Lost the cultural debate on homosexuality

[Voco_proTatiano]

Your situation is much more complex than the average homosexual’s. You are comparing apple’s and oranges.

No! East and West,
You are missing the point made by Sixtus.
I will avoid here the use of singular pronouns to avoid insult.
Sixtus is telling you that gender contrary to genotype is in the human population, about 0.2%.
That means that according to genotype, 0.2% of the population are potentially homosexual, and do not know that their relationships, if they exist, are homosexual.
The fraction of this population, who like Sixtus, are aware of their miss-assignment is tiny, so inconsiderable to this argument.

Sixtus is a practical example of my assertion that genotype does not directly code for gender, only sets a prediliction, which is quite delicate.

The gender predeliction may affect brain and body differently, so resulting in a male body with a female brain, or vice-versa.
This population would be aware of their miss-assignment, but trapped in their situation.

How do you classify a female genotype with a male body form?
How do you classify a female soul in a male body?

Do you really consider yourself capable of that judgement?
Remember Our Lord’s warning:
With what judgement that you judge, you will be judged.
Far safer to obey the command:
Judge not that you be not judged.

 

[Elric]

Not true.

Daddums

Actually I was including that, that was tainted/flawed from the start. You might want to read a bit more about that study.

 

[rinnie]

I am watching CNN and basketball player Tim Hardaway made some anti-gay comments about the a gay player. Now, I don’t think his comments were wise. He basically said, “Yes, I am homophobic. I don’t like gays” to an accusation of bigotry.

I don’t think the way he responded was loving, but I am amazed by how it seems univerally accepted that homosexuality is normal, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a bigotted fool.

After the intreview, a panel of sports commentors got together to condemn him. One said, it doesn’t make sense to him that that a black man would want to exclude someone. I guess they are now the same thing.

Anyway, all of this is concerning me. Nations are passing laws that restrict what people can say about homosexuality, catholic charities are being forced to accept gay adoption, and the majority of catholics I know are in favor of gay marriage.

Have we lost the culture war? What are we to do?

Kendy

I guess the best we can do is what the Pope says. Pray for them. As far as the Nations passing laws on what we can say, that seems to be everything anymore. I do know what you mean though, if something is wrong and we say something its not politically correct. Its getting so hard to stand up for God today.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I guess the best we can do is what the Pope says. Pray for them. As far as the Nations passing laws on what we can say, that seems to be everything anymore. I do know what you mean though, if something is wrong and we say something its not politically correct. Its getting so hard to stand up for God today.

I agree that praying for someone is the best thing that you can do for them. It is not the only thing, there are many other things that we can do for others. We must stand as a light on a hill, testifying to the truth, as Christ taught.

It has always been, and always continue to be, hard to stand up for God, to stand up for truth. Many have been put to death for it, and fortunately for us here in the U.S., that is still extremely rare. I don’t worry too much about the ideal of free speech being lost in this country anytime soon. That freedom is still much to valuable to the enemy to be realistically constrained by official means.

However, testatments to the truth have been and will agressively be challenged by the world we find ourselves in. Since we have the truth, the debate will only be lost when we are intimidated into silence. All that is ever necessary for darkness to prevail is for the light to be extinquished.

Sincerely,

Dan Grelinger

 

[CentralFLJames]

The gender predeliction may affect brain and body differently, so resulting in a male body with a female brain, or vice-versa.
This population would be aware of their miss-assignment, but trapped in their situation.

How do you classify a female genotype with a male body form?
How do you classify a female soul in a male body?

Do you really consider yourself capable of that judgement?
Remember Our Lord’s warning:
With what judgement that you judge, you will be judged.
Far safer to obey the command:
Judge not that you be not judged.

Pardon me for so saying but doesn’t it seem a bit disordered or axiomatically hypocritical to imply that judgement is immoral while in the same breath asking a person to judge their own conscience? I think it goes circular in the logic to leave us all silently holding hands around the campfire to lip-sync a sort of amoral Kumbaya to the ambiguous cricket sounds in the dark.

