Issues from an Agnostic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pvt_Jet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pvt_Jet

Guest
Well, I wasn’t sure where to throw this thread but, you know, I figure someone knowledgeable will stumble on it eventually.

So, I’m the type of guy who doesn’t believe things without some pretty solid proof behind them. I don’t make hard decisions lightly, but when they’re made, well, it’s tough to change my mind. This creates some problems with me and religion… but my individual belief in God isn’t up for question in this thread.

I am an Agnostic, but having been raised Catholic with Catholic values… I’m inclined to believe that in Catholocism lies the answers. However, I have some very noticeable issues with the Church’s teachings… things that keep me from accepting and truly being able to believe.
  1. Homosexuality. Transgender. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual. The LGBT community. Yes, I accept it. I support those who are in fact, gay, and don’t think less of them because of it. Now, why is the Church so opposed to their lifestyle? Few of them chose to be gay in the first place, fewer chose this path for lust-driven reasons initially… many just find themselves on this path, and no amount of talk will make them change their minds because, well, there’s nothing to change. You can as easily tell a man that he is an ape than tell a gay person that there is something wrong with their beliefs, and our society where such disapproval is so common leads to depression, and much too often, suicide.
If it’s not a choice, and it’s nothing within a person’s control… if that is the way they were made, why is that wrong in the eyes of God? Where do we step in saying that it is wrong in place of God? Is it merely a Church view, or is it solid, unarguable, fact, that it is wrong?
  1. The qualifications for getting into heaven. I’ve been told many times recently that what you need to get into heaven is Grace not works. There are numerous bible quotes to support this… I forget the exact ones. Something about “so no man may boast.” Anyways…
I find it hard to accept that the afterlife run by a truly just and loving God would be an exclusive club available to only those that have been baptized, or only those who believe in Jesus, or only those who go to Mass all the time… all the little requirements in Christian religions the world over. I understand that according to the Church, God does not judge based on works. It is entirely possible for someone to do all sorts of good things for others but be a absolute horror of a person. But how can we justify the situation where someone truly is a good person would go to hell? Imagine a person who does good because they feel it is the right thing to do, they give to charity, they help others, they never deliberately hurt others… in essence, they are a paragon of all that Jesus teaches us to be in the New Testamant. But, that person is an agnostic. They are an atheist. They are a Hindu, a Muslim, heck, they may even be a pagan. Better yet, have them be somebody who has been shown Christianity, but they chose not to accept it due to a multitude of reasons from being skeptical, to believing their own religion is correct, to simply just not caring about religion playing any sort of role in their lives.

Would a truly just, a truly loving God send that person to hell? Someone who has never been baptized, never been confirmed, never accepted Jesus… done all the no-nos the Church describes… and yet lives their lives about as Saintlike as your average human can get. Can you honestly tell me that that person would go to hell?

And yet… the person who was born Catholic, accepted it because it was what their family was, did all the requisite Baptism, Confirmation, and other Sacraments… but doesn’t actually follow up on their beliefs, doesn’t go to Church, doesn’t help those in need, has all the character flaws inflicted by the 7 Deadly Sins… the Church would tell me that that person would go to Heaven simply because they believe in Jesus and accept God?

I can see the logic on works not being required to get into Heaven. But I find it even harder to believe that someone whose life is defined by their good works… who has done them not because of religion, but simply because they believe it is right (as opposed to someone doing good works to get into heaven, probably what the Church was looking to stomp down on when they made this ruling)… they would go to hell?
tl;dr version:
  1. Why does the Church have a problem with the LGBT community?
  2. Do good people go to hell simply because they deny Christianity?
I tend to be a bit wordy and tend to slide into rants… but believe me! I’m here with an open mind! And I honestly would like to hear people’s perspectives on my issues… it’s why I’m here after all.
 
Friend, you speak my mind to an extent.👍

As a Friend, the answer lies in the Journey…not in the destination…this life is important…the next life will take care of itself.
 
Pvt_Jet said:
Well, I wasn’t sure where to throw this thread but, you know, I figure someone knowledgeable will stumble on it eventually.

So, I’m the type of guy who doesn’t believe things without some pretty solid proof behind them. I don’t make hard decisions lightly, but when they’re made, well, it’s tough to change my mind. This creates some problems with me and religion… but my individual belief in God isn’t up for question in this thread.

