware of drifting into a rather “Nazi” anti-homosexual perspective.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
To the best of my knowledge, your experts’ perspectives are at war with one another.

As far as I know, Dr. Nicolosi is currently teaching my perspective, that male homosexual imprinting is permanent, and can’t be changed, but can only be averted if the prospective male homosexual is identified as such and his family subjected to appropriate conditioning if this is all done before imprinting occurs at around age 4.

Dr. Nicolosi’s work, though much despised and attacked by gay lobbies who resent being viewed as a “dysfunction,” appears promising.

Those here who think that homosexuals have a moral burden to attack their own imprinting, rather than merely be celibate, should beware of drifting into a rather “Nazi” anti-homosexual perspective.
Good heavens, identify a potential homosexual before age FOUR? Is this real? How in the world could you so identify a tiny child? Children are sexual beings but I hardly see them as having sexual orientation identified when barely out of diapers. What gives here?

Just my experience, I’ve seen homosexuals identify from age 20 to age 35, before that time, they were at least living outwardly as heterosexual. I’d like to know more about Dr Nicolosi’s work. I just think it would be hard to know anything about a child’s future sex life at such an early age.

Lisa N
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Lisa: That’s all I was addressing: the issue of culpability. I’ve no problem with the concept of reparative therapy, because I tend to lean toward the environmental origin, though I haven’t ruled anything out. Sort of the “sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children” thing, in my view, not in any juridicial way, but in a natural consequence kind of way. This can still mean they don’t choose the orientation, but may unfortunately choose the activity, by the way. And if people can control (diminish, deal with, etc.) or even eliminate completely the desire, either is good, as far as the soul’s state before God goes, IMHO. But even if it’s a struggle to their death bed, and they never give into it, but only faithfully suffer from it, offering up that struggle to the One Who died for us all, then I believe they are rec. by God in His Mercy. You spoke of sincere effort: the folks I spoke of are making that.
Ah, that makes sense. I still draw the analogy between homosexual behavior and other addictive behaviors. I have never talked to an ex smoker who said he or she EVER completely lost the desire to smoke. My best friend is in her late 50s and smoked only a couple of years while in college. She says if she smells a cigarette she STILL gets that old craving some thirty plus years later. Similarly my father gave up alcohol in his 70s but still said "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic’ and he too always had that desire to engage in drinking although he was finally able to pass. Is reparative treatment similar to addiction treatment? It seems to this layperson to make sense that the same approach would work.

Lisa N
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
No, no, you were dead on. I don’t think one has to get rid of the inclination altogether or be damned, I think one has to avoid the actions/attitudes/, that the inclination has the potential to lead to or be damned.
A good way to avoid those actions is to get rid of as far as possible the inclination itself! I don’t understand why you don’t see that. If one try’s to get rid of the inclination but does not succeed despite one’s best reasonable efforts, then there’s no sin in the failure. But if one doesn’t try at all, then it is a sin.

And why would one not want to get rid of these perverse inclinations? Wanting to keep evil inclinations seems to me to be a sin. And you can’t go to Heaven and want to keep evil inclinations since there are no evil inclinations in Heaven. Do you see what I mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top