This is all interesting speculation and no doubt great concepts for sensational science fiction stories and movies. No doubt too there are plenty of out-of-work PhDs in related fields who would float any similar wild idea to any homosexual advocacy group who would pay them to come up with favorable studies. Such would pay good money for any new ideas suggesting that homosexuality is just a normal and healthy natural selection that is spooned randomly from the letters in the genetic alphabet soup.

But what’s the point in all this mental perspiration? Are we proposing to cure or prevent something (and admit an abnormal condition)? Or are we looking here for evidence of a new seperate evolving human species; perhaps even a new and improved one that is reproductively challenged and should be protected as endangered? Or do we exert all this perspiration as a curative and self-contradictory exercise to cure the minds and attitudes of the super-majority against their own natural predispositions to understand why something is so disordered?

I see the latter exercise and motive as self-defeating and untenable. It sounds more like a self administered brainwashing and self-elected behavior modification to me than it does a cure. I note that the pattern for humanity has always been ‘if one is powerless to fix a problem redefine it so its no longer seen as a problem’. But this redefinition does not even appeal to common sense, nor a sense of fairness nor is it numerically scalable.

Why should 95% of the population struggle to change it’s own natural proclivity to detest what it considers illicit behavior just to accommodate the 5% who refuse to consider changing it’s own real or imagined proclivities? Is it arrogance, a “gay pride” thing or indicative of a need for some to dominate? Why the double standard and why is the burden of change unidirectionally incumbent on the majority? So let’s do a “what if”. What if the majority could be forced to be dominated by the minority. What happens? Well, assuming a normal statistical distribution the error rate (one sigma) on the nonconforming majority is still going to be about as large as the outliers of the current minority we seek to force-normalize with. That’s a statistical compromise that guarantees a sustained social conflict since it only trades one alienated outlier at the cost of creating another one. That’s not a solution.

The natural solution is not to force the majority to change their behavior and attitudes to accommodate the minority. Nor is the solution to force the minority to adopt the behaviors of the majority against its real or imagined nature. The natural, pragmatic and scalable solution is for the minority to voluntarily seek to abstain from the behaviors repugnant to the majority while the majority voluntarily sets the normative example by abstaining from its nature to condemn. The majority can also set the example by abstaining from promiscuous behaviors within its single members. That’s a benevolent motivation that improves the kurtosis of the population’s behavior rather than cloistering more of the total population to hide as new outliers in fatter tails of the distribution.

Just ideas…

James

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I embrace what I can - including the truth.

---

---

So if you want to use the leper analogy then you should go the whole circuit and mention that the afflicted through no personal fault of their own had the common decency and compassion to cloister themselves away from the rest of society as a necessity of life. That sense of self denial is the part that is missing in the homosexual attitude. Most homosexuals are trying to force society to accept them as “normal” rather than trying to learn how to live with their condition and even change.

As I recall, though I do not know where from, the OT, or maybe, the Koran, specified that homosexuals be excluded from society, much like lepers, and also much like lepers, they were to be allowed to live out their lives, as best that they could, as long as they had no damaging contact with ‘straight’ society.
They could trade in the market, to buy and sell, and do craft skills, as long as they worked only among their own kind.

No one here is saying homosexuals have to go into the closet in the literal sense. But I don’t think Jesus was kidding when he said in Luke 9:23 : And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
James

I think most of us now accept that homosexuality is not infectious, so that it not dangerous to society, and is only offensive if expressed openly. but then some are offended by the open expression of heterosexual love.

We need to accept that the burden of homosexuality is allocated by G_d, for it is inevitable in the Grand Design, so the judgement of how the victim of the burden handles it, is purely a matter between that victim, and G_d, provided of course that no injury is caused, and procedures to control STDs are followed.

