Lost the cultural debate on homosexuality

[CentralFLJames]

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?

And I suppose you would imagine that the man lowered down through the roof by his friends to be cured by Jesus was gay too because only homosexual men would be above the rest of us to hang out on roof tops right?

Only somone looking to justify their own disordered views of sexuality and relationships would dare to propose the naked speculation and bunk you routinely spew here. Cut us all a break…

James

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

And I suppose you would imagine that the man lowered down through the roof by his friends to be cured by Jesus was gay too because only homosexual men would be above the rest of us to hang out on roof tops right?

Only someone looking to justify their own disordered views of sexuality and relationships would dare to propose the naked speculation and bunk you routinely spew here. Cut us all a break…

James

James, for shame!
I suggest that you go out and beg, borrow or steal some books on Roman mores of the empire period.
The tale I referred to was specifically about a Roman officer, a centurion, roughly equivalent to a sergeant in today’s terms.
For such a person to consort with ‘Jewish’ ‘trouble makers’ was to ask for serious trouble.
Being an under-officer, he had few privileges, except over those under him, and he could easily be reduced to the ranks.
You need to understand the background.
Slavery was the norm, and what one did to survive was not viewed with the contempt which you spew out.
You might also refer to Our Lord, praising prostitutes and tax gatherers more highly than some of the so called faithful ‘Jews’
There is no doubt that Our Lord considered sodomy as reprehensible, as indeed do I, not only reprehensible, but physically dangerous.
Our Lord though, for the value of his message, praises the faith of this sodomite heathen in contrast to the so-called faithful ‘Jews’.
Also, Our Lord notes that the centurion does not treat his slave as an expendable chattel, but rather, takes good care of his welfare.
Yes, you can complain that this is not specifically claimed, or reported in the Gospel, but it is completely clear from the context of the times.
FYI,
‘Jews’ in this context refers to the citizens of Judea, who were for the most part, Roman Quislings. Our Lord makes many references to the worthlessness of their so called faith.
That He classes them as worse than sodomites, prostitutes and tax-gatherers shows the point.

 

[neat62]

Yep. The debate has been lost. We lost, again. We will continue to lose. We will never win until we die and meet our Maker. In this world, we have no chance at all of beating Liberalism. We have not the will or the metal to fight. I just wish we would quit whining about these things. You can’t bring a knife to a gunfight and expect to win. This nation has lost God’s blessing and protection. We have failed Him. Bleedingheart wimps. I don’t know why people even bring this stuff up anymore…like we actually expect to win anything, HA! What have we gained in 40 years? NOTHING, we lose every time. We should just go about our business and not even care what others think or do. Poor? Too bad. Gay? Too bad. Abortion? Too bad. Taxation? Too bad. We won’t win a thing playing like we do, so we should all just shut up and accept it.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, for shame!
I suggest that you go out and beg, borrow or steal some books on Roman mores of the empire period.
The tale I referred to was specifically about a Roman officer, a centurion, roughly equivalent to a sergeant in today’s terms.
For such a person to consort with ‘Jewish’ ‘trouble makers’ was to ask for serious trouble.
Being an under-officer, he had few privileges, except over those under him, and he could easily be reduced to the ranks.
You need to understand the background.
Slavery was the norm, and what one did to survive was not viewed with the contempt which you spew out.
You might also refer to Our Lord, praising prostitutes and tax gatherers more highly than some of the so called faithful ‘Jews’
There is no doubt that Our Lord considered sodomy as reprehensible, as indeed do I, not only reprehensible, but physically dangerous.
Our Lord though, for the value of his message, praises the faith of this sodomite heathen in contrast to the so-called faithful ‘Jews’.
Also, Our Lord notes that the centurion does not treat his slave as an expendable chattel, but rather, takes good care of his welfare.
Yes, you can complain that this is not specifically claimed, or reported in the Gospel, but it is completely clear from the context of the times.
FYI,
‘Jews’ in this context refers to the citizens of Judea, who were for the most part, Roman Quislings. Our Lord makes many references to the worthlessness of their so called faith.
That He classes them as worse than sodomites, prostitutes and tax-gatherers shows the point.

