Is lack of the ability to procreate the sole reason homosexual activity is a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
I make no argument (based on simple observation) other than to ponder why sexual desire in women is greatest at the time of ovulation. Does this suggest anything?
Click to expand...
You’ve personally observed the sexual desire of all women everywhere at the same point in their cycle? That must be a heady feeling.
 
QContinuum said:
40.png
Freddy:
The small patter of applause you hear in the background is recognition that we achieved over 70 posts before bestiality was mentioned.
Click to expand...
What if those verses were just some goat herder’s tragic misunderstanding about furries?
Click to expand...
Good grief…I have no idea what that means…
 
You never heard of furries? They’re a group of people who like to dress up as animals and hang out. And do…other things, lol. Also, they are frequently overlapped with the gay community. Thus my joke regarding gay people, animals and bronze age decrees of abomination.
 
Last edited:
Also, I’ve read through this thread but I don’t see a straight answer (hehe) to the OP’s question. Is procreation the reason for homosexuality being deemed a sin?
 
Thorolfr said:
it can’t be said that they “exchanged” or “abandoned” heterosexual relations for homosexual ones.
Click to expand...
Yes it can, in the sense that they had the opportunity for normal relationships but chose abnormal ones instead.
 
I find it offensive to put the Catholic faith on a par with a sexual aberration.
 
And I find it offensive that something unfixed and so changeable as religious belief is elevated, and frequently even given precedence, to the rights of gay people. Whose proclivities are decidedly not a simple act of will.
 
Freddy said:
Or is it accepted as being ‘entirely natural’? In which case abstinence would be against natural law.
Click to expand...
I’m not a natural law expert and nor did I introduce that subject. But I do know that what is “natural” is not synonymous with natural law.
 
QContinuum said:
to the rights of gay people.
Click to expand...
People have the right to associate with whom they please and engage in sexual acts with consent. Whether it’s rational for the State to view 2 persons of the same sex as entitled to be married to each other is a different question! It certainly requires a complete recalibration of the meaning of marriage and the State’s interest therein!

In some jurisdictions, that’s happened.
 
Last edited:
The whole point of Catholicism is that it doesn’t change.

I take it you are not Catholic?
 
gama232 said:
The cultural aspect identifies what human sexuality is.
Click to expand...
How about being able to gather without fear of violence? How about being able to come out without fear of being ostracized or, if young enough, sent away to a camp where people are abused in the name of “healing”? How about not being scapegoated for a massive sex scandal? How about not being viewed as a predator that people feel violence might be justifiable against?

None of those have anything to do with whether or not someone views homosexual acts or transitioning as right or wrong, but they’re all still issues that have had sometimes horrific results since the Supreme Court decision.
Freddy said:
And men are built to desire sex almost every waking moment. Especially at a young age.
Click to expand...
Let’s try to avoid stereotyping.
 
But Catholics do. And Catholics are hardly the only ones claiming the privilege of religious belief as the reason to deny others their right to live and love according to their nature.
 
Last edited:
People have the right to associate with whom they please and engage in sexual acts with consent.
Click to expand...
Certainly they do now, in this country. Against the past objections of many religious people.
Whether it’s rational for the State to view 2 persons of the same sex as entitled to be married to each other is a different question! It certainly requires a complete recalibration of the meaning of marriage and the State’s interest therein!
Click to expand...
Translated: "The ability of gay couples to have their committed relationships recognized by the secular State must not violate the unfixed personally held beliefs about what is rational, by another subset of the population.
 
Last edited:
Catholic teaching is clear and consistent across the world and across time. A Catholic who adopts a different position cannot be quoted as representing the Catholic position.

To give an analogy: perhaps you may meet a member of the Conservative Party who says he believes in nationalisation of the land. You could not then conclude that this was a conservative policy.
 
No it means you can’t be a practising Catholic and a Practising homosexual at the same time.
 
Of course Archbishop Robinson understood/understands the science behind the conception of a zygote. He was touching on homosexuality in MALES. I merely brought up the point because I thought it was an interesting take.
You certainly understand that female homosexuality along with male homosexuality is disordered. The little segment of a larger book that I had read wasn’t condoning anything, it was just presenting both sides of an argument.
 
Go ahead and pull the other one. Catholic teaching is not clear and consistent. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be constantly debating here with each other on the correct understanding of all sorts of doctrine.

But regardless of whether teachings or doctrine remained perfectly preserved and recorded in a clear Universal language since 90 AD or so, in an airless chamber somewhere in the Vatican, you are missing the point. And that is people’s personally held religious convictions are extremely susceptible to change. And people not books, or buildings, or shrines are the ones who are afforded rights.

I find it extremely offensive that a person may deny another the right to express something fundamental to his or her nature, on the basis of a belief that may change next week, if a person decided to de-convert, or convert to another faith.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top