That is, if the ‘evil’ cannot be eliminated, then the harm caused by the evil should at least be mitigated.
Cutting off the wing of a swan will not cure its inability to fly with a broken wing, but it will at least allow it to have a fairly full life without flight. The broken wing, which cannot be repaired would otherwise be a burden, possibly fatal, to the swan, if not removed.
That is mitigation of evil.
Who knows, the wingless swan might still raise normal young.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Some musings…

What you need to understand is that sexuality is not a simple matter of ‘black’ and ‘white’.
While black and white form the majority of this highly bi-modal distribution, there do exist various shades of gray, lost in the mid-space.

Genesis says that God created them male and female. Would this suggest that all persons can ultimately be classified as one or the other? Or would it suggest that each of us is created to be male and female, in different ratios?

Thus, though ‘normal’ sexuality is the majority case, ‘abnormal’ sexuality is just a normal variant in an overlapping bi-modal distribution. Thus these ‘abnormalities’ are in there own way quite normal, and to be expected, and accommodated, as part of the Grand Design.

This appears as flawed logic. If by ‘normal’, you mean ‘real, existing’, then I agree with the term normal. This appears to be your logic. Then you jump to an expectation that what is normal must always be ‘accomodated’. There is no support for this that I can see. Why must what exists be ‘accomodated’? Evil exists, must it then be accomodated?

Yes, the attitude of Mother Church to these variants might be an ideal, but just like Our Lord said to Peter, concerning chastity, there are some who cannot meet this ideal.

What is your suggestion? That because one ‘cannot’ meet the ideal, that they are justified in not doing so? I think it just means that all are sinners, but are still called to be like Christ, i.e. to be ideal.

If only for the reason of not spreading STDs, then, homosexual relationships based on a one to one, closed relationship, mirroring marriage, are to be preferred to casual relationships, which are both a medical, and cultural hazard.

Again, this appears flawed. It appears that you value physical life more than spiritual life. Christ indicated consisently that our eternal life was infinitely more worthy of our protection than our physical life. Why suggest a course of action that preserves our secondary physical lives, but ruins our primary immortal ones?

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Some musings…

Genesis says that God created them male and female. Would this suggest that all persons can ultimately be classified as one or the other? Or would it suggest that each of us is created to be male and female, in different ratios?

Genesis is a brave attempt to describe the beginnings of things in a language and a science which was incapable of defining the science as we today understand it.
It is as if you are trying to read the first page of the Bible, in fine print, using a newspaper semi-tone photograph of the whole page to work from. Most of the words would be utterly illegible.
Yet the same quality of semi-tone photograph would be completely satisfactory to represent a face, or a traffic sign.
You expect too much of Genesis.

[sign]
Thus, though ‘normal’ sexuality is the majority case, ‘abnormal’ sexuality is just a normal variant in an overlapping bi-modal distribution. Thus these ‘abnormalities’ are in there own way quite normal, and to be expected, and accommodated, as part of the Grand Design.[/sign]
This appears as flawed logic. If by ‘normal’, you mean ‘real, existing’, then I agree with the term normal. This appears to be your logic. Then you jump to an expectation that what is normal must always be ‘accomodated’. There is no support for this that I can see. Why must what exists be ‘accomodated’? Evil exists, must it then be accomodated?

Actually, I was careful to differentiate between ‘normal’ and normal. You have missed, and lost this differentiation.
‘Normal’ is perceived to be normal.
Normal is actually normal.
You need to understand that the gender phenotype is not directly coded by its genotype. The genotype only codes for enzymes that predelict gender, and somewhat randomly at that. Thus there is some overlap in the bi-modal distribution which defines apparent gender.
You also need to understand that apparent gender, and actual gender are not necessarily the same, for the enzymes affect different parts of the body at different rates, so a marginal level may correctly assign one part of the body, while incorrectly assigning another.
Thus a female brain, hence a female soul in a male body, or vice versa, is not uncommon.

What is your suggestion? That because one ‘cannot’ meet the ideal, that they are justified in not doing so? I think it just means that all are sinners, but are still called to be like Christ, i.e. to be ideal.