Please stop the pontification and faux intellectualism. You are not impressing anyone here. A centurion, has 100 (i.e. “cent”) men “under” him. But that does not mean he has sex with them anymore so than the words “slave” or “servant” implies sexual servitude. Only the deviant liberal mind or special interest agenda of the homosexual community would dare to take the little information conveyed in the sited passage to mean that it was a homosexual slave relationship. It it anachronisitic to try to force history to conform to your contemporary fantasies about a prevalent sadomasochistic sort of male subordinate and dominate relationship rampant in the Roman ranks. I think you have cross wired your history and your empires and entangled it with your own agenda. The sort of thing you mention was only prevalent with the Greeks in 378 BC : Sacred Band of Thebes

But in the Roman army soldiers were routinely beat to death for giving false evidence, stealing, leaving one’s post, losing their weapons in combat, engaging in homosexual practice or committing the same fault three times. This is why it was hopeless to be a Roman soldier since they were often placed in impossible combat situations where they preferred to die in battle than face the severe torture of being slowly beat to death and publicly humiliated for acts considered worthy of death. There was even the more dreaded sentence of “decimation” when large numbers of men participated in deplorable acts. The closes bonds where fellow roman soldier comrades whose life he had saved by another and the saved person revered that man for the rest of his life and treated him as his own father.

Bottom Line:
You can’t possibly use these scriptural verses as an example of homosexual unions - much less use them as an example of Christ accepting sexual perversity and deviancy. So kindly, “knock off” the absurdity and get out of your fantasy world.

James

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Please stop the pontification and faux intellectualism. You are not impressing anyone here. A centurion, has 100 (i.e. “cent”) men “under” him. But that does not mean he has sex with them anymore so than the words “slave” or “servant” implies sexual servitude. Only the deviant liberal mind or special interest agenda of the homosexual community would dare to take the little information conveyed in the sited passage to mean that it was a homosexual slave relationship. It it anachronisitic to try to force history to conform to your contemporary fantasies about a prevalent sadomasochistic sort of male subordinate and dominate relationship rampant in the Roman ranks. I think you have cross wired your history and your empires and entangled it with your own agenda. The sort of thing you mention was only prevalent with the Greeks in 378 BC : Sacred Band of Thebes

I have no agenda.
I am not in any way ‘pro-gay’
I just consider that their affliction should be treated with compassion, as indeed does Mother Church.
I do not hold with ‘queer bashing’, which seems to be your agenda.
As for the centurion, he was not necessarily in charge of one hundred men, but more usually 80.
The 80 was subdivided into 4 huts or tents, each with a hut/tent leader. In this sense, the equivalence, which I never claimed to be exact, was with a sergeant, having under him 4 corporals, each in charge of 20 men.
I never implied that the centurion had improper relationships with those men under his command, only that he might have had such a relationship with his boy-slave, Latin ‘puer’. The Latin word used, though literally meaning ‘boy’, is only ever in this context used to mean a slave or servant. Incidentally, the Latin word ‘servus’, commonly mistranslated as servant, means more correctly, ‘slave’, from servare, to save, in the sense of, saving a prisoner of war from death, for use as a slave.

But in the Roman army soldiers were routinely beat to death for giving false evidence, stealing, leaving one’s post, losing their weapons in combat, engaging in homosexual practice or committing the same fault three times. This is why it was hopeless to be a Roman soldier since they were often placed in impossible combat situations where they preferred to die in battle than face the severe torture of being slowly beat to death and publicly humiliated for acts considered worthy of death. There was even the more dreaded sentence of “decimation” when large numbers of men participated in deplorable acts. The closes bonds where fellow roman soldier comrades whose life he had saved by another and the saved person revered that man for the rest of his life and treated him as his own father.

I deny nothing above. I never suggested that homosexual relationships among soldiers was common.
What I STATED was that the use of prostitutes was common, and that included boy-prostitutes, to be used in sodomy.
A skilled prostitute could earn a special place under the care of a patron.
Under these circumstances, it is not an unreasonable assumption that this might have been the relationship between the slave-boy and his centurion master.

Bottom Line:
You can’t possibly use these scriptural verses as an example of homosexual unions - much less use them as an example of Christ accepting sexual perversity and deviancy. So kindly, “knock off” the absurdity and get out of your fantasy world.

James

Your persistence in non Christian queer bashing does you no credit, just marks you as a redneck.
Dyed in the wool, dead in the soul.
Ave et vale.

 

[neat62]

Voco proTatiano;4233620]

Your persistence in non Christian queer bashing does you no credit, just marks you as a redneck.