I am an Agnostic, but having been raised Catholic with Catholic values… I’m inclined to believe that in Catholocism lies the answers. However, I have some very noticeable issues with the Church’s teachings… things that keep me from accepting and truly being able to believe.
  1. Homosexuality. Transgender. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual. The LGBT community. Yes, I accept it. I support those who are in fact, gay, and don’t think less of them because of it. Now, why is the Church so opposed to their lifestyle? Few of them chose to be gay in the first place, fewer chose this path for lust-driven reasons initially… many just find themselves on this path, and no amount of talk will make them change their minds because, well, there’s nothing to change. You can as easily tell a man that he is an ape than tell a gay person that there is something wrong with their beliefs, and our society where such disapproval is so common leads to depression, and much too often, suicide.
If it’s not a choice, and it’s nothing within a person’s control… if that is the way they were made, why is that wrong in the eyes of God? Where do we step in saying that it is wrong in place of God? Is it merely a Church view, or is it solid, unarguable, fact, that it is wrong?
  1. The qualifications for getting into heaven. I’ve been told many times recently that what you need to get into heaven is Grace not works. There are numerous bible quotes to support this… I forget the exact ones. Something about “so no man may boast.” Anyways…
I find it hard to accept that the afterlife run by a truly just and loving God would be an exclusive club available to only those that have been baptized, or only those who believe in Jesus, or only those who go to Mass all the time… all the little requirements in Christian religions the world over. I understand that according to the Church, God does not judge based on works. It is entirely possible for someone to do all sorts of good things for others but be a absolute horror of a person. But how can we justify the situation where someone truly is a good person would go to hell? Imagine a person who does good because they feel it is the right thing to do, they give to charity, they help others, they never deliberately hurt others… in essence, they are a paragon of all that Jesus teaches us to be in the New Testamant. But, that person is an agnostic. They are an atheist. They are a Hindu, a Muslim, heck, they may even be a pagan. Better yet, have them be somebody who has been shown Christianity, but they chose not to accept it due to a multitude of reasons from being skeptical, to believing their own religion is correct, to simply just not caring about religion playing any sort of role in their lives.

Would a truly just, a truly loving God send that person to hell? Someone who has never been baptized, never been confirmed, never accepted Jesus… done all the no-nos the Church describes… and yet lives their lives about as Saintlike as your average human can get. Can you honestly tell me that that person would go to hell?

And yet… the person who was born Catholic, accepted it because it was what their family was, did all the requisite Baptism, Confirmation, and other Sacraments… but doesn’t actually follow up on their beliefs, doesn’t go to Church, doesn’t help those in need, has all the character flaws inflicted by the 7 Deadly Sins… the Church would tell me that that person would go to Heaven simply because they believe in Jesus and accept God?

I can see the logic on works not being required to get into Heaven. But I find it even harder to believe that someone whose life is defined by their good works… who has done them not because of religion, but simply because they believe it is right (as opposed to someone doing good works to get into heaven, probably what the Church was looking to stomp down on when they made this ruling)… they would go to hell?
tl;dr version:
  1. Why does the Church have a problem with the LGBT community?
  2. Do good people go to hell simply because they deny Christianity?
I tend to be a bit wordy and tend to slide into rants… but believe me! I’m here with an open mind! And I honestly would like to hear people’s perspectives on my issues… it’s why I’m here after all.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that if one believes homosexual acts are good that one cannot believe in God?
 
No no! I’m saying I have an issue with the fact that Homosexuality is viewed as a sin in the eyes of the Church. I personally believe there is nothing wrong, strange, or bad about it… I just have an issue with a Church that does, and wanted to hear some people say why they think it IS wrong.
 
Hi,

I wanted to address your question about homosexuality… the Church teaches that it’s not a sin to BE homosexual, but if someone is, they should live celibately. Homosexual actions are sinful because they are choices, while the orientation might be more complex - it might be a choice, or not.

The reason the Church teaches it is sinful is because it goes against the purpose of sex, which is not only unitive, but also for procreation. God made male and female for a reason.

God bless
 
Ok… that’s something I hadn’t heard before. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I guess that’s something I also have a problem with however. Does sex really only exist for procreation? Does it have no greater or lesser meaning within a relationship? Sex can be a tie that binds a couple together and enhances the love within a relationship… or as is common in Modern society, it can mean nothing more than a mutual attraction between two people as a prelude to a potential relationship.