In response to Peter’s question, Our Lord advised chastity, but allowed that not all men could abide by this advice.
What Our Lord called for concerning heterosexuals, we have no right to exceed concerning homosexuals.
That is we can advise chastity. There is evidence that virgins, both male and female live much longer lives. And clearly, are not exposed to STDs.
However, after warning of the risks, both physical and spiritual, we have no right to demand chastity, any more of homosexuals, or heterosexuals.

[sign]
If only for the reason of not spreading STDs, then, homosexual relationships based on a one to one, closed relationship, mirroring marriage, are to be preferred to casual relationships, which are both a medical, and cultural hazard.[/sign]
Again, this appears flawed. It appears that you value physical life more than spiritual life. Christ indicated consisently that our eternal life was infinitely more worthy of our protection than our physical life. Why suggest a course of action that preserves our secondary physical lives, but ruins our primary immortal ones?

Sincerely,

Dan

Yes, Dan, but Our Lord healed ten lepers, yet made no demands upon them, other than they complied with the Law, and showed themselves to the priest, and make the appropriate sacrifice.
That one alone returned to Our Lord to give him thanks was enough fo Our Lord.
He save ten live in order to save one soul.
If you do not save the life, the soul is already lost.
First save the life, then you might save the soul.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Genesis is a brave attempt to describe the beginnings of things in a language and a science which was incapable of defining the science as we today understand it.

As a Catholic, I believe that Genesis is the inspired truth of God. It certainly is not the complete truth (God is not bound to give us all truth, and certainly has not) but that which is ‘said’ must be truth if it is from God. Accepting this, I would rewrite your statement as this, to judge whether it fits within the Church’s view of truth: “Genesis was God’s brave attempt to describe the beginnings of things in a language and a science which was incapable of defining science as we today understand it.”

What would you say of this re-write? I would say that it highlights that your statement accepts that Genesis may not actually 100% true. Therefore, as Catholics see it, that God’s word in Genesis is not 100% true.

Actually, I was careful to differentiate between ‘normal’ and normal. You have missed, and lost this differentiation.
‘Normal’ is perceived to be normal.
Normal is actually normal.

I do not believe that you understand me. I understand the difference between what is normal and what is perceived to be normal. The differentiation that I was making was between what was normal (i.e. real) and that which is right. Normal does not make right.

You need to understand that the gender phenotype is not directly coded by its genotype. You also need to understand that apparent gender, and actual gender are not necessarily the same, for the enzymes affect different parts of the body at different rates, so a marginal level may correctly assign one part of the body, while incorrectly assigning another.
Thus a female brain, hence a female soul in a male body, or vice versa, is not uncommon.

Whether or not I ‘need’ to understand that will remain a topic of another conversation. However, implicit in your definition is the concept that mistakes happen (the word incorrect was used). In that, you and I agree. And when mistakes happen, we should want to correct them. Is this your conclusion?

In response to Peter’s question, Our Lord advised chastity, but allowed that not all men could abide by this advice.

Hmmmm. I would suggest that not following the ‘advice’ of the Lord is disobeyance. Therefore a sin. If you agree, we are on common ground. The debate would then move to how grave a sin.

What Our Lord called for concerning heterosexuals, we have no right to exceed concerning homosexuals.

Abstaining from sexual relations with one who is not your spouse is a common requirement for both hetero and homosexuals, there is no difference.

That is we can advise chastity. There is evidence that virgins, both male and female live much longer lives.

First, you misuse the term chastity, as if it means celibacy. They are different. Secondly, there is even more evidence that solid marriages (i.e. chaste ones) prolong life, just as virginity (again a chaste state) does. Therefore we can conclude that it is chastity, not necessarily celibacy that is good, and has its corporal rewards.

However, after warning of the risks, both physical and spiritual, we have no right to demand chastity, any more of homosexuals, or heterosexuals.

