My Position on Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gnosis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Island Oak:
The spiritual, emotional, social and physical sacrifice the Church expects of its homosexual members, to me, is a profound and an understandably overwhelming burden for many.
Click to expand...
It is only as “profound” and “overwhelming” a “burden” as the person receives this demand of love and truth. We are all called to develop the virtue of chastity, whether single or married or avowed religious or widowed or seperated from spouse for extended periods or unable to engage in sexual relations due to medical conditions (I hope I didn’t miss anyone). God did not necessarily give those folks afflicted with SSA a special dose of “burden” per see.

We all live in a sex saturated society with the norm to have an active sex life, regardless of our state in life. Besides, God offers/gives whatever grace is needed to bring about His salvation purpose; whatever the specific affliction, subjective hardship, sin propensity is of each individual.
 
40.png
777:
My POV on gays and lesbians? They’re no good for the church.
Click to expand...
The issue is not whether gays or lesbians are good for the Church, but whether and how the Church is “good” toward these poor sinners; i.e., are they preaching and ministering in the fullness of the truth of the Gospel to these poor souls.
 
40.png
mosher:
Sex between two persons of the same sex is not in accord with the nature of sex which is both procreative and unitive.
Click to expand...
If we are to base our understanding of natural law we must base it on what we see.

We see not that sex if procreative and unitive but that it can be either, or, or both…and muc more besides.

The demand that sex must be both is not a function of natural law, or the observation of nature, but an assertion of doctrine that was based on imperfecto bservations.

Sex between same-sex couples is purely unitive (assuming consent). And may even be considered purer than mixed-sex unions because the procreative function is frustrated (unless a miracle occurs) because that instinct plays no part.
 
40.png
ega:
If we are to base our understanding of natural law we must base it on what we see.

We see not that sex if procreative and unitive but that it can be either, or, or both…and muc more besides.

The demand that sex must be both is not a function of natural law, or the observation of nature, but an assertion of doctrine that was based on imperfecto bservations.

Sex between same-sex couples is purely unitive (assuming consent). And may even be considered purer than mixed-sex unions because the procreative function is frustrated (unless a miracle occurs) because that instinct plays no part.
Click to expand...
No offense, honest, but that’s just really twisted reasoning - to claim that on some level putting body parts in places they do not belong and calling that sex would be consider ‘pure’ in any sense of the word - let alone, more pure??? :whacky:
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
No offense, honest, but that’s just really twisted reasoning - to claim that on some level putting body parts in places they do not belong and calling that sex would be consider ‘pure’ in any sense of the word - let alone, more pure??? :whacky:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
felra:
The issue is not whether gays or lesbians are good for the Church, but whether and how the Church is “good” toward these poor sinners; i.e., are they preaching and ministering in the fullness of the truth of the Gospel to these poor souls.
Click to expand...
I accept my role in the Church as a faithful member staying true to her teachings.

One point I forgot to make which is important. My current state in life is a form of repairation for my past sins. I vowed a chaste and pure lifestyle for the same number of years of my sexual sins. It will NOT be easy and I recognize that it is ONLY through God’s grace and help that I will be able to do this. However I prayed and ask that if He wants me to have a family, that He would provide that to happen.
It’s His will.

One problem I have encounterd in reading and talking to others who are/were in my position is that they do not respect the idea of being under authority. Christ even said, “If youlove Me, keep my commandments.” In this case, if You love Jesus, you will conform to love Him by listening to those who he left to speak for Himself on earth…i.e. the Church.

So, if there are those who wish to NOT submit to authority, then they can say all they want about loving Jesus, but do they really?
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
First of all, God didn’t stamp people differently. Every one of us is created in the image and likeness of God.
Click to expand...
How odd, I have brown, blond and red hair. I am 5foot6, I weigh exactly 66.6kg. My flatmate is 6feet2, 102kg, and is dark blond with blue eyes.

A basic examination of the facts indicates you are mistaken on a physical level.

One assertion, one observation. You’re wrong.

As we go deeper we see many more variations, whether we drill down to the genetic or the psychological.

More observations, more evidence that there is not one perfect image of god.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Man did not define sexual intimacy. It was stamped into our bodies by God. Granted, some of you believe you have been stamped differently. You’ve managed to rationalize that because He made you the way you are then He must intend for you to be ‘true’ to yourself by finding another and uniting with him/her. But that just isn’t the case.

First of all, God didn’t stamp people differently. Every one of us is created in the image and likeness of God. But sometime in their life, perhaps over the duration of most of their life, some people are heavily influenced by a myriad of factors which lead them to believe they are different. While ‘coming out of the closet’ is not easy by any means, it is still easier than living with this confusion all alone. It gets tiresome, it’s painful and it’s lonely. But no one on earth has to do anything alone. God is here for us, Christ is physically present in the Eucharist to nourish us. God calls you to Him, not to someone of your own gender.