Why IS sex’s only purpose for procreation? Our bodies certainly have a lot of other side effects involved…

Also, can we even define sex in a homosexual relationship as sex within the Church’s definition? There is no possibility of pregnancy occuring… obviously, as the parts don’t line up. How can we even compare the two, really?
 
Pvt_Jet said:
Ok… that’s something I hadn’t heard before. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I guess that’s something I also have a problem with however. Does sex really only exist for procreation? Does it have no greater or lesser meaning within a relationship? Sex can be a tie that binds a couple together and enhances the love within a relationship… or as is common in Modern society, it can mean nothing more than a mutual attraction between two people as a prelude to a potential relationship.

Why IS sex’s only purpose for procreation? Our bodies certainly have a lot of other side effects involved…

Also, can we even define sex in a homosexual relationship as sex within the Church’s definition? There is no possibility of pregnancy occuring… obviously, as the parts don’t line up. How can we even compare the two, really?
Click to expand...
The Sacrament of Marriage is for a man and a woman.

No, sex doesn’t only exist for procreation, it is unitive as well. For a husband and wife.

Those with same sex attraction who want to follow the Lord, begin by trusting Him and accepting what he expects of them. God’s grace makes all things possible. There are many homosexuals who live celibate lives and do not complain about it…they put the Lord first by taking part in the Sacraments and living prayerful lives.

We all have different kinds of sufferings and crosses, and relying on the Lord to get us through enables us to have his peace.
 
Hello, I would suggest you use the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what she really teaches about the questions you asked. I struggled with the same ones myself. My journey took 20 years to befor I finally decided to take ownership of my faith. You can find an online version of the book at: **“Catholicity.com”. I used the paperback version myself just because it was more personal. All Catholics need know the hows and whys of our faith, and not let other people define it for us. I would also highly recommend “Rome sweet Home”, by Scott Hahn, after reading this I knew where the truth was. Patrick Madrid also has some interesting writings. All of these authors have websites you can visit. Peace to you and I pray that you will find what you are looking for. Also try “Bible Christian Society” **website, they have free mp3 downloads that are very informative.
 
Pvt_Jet said:
Ok… that’s something I hadn’t heard before. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I guess that’s something I also have a problem with however. Does sex really only exist for procreation? Does it have no greater or lesser meaning within a relationship? Sex can be a tie that binds a couple together and enhances the love within a relationship… or as is common in Modern society, it can mean nothing more than a mutual attraction between two people as a prelude to a potential relationship.

Why IS sex’s only purpose for procreation? Our bodies certainly have a lot of other side effects involved…

Also, can we even define sex in a homosexual relationship as sex within the Church’s definition? There is no possibility of pregnancy occuring… obviously, as the parts don’t line up. How can we even compare the two, really?
Click to expand...
The Church does allow sex between man and a woman that may not be procreative. BUT not using contraceptive methods. Natural Family Planning is the method that is allowed to put off or space out children. The Church does recognize that sex is unitive. The purpose is not to “test drive” a potential mate. Marriage is not only based on sex and how you are sexually compatible. Marriage is much more about giving than receiving.

If sex is only there for “fun” then are we not just seeing the other person as an object? If that is so, then we do not see the dignity of that other person.
 
@Dorothy:
You’re still implying that the act of homosexuality is wrong. Why is it their cross or burden to bear… why aren’t they treated like everyone else? It obviously can never be procreative… so it becomes more difficult to equate to sex between man and a woman. What IS wrong with it? Is it wrong in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of the Church?

So if it’s not marriage (not allowed within the Sacrament of Marriage) and if it’s not sex as the Church views sex (because you can never have children from it) then we can really comment on it at all?

@Linus:
Thanks for the support, and for the reading material. I’ll make sure to get reading. 😃

@Matt:
I’m not trying to say that sex is there to ‘test drive’ others. Nor am I saying that sex for fun turns the other person into an object. I strongly disagree with those views of sex. While those may be issues that commonly arise in our society, what I’m trying to say is… you can have sex for fun and still see the other person, as, well, a person.