This statement you have to justify, as it is totally outside the bounds of what I know to be true. The Church was established by Christ to instruct it’s flock into what is right and what is wrong. To teach what is good and what is evil, and ‘insist’ that we all remain good is its primary purpose. Otherwise it is hollow and empty. Free will was granted by God, which essentially is the ability to choose good or evil. But when evil is chosen, it is still evil.

Yes, Dan, but Our Lord healed ten lepers, yet made no demands upon them, other than they complied with the Law, and showed themselves to the priest, and make the appropriate sacrifice.
That one alone returned to Our Lord to give him thanks was enough fo Our Lord.
He save ten live in order to save one soul.
If you do not save the life, the soul is already lost.
First save the life, then you might save the soul.

.

Do you believe that the other 9 were condemned? And I don’t understand that if you do not save the life, the soul is lost. What does this say of martyrs?

Sincerly,

Dan Grelinger

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Concerning the ten lepers…

From Luke 17, earlier in that chapter:

3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Do you believe these to be Christ’s words? If so, what do they mean with respect to those practicing homosexual activity?

Moving on…

12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, who stood afar off:

13 and they lifted up their voices, saying, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.

These leper expressed some faith in Jesus, asking that for his mercy. Would this be the primary reason they were cured? They lamented their condition, and asked for God’s mercy?

And finally:

And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, with a loud voice glorifying God;

16 and he fell upon his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.

17 And Jesus answering said, Were not the ten cleansed? but where are the nine?

18 Were there none found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger?

19 And he said unto him, Arise, and go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

Is there a conclusion we can make about the souls of the other nine? Wouldn’t we be guessing if we assumed that they were condemned? Jesus only says that this one is ‘made whole’. He does not say that the others are not. This would be inference, and not well substatiated.

Sincerely,

Dan Grelinger

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think most of us now accept that homosexuality is not infectious, so that it not dangerous to society, and is only offensive if expressed openly. but then some are offended by the open expression of heterosexual love.

We need to accept that the burden of homosexuality is allocated by G_d, for it is inevitable in the Grand Design, so the judgement of how the victim of the burden handles it, is purely a matter between that victim, and G_d, provided of course that no injury is caused, and procedures to control STDs are followed.

That is, if the ‘evil’ cannot be eliminated, then the harm caused by the evil should at least be mitigated.
Cutting off the wing of a swan will not cure its inability to fly with a broken wing, but it will at least allow it to have a fairly full life without flight. The broken wing, which cannot be repaired would otherwise be a burden, possibly fatal, to the swan, if not removed.
That is mitigation of evil.
Who knows, the wingless swan might still raise normal young.

Well, No and Yes.

Sin is infectious since sin is never committed in a vacuum. It always has both potential for eternal consequences and always has temporal consequences to self, to others and to the condition of Creation as a whole. So illicit behavior its not so simple a matter as being “repulsive” or “offensive” only when publicly seen or implied. Sin is always potentially deadly and always with consequences.

Scripture tells us that the natural elements themselves become disordered and wild as a consequence of humanity’s sins and escalating depravity. Sin degrades the entire Human Race and the very ability to even see sin as evil in ourselves. The biggest lie ever told was that what we don’t know or see can’t hurt us (e.g. ‘don’t ask don’t tell, don’t look don’t show’ ). It’s immoral to not warn another human soul that he is walking down a path that leads off the cliff to certain destruction. God’s Justice can hold us accountable for other’s grave sins if we do not warn them about the eternal consequences they risk in sinning.

I think we have a pretty good lesson from St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:1 about how to deal with immorality within the Church. Basically Paul reproves the members of the Church for tolerating a specific species of licentiousness which was not tolerated “even by the heathens”. He reproves them and orders them to purify the church by removing the morally bankrupt person from their midst since he disgraced not only himself but The Church. Separation or exclusion is warranted in non-repentant cases.

To those disobeying God’s laws outside the Church all we can do is warn them (or appeal to civil laws when those are available). True we are all sinners and Jesus reclined with sinners. But attitude is everything.