Calling people queers and rednecks is real Christian like.

Who cares anyway? We lost. We lost because we didn’t stand up to them and keep them in the closet. But, whatever, we lost, so who cares?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Your persistence in non Christian queer bashing does you no credit, just marks you as a redneck.
Dyed in the wool, dead in the soul.
Ave et vale.

This is an absurd double standard ad hominem of shameful desperation. I have never attacked any homosexual “person” here or anywhere else. I have spoken out against abhorrent moral behaviors though. It is you who are using the language of bigotry here - not me. But you cross the line when you judge my soul as “dead”. That is as un-Catholic and un-Christian as it gets.

Remove your own plank brother…

James

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Sorry Jim, I can’t see you.
I said hail and farewell.
If you have anything positive to say, my eMail address is open.
I do not think that this forum is place for a slanging match, so I withdraw.
FYI, I give you these links:
classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.html
ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa011500a.htm
That you might understand the REAL background to common Roman morality and mores.
When you have considered these background materials, which are relevant to the era, then drop me an eMail, and I will return to the fray.

 

[Mike_Cooksey]

It appears from my little chair that what is normal is the original sin pride flawed individual. Bear with me a little ……

Lust control falls under the necessary administrative duties of the Christian. Homosexuality, Fornication, Adultery, etc all come under that administration of course but to really get the job done one needs ALL 7 sacraments of the church. We are certainly not a Catholic country and many in this country do not have these tools available….or even have knowledge of their functionality.

Our increasingly secular culture is oriented to getting money and that means pleasing any audience if they pay for it. Lust has always been a good ingredient to sell in one form or another. If the approach was tasteful then it is some sort of romance. Where it is not then the result is “Adult” movies. (As though any real loving adult would need ongoing education in baby producing equipment).

The definition of marriage for the Christian comes from the church. Those who want to just seek pleasure do their own definitions…it’s another form of rationalization. The nature of what marriage is truly in God’s eyes will not change.

Our security does not come from the laws that surround us. The only real security comes from Christ and relationship with Him. Laws can go all over the place depending on how important real values are to the lawmakers.

We can love the soul of the practicing homosexual and hate his sinning. His acts DO hurt us because he is still a part of the human family. Conversely, anything we can do to become closer to Christ will positively assist everyone else.

Keeping positive is very important.

Try doing Eucharistic Adoration once a week somewhere. You don’t have to be inside the church or with our Lord in a monstrance. Park in the lot and consider the church itself as one big tabernacle. If the pastor gets spooked because you’re in the lot at a wierd time (and perhaps he imprudently has sensitive items in his mailbox next to you) then go across the street off the church property… just try to get a visual on the church itself.

I firmly believe that we are strained by trials so that we can grow closer to our Lord. Our current USA culture is oftentimes rich in that opportunity.

We also are rich in people like yourself who truly care about what really matters.

Regards

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It appears from my little chair that what is normal is the original sin pride flawed individual. Bear with me a little ……

Lust control falls under the necessary administrative duties of the Christian. Homosexuality, Fornication, Adultery, etc all come under that administration of course but to really get the job done one needs ALL 7 sacraments of the church. We are certainly not a Catholic country and many in this country do not have these tools available….or even have knowledge of their functionality.

Hi Mike,
Let’s get the basics straight for a start.
Homosexuality per se is not a sin, it is an affliction.
The Church prefers to call this affliction, SSA, or Same Sex Attraction.
It is what the homosexually afflicted person does about his, or her, or in some rare cases, its, affliction, which might be a sin.
Nowhere have I asserted that sodomy is natural, or in any way normal.
I have persistently pointed out that it is both spiritually disordered, and physically dangerous, not just to the receiver, but also to the giver.
The assumption that there is a one to one relationship between homosexuality and sodomy is defective. Not all homosexuals, and I mean by that ‘male’ homosexuals are sodomites, and not all sodomites are homosexuals.
Sodomy is also a heterosexual practice. Definitely disordered, but none the less true.
So, sodomy aside, is there any good reason why the SSA afflicted should not share their troubles in a loving one to one relationship, provided that the understanding is: that loving does not imply sodomy.
What is wrong with brotherhoods and sisterhoods?