And while I KNOW that the Church disagrees with me here, I believe you can have meaningful sex out of wedlock. It is one the the most unitive, one of the most life-changing acts that you can ever perform in a relationship… and it doesn’t necessarily need to have any meaning beyond that. While I agree procreation is something reserved for a married couple, I think that the act of sex itself need not have such restrictions. Sex can build a relationship, sex can seal the bond between two people. Why do we deny homosexuals the same unitive right as the rest of us?
 
Pvt Jet wrote: <<You’re still implying that the act of homosexuality is wrong. Why is it their cross or burden to bear… why aren’t they treated like everyone else? It obviously can never be procreative… so it becomes more difficult to equate to sex between man and a woman. What IS wrong with it? Is it wrong in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of the Church?>>

It is wrong in the eyes of God, and therefore in the eyes of the Church. The Church did not make it up.

I treat homosexuals like everyone else, I do not look down upon them.

There are people who have different kind of crosses to bear, and some very difficult ones, and they are formed into more loving Christians because of it. And, there are those who are bitter and angry and do what they want and question everything.
 
Pvt_Jet said:
@Dorothy:
You’re still implying that the act of homosexuality is wrong. Why is it their cross or burden to bear… why aren’t they treated like everyone else? It obviously can never be procreative… so it becomes more difficult to equate to sex between man and a woman. What IS wrong with it? Is it wrong in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of the Church?

Is sex with a goat wrong? If so, why? How about with several people at once?

Where does one draw the line? Well…time and society have proven that (even outside of religion) a stable, monogamous relationship within the bounds of marriage works best.

It seems you are not separating homosexual persons from homosexual acts. Church accepts the former with open arms, rejects the latter as sinful (while not negating the former).
So if it’s not marriage (not allowed within the Sacrament of Marriage) and if it’s not sex as the Church views sex (because you can never have children from it) then we can really comment on it at all?

Can we comment on murder, if it involves someone ourside our immediate or extended family?

@Linus:
Thanks for the support, and for the reading material. I’ll make sure to get reading. 😃

@Matt:
I’m not trying to say that sex is there to ‘test drive’ others. Nor am I saying that sex for fun turns the other person into an object. I strongly disagree with those views of sex. While those may be issues that commonly arise in our society, what I’m trying to say is… you can have sex for fun and still see the other person, as, well, a person.

Can you really? How is casual “throw-away” sex different with a person or a blow-up doll, if no feelings or emotional connection is made between the participant? It reduces sex to a mere biological function, like having a good pee when you drink too much beer; it’s something that feels really good, but in reality, there’s no emotional investment required…which pretty much gets us back to treating the other person as an object.
And while I KNOW that the Church disagrees with me here, I believe you can have meaningful sex out of wedlock. It is one the the most unitive, one of the most life-changing acts that you can ever perform in a relationship… and it doesn’t necessarily need to have any meaning beyond that. While I agree procreation is something reserved for a married couple, I think that the act of sex itself need not have such restrictions. Sex can build a relationship, sex can seal the bond between two people. Why do we deny homosexuals the same unitive right as the rest of us?
Click to expand...
Answer this, and I’m not being sarcastic: Why not sanction sex with goats?
 
No sarcasm seen or interpreted, it is a valid comparison to make. I appreciate the debate. 🙂

@Dorothy: Maybe you can point me to how we know it is wrong in God’s eyes. The only quote I’ve ever seen was from the Old Testament, and well, we know how many things in the Old Testament should not be interpreted as fact and should be attributed to the times instead.

And I do not see questioning everything as a problem. How are we supposed to be good Christians, how are we supposed to truly love God… if we don’t actively search? There is a real difference between faith and blind belief.

@Newbie2:
Sex with a goat? Yes I’d say that’s wrong. Are you comparing homosexual acts to bestiality? Because that’s a long leap to make.
As for why I’d say it’s wrong, as I’m sure that’s what you wanted to get at, I simply say that it is because animals such as a goat are lesser beings… beneath humans. However comparing homosexual acts to bestiality is like comparing apples and oranges. Homosexual acts can still contain all the unitive, loving, focus that straight sex contains. You cannot have unitive sex with a goat.
And sex with multiple people? I might draw the line there as that being wrong simply because the goal is no longer simply unitive relationship building, but purely pleasure-focused lust. I’ll surrender that point to you.

Also, I believe you can have a stable monogamous relationship… with two parents of the same gender. It’s just different than has been accepted for centuries, but there appears to be no problem with that, correct?