So, yes, we let God judge those who seperate themselves from God and His Church by blatantly disregarding His teaching (may God have mercy on them). But it is incompatible with Church Teaching to knowingly tolerate within the Church itself open exhibition of immorality and licentiousness. We are told to seperate ourselves from them if they will not repent.

James

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Well, No and Yes.

Sin is infectious since sin is never committed in a vacuum. It always has both potential for eternal consequences and always has temporal consequences to self, to others and to the condition of Creation as a whole. So illicit behavior its not so simple a matter as being “repulsive” or “offensive” only when publicly seen or implied. Sin is always potentially deadly and always with consequences.

SSA in itself is not a sin, but a temptation. It seems, in some cases to be a result if incorrect, or incomplete gender orientation, which is inherrant in the way that gender is predisposed. Ie, there is some randomness in the system.
How the afflicted respond to their affliction, is to a large extent, for themselves to judge.
It is fine for the unafflicted to demand celibacy, but they do not demand that of themselves.
They are surely out of order in denying companionship, even close companionship.
I think that sodomy is a dangerous practice, both medically, and spiritually, but certainly there can be no objection to a degree of petting and cuddling. What lies in between is another matter, not for me to judge, nor would I think, any one else but G_d.
Would you accuse me of bestiality when I take my b|i|t|c|h dog on my lap, and rub her belly? It certainly gives her great pleasure, and giving her pleasure, gives me joy. Whether she feels sexual overtones in this petting is a matter that does not normally concern me, but it would not surprise me if she did.

Scripture tells us that the natural elements themselves become disordered and wild as a consequence of humanity’s sins and escalating depravity. Sin degrades the entire Human Race and the very ability to even see sin as evil in ourselves. The biggest lie ever told was that what we don’t know or see can’t hurt us (e.g. ‘don’t ask don’t tell, don’t look don’t show’ ). It’s immoral to not warn another human soul that he is walking down a path that leads off the cliff to certain destruction. God’s Justice can hold us accountable for other’s grave sins if we do not warn them about the eternal consequences they risk in sinning.

Apart from death and taxation, there are no certainties.
There are perceived heavy risks, and general warnings, given from incomplete knowledge, in good faith.
Remember, we are not bound by OT law, except where those individual laws are quoted by Our Lord. I often work on the Sabbath, whether it be Saturday or Sunday, and I often eat pork.

I think we have a pretty good lesson from St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:1 about how to deal with immorality within the Church. Basically Paul reproves the members of the Church for tolerating a specific species of licentiousness which was not tolerated “even by the heathens”. He reproves them and orders them to purify the church by removing the morally bankrupt person from their midst since he disgraced not only himself but The Church. Separation or exclusion is warranted in non-repentant cases.

The foundations of my house are built on the sayings, and deeds of Our Lord. I would not even set the footings of a brick built out-house on the words of Paul alone, for often Saul speaks through his mouth.

To those disobeying God’s laws outside the Church all we can do is warn them (or appeal to civil laws when those are available). True we are all sinners and Jesus reclined with sinners. But attitude is everything.

We need to understand the burdens borne by others before we presume to judge how they deal with them

So, yes, we let God judge those who seperate themselves from God and His Church by blatantly disregarding His teaching (may God have mercy on them). But it is incompatible with Church Teaching to knowingly tolerate within the Church itself open exhibition of immorality and licentiousness. We are told to seperate ourselves from them if they will not repent.