Our increasingly secular culture is oriented to getting money and that means pleasing any audience if they pay for it. Lust has always been a good ingredient to sell in one form or another. If the approach was tasteful then it is some sort of romance. Where it is not then the result is “Adult” movies. (As though any real loving adult would need ongoing education in baby producing equipment).

I think this is getting off topic.

The definition of marriage for the Christian comes from the church. Those who want to just seek pleasure do their own definitions…it’s another form of rationalization. The nature of what marriage is truly in God’s eyes will not change.

Others might want to use the term marriage for civil partnerships, but I also believe that to be mistaken.
Brotherhood, and sisterhood are far better.

Our security does not come from the laws that surround us. The only real security comes from Christ and relationship with Him. Laws can go all over the place depending on how important real values are to the lawmakers.

We can love the soul of the practicing homosexual and hate his sinning. His acts DO hurt us because he is still a part of the human family. Conversely, anything we can do to become closer to Christ will positively assist everyone else.

Again, you equate homosexuality with sodomy.
This is a false reasoning, and gives false conclusions.
I do not deny that some, if not most ‘male’ homosexuals indulge in sodomy, but that is not relevant.
This is NOT a one to one equivalence, and in any case, how are you going to apply that condemnation to ‘female’ homosexuals, where it clearly does not apply?

Keeping positive is very important.

Try doing Eucharistic Adoration once a week somewhere. You don’t have to be inside the church or with our Lord in a monstrance. Park in the lot and consider the church itself as one big tabernacle. If the pastor gets spooked because you’re in the lot at a wierd time (and perhaps he imprudently has sensitive items in his mailbox next to you) then go across the street off the church property… just try to get a visual on the church itself.

I prefer, or consider safer, to read the reported words of Our Lord, and to take them in the context of the mores of the era and location.
This is why I was prepared to allow the understanding that there was an illicit relationship between the centurion and his slave-boy, and to assume that this understanding would be common coinage. Thus we have Our Lord setting aside such judgement, or, by implication, painting the Judean Pharisees as worse than sodomites. He has also stated that they were worse than prostitutes and tax collectors.

I firmly believe that we are strained by trials so that we can grow closer to our Lord. Our current USA culture is oftentimes rich in that opportunity.

We also are rich in people like yourself who truly care about what really matters.

Regards

 

[rinnie]

Here is the bottom line, as far as I was taught. It is a sin, it goes against everything we are taught in the Church. But Prayer is the cure. We must pray and ask God to help anyone who is in this kind of relationship. The Church does have help for People with this problem. But we should not condem the sinner only the sin.

Here is what my Dad always said about anyone who is like this.

PRAY FOR THEM.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Here is the bottom line, as far as I was taught. It is a sin, it goes against everything we are taught in the Church. But Prayer is the cure. We must pray and ask God to help anyone who is in this kind of relationship. The Church does have help for People with this problem. But we should not condem the sinner only the sin.

Here is what my Dad always said about anyone who is like this.

PRAY FOR THEM.

Rinnie,
Let me at least get this clear.
Are you saying that to be afflicted with SSA is in itself a sin?
Or are you rolling everything into one ball, and saying that any simgle gender relationship, bearing in mind, that there are some unfortunates who have no true gender, is sinful, even if that relationship is Platonic.
Please think very carefully before you answer this.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
Let me at least get this clear.
Are you saying that to be afflicted with SSA is in itself a sin?
Or are you rolling everything into one ball, and saying that any simgle gender relationship, bearing in mind, that there are some unfortunates who have no true gender, is sinful, even if that relationship is Platonic.
Please think very carefully before you answer this.

Oh No, to have no true gender, thats a whole different thing. What I am saying is if a Male wants a Male, Female wants a Female it is wrong. But like any other thing in this world we cant help the way we feel, (lets face it we all have sins).

But how we react on our feelings is what counts. Lets put it this way (this is how its explained to me.) Lets say you are a child of Alcoholic Parents. Does that mean you would be more prone to crave alcohol, yes, quite possibly. Just like a baby born into this world with a mother on crack, the baby will crave it. And I am sure if a parent did drugs for years, especially when pregnant the child would have a craving for drugs they possibly could never have even known about. Thats why I think some can drink and stop, some can’t vice-versa. Some easier to get off drugs than others.

But here is the bottom line, rather you have the hunger we will say to sin, no matter what it is, sin is sin.