You aren’t called to discard sex for the approval of God. You speak about God giving you such beautiful desire only to demand you deny it, but do not equate sex with love. Sex is an expression of love, but so is celibacy. God gave you the desire to Love, as He is Love and He wants you to love Him. He’s asking you to deny immoral sex for real love. His love.

When a single person decides to marry, they are inviting another person to join them in expressing their love for God. They are acknowledging that God sent this person to them so that together, as one, they can share in God’s love for humanity by offering themselves to Him in order to bring new life into the world. They empty themselves completely to God each time they embrace so that God may act through their union.

But until that happens, the single person remains true to God, saving their body - the body God gave them to be temples of Christ - only for Him. Desires of the flesh is lust, it came with the Fall and we are called not to give in to that - even within marriage.

Those of you who are inclined toward people of the same gender are longing for companionship, for intimacy…and while you cannot find that in people of the other gender - for whatever reason - you can always find that in Christ. And that’s what you’re called to do. Stop looking in the wrong places for the love, healing and intimacy you so need. He has obviously singled you out for a closer relationship with Him. Respond to that call. Embrace it. It is not the burden you think it is.
Click to expand...
Beautifully and profoundly put. Bravo!
 
40.png
ega:
More observations, more evidence that there is not one perfect image of god.
Click to expand...
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the image and likeness of God.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
No offense, honest, but that’s just really twisted reasoning - to claim that on some level putting body parts in places they do not belong and calling that sex would be consider ‘pure’ in any sense of the word - let alone, more pure??? :whacky:
Click to expand...
Please dont try to appeal to my vanity, I dont have any 🙂

However, I stand by my statement. If you think the drive to reproduce is pure, look at frogs and toads in season. It’s a desperate grapple. Look at python balls. look at lions.

procreation is just animalistic, animals dont have sex forv love. therefore sex for love makes us better than frogs. 😃
 
40.png
buffalo:
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the image and likeness of God.
Click to expand...
Well, if people make assertion which are so clearly false what do you expect?

You have no evidence that the spiritual is any less varied than the physical, and you know it 🙂

Indeed the whole of nature tells you otherwise.
 
40.png
777:
My POV on gays and lesbians? They’re no good for the church.
Click to expand...
777 the name of the book Aliester Crowley wrote regarding the correspondences in the mystical cablah.

666 is the sum of the magic square of the Sun.

what are you trying to tell us? 😃
 
40.png
ega:
Well, if people make assertion which are so clearly false what do you expect?

You have no evidence that the spiritual is any less varied than the physical, and you know it 🙂

Indeed the whole of nature tells you otherwise.
Click to expand...
From the Cathechism:

**41 **All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.

Suggested Reading - The Catechism of the Catholic Church - it will help you understand better.
 
40.png
fix:
We are all welcome and hopefully we are all called to repentence and holiness. That would include stopping artificial birth control, IVF, sterilization, “gay” sex, non marital sex, etc. As they are all grave sins.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
40.png
wcknight:
The Church can NOT and does NOT ever condone anything that is expressly forbidden by the Bible. Homosexual behavior is specifically forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments.
Click to expand...
Technically this is mistaken.

Men who only have sex with men are referred to as eunuchs. All instances of ‘homosexual condemnation’ occur in the context of paganism, peadophillia, cross-dressing or effeminancy.

A big butch beardy builder having it off with a rough and tough rodeo rider is fine… as long as neither is wearing a dress.

Which is why homosexuality is the Church is a problem, all the priests were frocks.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Suggested Reading - The Catechism of the Catholic Church - it will help you understand better.
Click to expand...
Did that, apriori reasoning, attempts to avoid embarrassing former dictates, and false logic based on imperfect observations.

It does no good to quote rationalisations at me. rationalisation are by definition attempts to reconcile false doctrine/belief with reality.
 
40.png
ega:
If we are to base our understanding of natural law we must base it on what we see.

We see not that sex if procreative and unitive but that it can be either, or, or both…and muc more besides.

The demand that sex must be both is not a function of natural law, or the observation of nature, but an assertion of doctrine that was based on imperfecto bservations.

Sex between same-sex couples is purely unitive (assuming consent). And may even be considered purer than mixed-sex unions because the procreative function is frustrated (unless a miracle occurs) because that instinct plays no part.
Click to expand...
Your last line is a beauty - that’s what I call a warped sense of rationalization. How can anyone take you seriously with a line like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top