James

But James, you have already judged that these afflicted have separated themselves from G_d.
I have already said that the afflicted should not make much of their affliction, save where the state, or church add to that affliction.
We know that Our Lord had a low opinion of the Pharisees adding to the affliction borne by the people. Laying on burdens, and not lifting a finger to help.
Beware what you put in the mouth of G_d.
Male prostitution was common among senior Romans at the time, yet Our Lord says not a word, even when curing the centurian’s boy slave.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I think, here reference needs to be made to an ocaision where Mother Church has tolerated, if not blessed, a situation where two males were cohabiting on a personal basis.
One of these persons is even now, in the process of being beatified.
Mother Church was clearly happy, and still is, to accept that the relationship, which though indeed, a deep loving friendship, was Platonic.
Indeed there are records from the past of such relationships being accepted as honourable, and involving saints, I give you here the example of St Justinius and Tatian, who had a father/son relationship. Tatian was Justinii’s student, we might say apprentice.
It was common to take an apprentice into the family of the master, sometimes, in the event of the master having no sons, he might even be adopted, or if Jewish, acknowledged as his son.
Thus, I argue that it is right that provided that homosexuals do not trumpet abroad that they commit disordered acts together, their relationships should be assumed to be Platonic.
And therefore it is proper that these relationships should be accepted, and even blessed, provided, further, that a real distinction be made between them, and marriage.
Indeed, perhaps a formal adoption of brotherhood or sisterhood might be appropriate in the case of equals, giving equivalent legal rights as married couples, and indeed, cohabiting brothers and sister of blood should have also these same legal rights.

 

[rpp]

I think, here reference needs to be made to an ocaision where Mother Church has tolerated, if not blessed, a situation where two males were cohabiting on a personal basis.
One of these persons is even now, in the process of being beatified.
Mother Church was clearly happy, and still is, to accept that the relationship, which though indeed, a deep loving friendship, was Platonic.
Indeed there are records from the past of such relationships being accepted as honourable, and involving saints, I give you here the example of St Justinius and Tatian, who had a father/son relationship. Tatian was Justinii’s student, we might say apprentice.
It was common to take an apprentice into the family of the master, sometimes, in the event of the master having no sons, he might even be adopted, or if Jewish, acknowledged as his son.
Thus, I argue that it is right that provided that homosexuals do not trumpet abroad that they commit disordered acts together, their relationships should be assumed to be Platonic.
And therefore it is proper that these relationships should be accepted, and even blessed, provided, further, that a real distinction be made between them, and marriage.
Indeed, perhaps a formal adoption of brotherhood or sisterhood might be appropriate in the case of equals, giving equivalent legal rights as married couples, and indeed, cohabiting brothers and sister of blood should have also these same legal rights.

This is a distortion of what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught. It was certainly not worth reviving a years and half old thread that you had hijacked.

The Church has condemned civil unions. You comments are not consistant with Catholic teachings.

Your insistence that the Church turns a blind eye to these gravely disordered acts is baseless and wrong.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think, here reference needs to be made to an ocaision where Mother Church has tolerated, if not blessed, a situation where two males were cohabiting on a personal basis.

I suppose the next step in your distortion would be to claim that all monastic religious societies are conclaves for same sex co-habitation where the church has tolerated and blessed sharing the faith under the same roof on a personal basis.

Don’t be ridiculous.

James

 

[RobbyS]

SSA in itself is not a sin, but a temptation. It seems, in some cases to be a result if incorrect, or incomplete gender orientation, which is inherrant in the way that gender is predisposed. Ie, there is some randomness in the system.
How the afflicted respond to their affliction, is to a large extent, for themselves to judge.
It is fine for the unafflicted to demand celibacy, but they do not demand that of themselves.
They are surely out of order in denying companionship, even close companionship.
I think that sodomy is a dangerous practice, both medically, and spiritually, but certainly there can be no objection to a degree of petting and cuddling. What lies in between is another matter, not for me to judge, nor would I think, any one else but G_d.
Would you accuse me of bestiality when I take my b|i|t|c|h dog on my lap, and rub her belly? It certainly gives her great pleasure, and giving her pleasure, gives me joy. Whether she feels sexual overtones in this petting is a matter that does not normally concern me, but it would not surprise me if she did.
Apart from death and taxation, there are no certainties.
There are perceived heavy risks, and general warnings, given from incomplete knowledge, in good faith.
Remember, we are not bound by OT law, except where those individual laws are quoted by Our Lord. I often work on the Sabbath, whether it be Saturday or Sunday, and I often eat pork.