As for the second set of points… I never said sex with no emotional connection was ok. I never said that we should reduce it to a mere biological function. While it may BE a simple biological function, I simply accept that you can have it out of wedlock and still have it be meaningful. While the act may be underwritten by simple infatuation as opposed to true love, the fact is the act is not a meaningless action where the person you do it with is nothing more than an object. It still means something… and still has worth.

So before we get too off topic here, the point I guess I’m trying to make is that yes, homosexual acts are ok. If we accept homosexuality as ok, and yet we don’t accept homosexual acts, that would be like being ok with a rapist as long as he doesn’t actually rape anybody, but not worrying about his desire to actually rape people. If we’re going to accept something, we have to accept it fully, right?
 
God made adam and eve. If he thought homosexuality was okay, he would have made adam and steve. If you cannot help yourself to thinking about being a rapist, and you sincerly try not to think about it, and you don’t act on it, then that’s okay. Same with homosexuality, and premarital hetrosexual sex, or masturbation.
 
If God made Adam and Steve, then we would have no women. If Adam or Eve was gay, we would have no children and the human race wouldn’t exist. But he obviously made humans in such a way that we can be gay… and yet we are vehemently against it? We know God is perfect yet we say that one of his creation’s natural forms is naturally sinful?

I also would hesitate following the old testament verbatim for the creation story. The old testament as raw fact period should be questioned because of the time period the authors lived in.

And maybe my rapist metaphor wasn’t perfect… so let me try and explain my view this way:
Homosexuality is accepted in the same way as people who have a desire to masturbate, or have underage sex, etc. right? However, we have clear cut explanations as to why masturbation and underage sex, for example, are wrong. Masturbation is looked down upon because it is a purely pleasure seeking act, abusing the ‘equipment’s’ proper purpose (or something along those lines, yes?) and underage sex is looked down upon because you can’t properly understand the consequences of your actions until a certain age, and thus such an important decision and life-changing act should not be performed until you can physically understand what you are doing.

Homosexuality? There is no such easy explanation as to why it is wrong. It is a belief that comes from someone’s genetics, their upbringing… things beyond their control. The act itself still contaings the same unifying aspects as sex in a heterosexual couple, it just cannot cause procreation.

Essentially… how can we justify calling the act a sin if 1) God made it a naturally occuring, unable to be resisted part of the human psyche and 2)If there is no real reason beyond some references in the Old Testament within scripture for it being wrong?

And I do apologize in advance for the debate being as drawn out as it is… I’m pretty stubborn and have an inclination to only believe things I can see or things I can work out logically. Not contributive to religious belief, so again, if I come off as close-minded, that’s not my intention. I’m just looking for answers. 🤷
 
Pvt_Jet said:
snip…
tl;dr version:
  1. Why does the Church have a problem with the LGBT community?
  2. Do good people go to hell simply because they deny Christianity?
I tend to be a bit wordy and tend to slide into rants… but believe me! I’m here with an open mind! And I honestly would like to hear people’s perspectives on my issues… it’s why I’m here after all.
Click to expand...
  1. most posters have answered on this,
  2. they have choosen to reject God. Would you say an employer is wrong for firing a person if they rejected the boss’s authority?
    A baptised person living a life of sin would not have the grace necessary to enter heaven.
    A “good” athesit having never heard the good news would be eligble cause they didn’t reject that which they never heard.But having heard the good news and rejecting because they are shown bad examples ( christians living sinful lives) are entirely in God’s hands.
    The church does teach that those outside of the Church may go to heaven given circumstances. But because they are outside of the Church altogeter the Church can not truly say they are condenmed.Thier destination is entirely in God’s hands.
    Can’t find the exact quote it goes like this from the words of Jesus God judges justly and not unfairly.
 
Pvt_Jet said:
I am an Agnostic, but having been raised Catholic with Catholic values… I’m inclined to believe that in Catholocism lies the answers. However, I have some very noticeable issues with the Church’s teachings… things that keep me from accepting and truly being able to believe.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
Are you suggesting that if one believes homosexual acts are good that one cannot believe in God?
Click to expand...
Pvt_Jet said:
No no! I’m saying I have an issue with the fact that Homosexuality is viewed as a sin in the eyes of the Church. I personally believe there is nothing wrong, strange, or bad about it… I just have an issue with a Church that does, and wanted to hear some people say why they think it IS wrong.
Click to expand...
It is just not clear to me how explaining why the Catholic Church believes homosexual sex is wrong would make you believe in God. What ‘answers’ do you believe the Catholic Church has if you don’t even believe there is a God?
 