You can’t say to a drunk, oh its okay you are a alcoholic so drink up. Its a sin, and you must get control of that sin. We all have weakness and if that weakness tends to destroy us we must get a handle on it.

But the bible tells you this is nothing in this world, no desire, no sin that cannot be overcome with God’s help.

Just like on the same token You or I could go to a bar, have a few drinks, unwind, laugh, then go home. If we have control of our drinking its not a sin.

But for me to have a desire for a women (thank God I dont) and as a women could not even imagine it, does not mean that some women in this world could. But as a Catholic and as according to God’s word I also know its wrong. But I also know that for the Men and Women who have this weakness I do feel sorry for them. But it is a sin, and a sin that can be avoided with the help from God. The same way a alcholic drug addict, etc, gambler can also be helped. They can stay away from the temptations, and get help from God. He can help them turn away from this sin.

He tells us that. Why do some have this and some not? who knows? But I guess we all have our Crosses to bare. Some harder than others. But to turn away from Sin, thats what God is looking for.

And rather we turn away today, tommorow, whatever with Gods helps thats the main thing. That is what I think God is looking for. We can all be forgiven, just repent, and sin no more.

But through prayers we can help others with these problems. Thats how I see it.

 

[pontoon]

It sure seems the fight has been lost. Not only on same sex marriage but also on abortion. Our pray warriors of 40 days for life don’t just pray for an end to abortion but against Euthanasia, Embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and Homosexual marriage. It is sad to see far less than 1% of Catholics from 4 different parishes have come to pray with 40 days for life. What is worse our church leaders, the bishops, are not being vocal about these issues and the parish priests are nowhere to be found. If our leaders took an active role about these issues then maybe we would not be losing the fight and policitions might start paying attention to the teachings of Christ. Remember the next president will be appointing at least two judges to the supreme court. A lot to think about .

God Bless 40 days for life

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Rinnie,
I think yuou have been guided to be too harsh in your judgement.
The official line, of the Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it, is that homosexual inclination per se, which Mother Church prefers to refer to as SSA, or Same Sex Attraction, is not a sin.
What might be a sin, is how the person afflicted with the disordered attraction deals with it.
We have lately the case, highlighted by the proposed beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman, of an accepted honourable partnership of two males, cohabiting, over an extended period, until the death of his partner, Father St John.
There are those who have postulated that this was a homosexual relationship, and in a very real sense, it was. But Mother Church has decided to treat this relationship as a Platonic, innocent alliance, in the absence of damning evidence to the contrary, in spite of circumstansial evidence of opportunity.
In my view, this is the correct judgement.
EVERYONE is entitled to presumption of innocence, lacking proof of guilt.
Note, I am not saying that the judgement is accurate, only that it is correct.
Whether, or not Cardinal Newman sinned with Father St John is in my mind, and seemingly, in the judgement of Mother Church, a matter between them and G_d.
That is how I judge the matter.
I believe that is how Our Lord judged the centurion.

SSA is not per se, a sin.
Same sex partnership, and cohabitation is not per se, a sin.
A peck on the cheek is not a sin, neither is a hug.

Sin lies much deeper than this, usually in some physically dangerous practice, but how does that relate to ‘female’ SSA?
There is one practice which is accepted as both spiritually disordered, and medically hazardous, but that is applicable only to ‘male’ SSA.

So, provided that there is no evidence of this line being crossed, then the assumption of guilt should not be made.
SSA is an affliction, not a sin.

 

[rinnie]

Dear Rinnie,
I think yuou have been guided to be too harsh in your judgement.
The official line, of the Roman Catholic Church, as I understand it, is that homosexual inclination per se, which Mother Church prefers to refer to as SSA, or Same Sex Attraction, is not a sin.
What might be a sin, is how the person afflicted with the disordered attraction deals with it.
We have lately the case, highlighted by the proposed beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman, of an accepted honourable partnership of two males, cohabiting, over an extended period, until the death of his partner, Father St John.
There are those who have postulated that this was a homosexual relationship, and in a very real sense, it was. But Mother Church has decided to treat this relationship as a Platonic, innocent alliance, in the absence of damning evidence to the contrary, in spite of circumstansial evidence of opportunity.
In my view, this is the correct judgement.
EVERYONE is entitled to presumption of innocence, lacking proof of guilt.
Note, I am not saying that the judgement is accurate, only that it is correct.
Whether, or not Cardinal Newman sinned with Father St John is in my mind, and seemingly, in the judgement of Mother Church, a matter between them and G_d.
That is how I judge the matter.
I believe that is how Our Lord judged the centurion.