The foundations of my house are built on the sayings, and deeds of Our Lord. I would not even set the footings of a brick built out-house on the words of Paul alone, for often Saul speaks through his mouth.
We need to understand the burdens borne by others before we presume to judge how they deal with them
But James, you have already judged that these afflicted have separated themselves from G_d.
I have already said that the afflicted should not make much of their affliction, save where the state, or church add to that affliction.
We know that Our Lord had a low opinion of the Pharisees adding to the affliction borne by the people. Laying on burdens, and not lifting a finger to help.
Beware what you put in the mouth of G_d.
Male prostitution was common among senior Romans at the time, yet Our Lord says not a word, even when curing the centurian’s boy slave.

Homosexuals often bring up the fact that Our Lord never expressly condemns homosexuality but ignoring the fact that Our Lord was a Jew and that Jews generally abhored the practice because of its intimate relationship with idolotry. St. Paul’s opinions in Romans undoubtedly were like those of Our Lord. Certainly he never said anything to the contrary.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Homosexuals often bring up the fact that Our Lord never expressly condemns homosexuality but ignoring the fact that Our Lord was a Jew and that Jews generally abhored the practice because of its intimate relationship with idolotry. St. Paul’s opinions in Romans undoubtedly were like those of Our Lord. Certainly he never said anything to the contrary.

FYI:
You will recall, that when Our Lord cured the centurion’s boy-slave/servant, he made no reference to the relationship between them, which, quite clearly was a loving relationship, as the centurion cared enough to go out of his way, and put himself into political danger, to beg for a cure for him.
Our Lord could not have been unaware that it was common among Romans to have illicit relationships with boys, indeed child prostitution was very common, and a slave could earn special status in that manner.
Yet knowing this, Our Lord made no judgement on the matter.
If He chose not to judge, by whose authority do we?

 

[blessedtoo]

FYI:
You will recall, that when Our Lord cured the centurion’s boy-slave/servant, he made no reference to the relationship between them, which, quite clearly was a loving relationship, as the centurion cared enough to go out of his way, and put himself into political danger, to beg for a cure for him.
Our Lord could not have been unaware that it was common among Romans to have illicit relationships with boys, indeed child prostitution was very common, and a slave could earn special status in that manner.
Yet knowing this, Our Lord made no judgement on the matter.
If He chose not to judge, by whose authority do we?

What pro-gay website are you getting this junk from? What’s next - that the apostle Paul was really a closeted homosexual?

Your comments not only display a woeful lack of knowledge about Church teaching, but also an ignorance of history.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What pro-gay website are you getting this junk from? What’s next - that the apostle Paul was really a closeted homosexual?

Your comments not only display a woeful lack of knowledge about Church teaching, but also an ignorance of history.

Sir, you are insulting, and you display a remarkable ignorance of the Gospels.

I do not concern myself with Paul/Saul, as he is ambivalent as to whether he speaks in the spirit, or from his own mouth.
My only authority is the Word of Our Lord, as reported by reliable witnesses in the Gospels.

I suggest that you read the original words of Our Lord, or their best translations, and weigh them more heavily than those of commentators and appologists.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This is a distortion of what the Catholic Church teaches and has always taught. It was certainly not worth reviving a years and half old thread that you had hijacked.

The Church has condemned civil unions. You comments are not consistant with Catholic teachings.

Your insistence that the Church turns a blind eye to these gravely disordered acts is baseless and wrong.

I really do think that you need to check your ‘facts’
I have dealt only in factual matters.
Nowhere have I advocated sodomy. I have actually warned against the practice as physically dangerous, and spiritually deviant.
His Holiness has recently suggested that a more positive attitude be taken to single sex partnerships.
You might also read this:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050418/Buried-secrets-Cardinal-Newman-set-Britains-newest-saint-First-exhumed-grave-shares-man–greatest-love-life.html