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

[Freddy]

Yes.

But we can ignore all the punishments in the OT.

 

[gama232]

“all the punishments”? Which punishments?

 

[Freddy]

I’m not talking about specific acts. What would you do if your gay friend said, “I think he’s cheating on me.”? Gay divorce does occur.

It seems that you do understand that marriages are pretty much all the same. I’m sure my friend goes through exactly the same marital problems as I do. There’s no difference.

 

[Freddy]

“all the punishments”? Which punishments?

Haven’t you read the OT?

 

[gama232]

Which punishments? Yes, I’ve read the OT.

 

[Freddy]

Which punishments? Yes, I’ve read the OT.

There must be a family friendly version that doesn’t have all that stoning and burning. Try getting hold of a copy of the KJ version.

 

[gama232]

No stoning or burning. I have two of the KJ version.

 

[Freddy]

No stoning or burning. I have two of the KJ version.

Turn to Leviticus 21:9. See if it’s the same as mine.

 

[gama232]

“And the daughter of any priest…” I’m pretty sure it is. Hmmm… I thought I had two but I do not.

 

[Neithan]

You are conflating terminology to try to equivocate

Huh. What term is conflated and where is the equivocal expression? I drew a simple comparison to show that your attempt to somehow weigh sexual orientation as more important to someone’s identity than religious belief is merely a product of your bias.

And your apparently intended insult of my being “extremely biased” is an inane comment. Bias is the whole point.

Not intended as an insult at all. Looks like it’s true.

 

[QContinuum]

I drew a simple comparison to show that your attempt to somehow weigh sexual orientation as more important to someone’s identity than religious belief is merely a product of your bias

I’m not sure why you are fixated on my bias when discussing what offends me versus what offends Maximian. It is taken as a given we both have our biases. Unless you believe bias is somehow an exotic feature. It seems to me you are focused on labeling everything I say with a prejudiced slant do that you can simply dismiss it. I’ve seen that kind of behavior before here on this board many times. It just affirms my opinion that many here are not interested in discussing such matters in good faith, but simply geared to shut down conversation altogether.

If that’s your intent, I will not waste my time defending against such ignoble posts. I will carry on with others who are more honest in their intentions. And you will be ignored.

 

[ZMystiCat]

A perfect example of taking part of what I wrote to promote an agenda. Violence is never allowed. Had you added that - since I wrote it - you would have no argument.

And “if young enough, sent away to a camp…” By their parents. Not me. So get rid of that argument.

You asked:

Legalizing gay sex was the goal. Homosexual persons have that. What more do they want?

I answered. What you might do is completely irrelevant. But to reduce the entirety of the cultural aspects down to “sexuality”, as you did, is woefully inaccurate.

 

[gama232]

Please describe ‘gay culture.’

 

[Buks]

I thought this stuff was a matter of faith. Truths can be revealed and never adequately explained or proven, and still be true, right?

I hope for religious liberty, which is obviously under threat. At the same time I wish that when sexual sin is discussed that the focus would be proportional to the problems caused throughout the ages by the specific sins. Might it not be more altruistic to talk about the issue of marital infidelity more than about homosexual sex? (By the way, hopefully when a comment mentions “homosexuality is a sin“ like above, it is just sloppy writing.)

 

[Anicette]

Of course not.

because each act of sexual nature would be disorder, as they ae not man and woman. So no man and woman part to do the act God give us in order to procreate Children.

Sad that our society is in such a state that these sorts of questions are asked and should been asked repeteadly.

 

[Anicette]

I would suggest you strongly to first educate yourself on what the Church teach on sxuality before to answer post like for only the purpose to let off stream on another poster.

The problem here seems to be that you do not believe that there is a natural, or a right order in tem on human’s destinty, or any sin in sexuality or that you don’t believe in the concept of sin to begin with.

There is no link between pleasurable and disorder. If pleasure is the only think that means something, there is no morality possible. It can be pleasurable an still disorder.

It seems like the only justification seems to focus in on the “perversion theory” - namely that use of male genital organs for any purpose other than deliberate procreation is sinful.

You are completely wrong here.
Not all “natural” acts end in procreation. Only a small proportion of them for couples who are fertiles. That does not mean they are by nature “disorder”.

What you want to say that there is no difference between natural (how babies are made) and unatural acts. But yes, there is a difference.

 

[gama232]

So name calling is in order? Here are the standard responses from here and elsewhere:

Bigot
Homophobe
Your Bible was written by Bronze age sheep herders.

Are you living how you want? If so, why do you need anyone’s approval? I don’t mean just Catholics.

 

[gama232]

You should understand that this sort of question asking is not about debate at all. The goal is to take clear Church teaching about human sexuality and to tell Catholics it’s wrong.

 

[Freddy]

“And the daughter of any priest…” I’m pretty sure it is. Hmmm… I thought I had two but I do not.

So there’s burning then. Do you want a passage for stoning as well?

The point being that you described the bible (and I assume you mean all of it) as being authored by God. Therefore we should abide by it. But we don’t. Burning prostitutes and stoning adulterers isn’t practiced any more where I live.

Do you have a list of what’s acceptable practice and what is not?

 

[Buks]

Buks:

(By the way, hopefully when a comment mentions “homosexuality is a sin“ like above, it is just sloppy writing.)

yes and no.

I still don’t get the distinction. If ONLY the sexual act of homosexuality is a sin, why then is gay marriage a sin? It’s like Catholics want to differentiate between BEING a homosexual and ACTING as a homosexual. What’s the difference? Being gay is not a sin, going to gay pride parades is not a sin, promoting the gay lifestyle is not a sin, but only the sex part is a sin? It seems so inconsistent. So two men and two women can live their lives together, live in the same house, adopt and raise children, and as long as they don’t, you know, do stuff with their pants down - it’s all good?

I mean, come on. It is so hard to take the Catholic position of “hate the sin, love the sinner” seriously.

I’d say maybe there can be a moral element to some of those choices even if they won’t qualify for a determination of sinfulness. Which is God’s judgement of course. Catholic teaching is an indispensable guide. IMO we’ll be accountable for the fact that we were aware of that teaching, even though we must also follow our conscience, and pray.

With all due respect I think you may be seeing inconsistencies because, although you’re coming at the issues from a basically compassionate stance, you haven’t thought about it as thoroughly as it has been by those responsible for the Church‘s teaching.