SSA is not per se, a sin.
Same sex partnership, and cohabitation is not per se, a sin.
A peck on the cheek is not a sin, neither is a hug.

Sin lies much deeper than this, usually in some physically dangerous practice, but how does that relate to ‘female’ SSA?
There is one practice which is accepted as both spiritually disordered, and medically hazardous, but that is applicable only to ‘male’ SSA.

So, provided that there is no evidence of this line being crossed, then the assumption of guilt should not be made.
SSA is an affliction, not a sin.

Isnt that what i said?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Isnt that what i said?

Dear Rinnie,
If indeed that is what you meant by what you said, then we are in agreement.
It’s just that as I read your words, I got a different message.
We must have a different understanding of some words.
Well 2000 miles and 400 years will have changed some things.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It sure seems the fight has been lost. Not only on same sex marriage but also on abortion. Our pray warriors of 40 days for life don’t just pray for an end to abortion but against Euthanasia, Embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and Homosexual marriage. It is sad to see far less than 1% of Catholics from 4 different parishes have come to pray with 40 days for life. What is worse our church leaders, the bishops, are not being vocal about these issues and the parish priests are nowhere to be found. If our leaders took an active role about these issues then maybe we would not be losing the fight and policitions might start paying attention to the teachings of Christ. Remember the next president will be appointing at least two judges to the supreme court. A lot to think about .

God Bless 40 days for life

Hi Pontoon,
Sorry, but 75% of your post is off topic, and I will disregard it.
There is no such legal or blessed institution as homosexual marriage.
This is a term invented by queer bashers and rednecks.
It has no place in any Christian community.
Yes, the rights allocated by civil partnerships do echo the CIVIL rights allocated by marriage, but ‘marriage’ has no place in any of the legislation concerned.
There is nothing sinful in such relationships per se.
What happens within that relationship is a different matter, and is no concern of the law, neither is it any concern of yours…UNLESS, the partners choose to trumpet abroad, details of their carnal relationship.
No-one tells me how I lie with my wife, and no-one so tells you.
These are matters between my wife, my self, and G_d, and similarly with you, unless, and only unless, I thereby do her harm.
Yes, sodomy is both spiritually disordered, and medically dangerous. Should male civil partners so engage, then that is a sin, and a potentially harmful act.
That though is a different matter, and not relevant to your objections.
Look into your heart, and ask if you are judging that which you ought not, whether your attitude is prejudiced, or Christian.

 

[pontoon]

Vovo pro Tatiano please go to and read Catholics Voter’s Guide. There you will find five non-negotiable issues, number 5 being homosexual marriage.

40 days for life God Bless

 

[rinnie]

Dear Rinnie,
If indeed that is what you meant by what you said, then we are in agreement.
It’s just that as I read your words, I got a different message.
We must have a different understanding of some words.
Well 2000 miles and 400 years will have changed some things.

You know im not sure what we are saying now. If you are saying that it is acceptable in the RCC for same sex marriages, then no I dont agree. If you are saying that a person can have the feelings but not react them, then Okay i agree. It is just that if you are not male and female you cannot be reunited in marriage.

I guess what I am saying if you are gay, I agree its not your fault and its not a sin, but if you are gay and you want to live in a gay life style then according to what I was taught it is a sin. Its not a sin for having the feelings its a sin to react on them. That is what I was taught. We all have sin, Its the same to say if I see a Man and want to cheat on my husband, it is wrong, and it is a sin. But its just a venial sin. But if I walk away its okay. Now if I react on this sin it becomes a mortal sin, Its breaking a commandment. We all have venial sins, (thoughts of things we should not have. that makes us human. But we have the free will to sin or not to sin.

According to the CCC 2357 last paragraph. Quote Basing itself on Sacred Scripture which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity traditions has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. The are contrary to the natural act to the gift of life. They do not proceed FROM A genuine affective and sexual complementarity. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THEY BE APPROVED. UNQUOTE

So if you are saying the RCC approves same sex partners YOU ARE WRONG. They in no way a man and man or woman and woman having sex is accepted in the RCC.

2359 ccc Homosexual persons are called to chastity.