Hi Pvt Jet,

I would like to bring to mind that God condemns any sexual acts outside of the sanctity of holy matrimony. Fornication is a sin, adultery is a sin, and EVERYONE is called to chastity. (Being “chaste” does not mean being celebate. Chaste means not having any sexual union outside of marriage between a husband and a wife, and therefore the husband and wife are called to remain chaste by being faithful to each other).

You asked where God condemns homosexual acts - called “sodomites” (and I’d like to add fornication of any kind) in the New Testament:

Revelation 21:8 RSVA
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."

Revelation 22:15 RSVA
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

1 Tim 1: 8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

Mark 7:20-23 - RSVA
20 And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

1 Cor 6:9-10 RSVA
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Nothing impure or unclean can enter heaven, and God showed us the way to enter heaven through Jesus. We were given “rules” to follow (laws, commandments, ordinances…) to help us attain holiness, and we have the freedom of will to choose right or wrong. It is always our decision, and no one can blame another for the free choices we make here during our lifetime (our journer) on earth. The span of our life on earth is but a blink in the eye of eternity, and heaven (and hell) is forever. It is our choice. God gave us these “laws” so we would know right and wrong (good and evil).

Many people blame “genes” on how we “turn” out, however that is only an excuse. We chose to behave in certain ways. Criminals and murderers also try to blame “genes” on their behavior, as do pediophiles. We are the ones in control of our choices - no one else.

God loves all of us, but condemns sinfullness. We can learn self-discipline and self-control.

Any ways, hope that helped answer some inquiries.

peace of Christ,
CEM
 
Pvt_Jet said:
@Newbie2:
Sex with a goat? Yes I’d say that’s wrong. Are you comparing homosexual acts to bestiality?

Not directly, but I’m asking that to get at the “why”.
Because that’s a long leap to make.

As for why I’d say it’s wrong, as I’m sure that’s what you wanted to get at, I simply say that it is because animals such as a goat are lesser beings… beneath humans. However comparing homosexual acts to bestiality is like comparing apples and oranges. Homosexual acts can still contain all the unitive, loving, focus that straight sex contains. **You cannot have unitive sex with a goat.**Why not? How do you define unitive? (I’m not defending sex with goats, mind you)

And sex with multiple people? I might draw the line there as that being wrong simply because the goal is no longer simply unitive relationship building, but purely pleasure-focused lust. I’ll surrender that point to you.

So the only difference is in the number of participants? Why cannot one have a meaningful relationship with multiple partners at the same time?

Also, I believe you can have a stable monogamous relationship… with two parents of the same gender. It’s just different than has been accepted for centuries, but there appears to be no problem with that, correct?

Not sure of your question here. Are you asking if I agree that two people of the same sex can have a “stable monogamous relationship”? And/or if a same-sex couple can be effective parents?

As for the second set of points… I never said sex with no emotional connection was ok. I never said that we should reduce it to a mere biological function. While it may BE a simple biological function, I simply accept that you can have it out of wedlock and still have it be meaningful. While the act may be underwritten by simple infatuation as opposed to true love, the fact is the act is not a meaningless action where the person you do it with is nothing more than an object. It still means something… and still has worth.

So before we get too off topic here, the point I guess I’m trying to make is that yes, homosexual acts are ok. ** If we accept homosexuality as ok**, and yet we don’t accept homosexual acts, that would be like being ok with a rapist as long as he doesn’t actually rape anybody, but not worrying about his desire to actually rape people. If we’re going to accept something, we have to accept it fully, right?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Let’s take the rapist, or killer or pedophile or any other bad-deeder-in-waiting who hasn’t actually committed such acts yet. We can accept these people while at the same time be very concerned about their desires/predispositions/ and at the same time condem the acts that they are predisposed to.

We have to be very careful to define “accepting homosexuality”. We don’t accept homosexuallity as Catholics, **we accept the person **who is homosexual. Big difference.

We don’t accept the rape or murder, **we accept the person **who has the predisposition to rape or murder.

In other words, we **can ** and should separate the sin from the sinner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top