My Position on Homosexuality

[Riley259]

Edwin1961:

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?

Your journey sounds very similar to the one that David Morrison had. For those who don’t know who he is, Morrison is the author of a great book called Beyond Gay.

 

[YinYangMom]

ega:

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.

The drive to reproduce is animalistic, as you so pointed out.
Catholicism acknowledges this.
Animals recreate because it’s hardwired into them to do so.
They don’t have reason, so they can’t say yes or no to their instincts. They can only give in to them.

Man, however, being made in the image and likeness of God, was given reason and free will. This is what separates us from the animals and why we were given dominion over them.

With reason and free will comes responsibility. God has revealed His design for man. It is up to us to follow that design. Certainly we are free to reject it, but doing so only separates us from His love, bringing us unhappiness in the long run. But to try to redefine God’s design is futile. It simply isn’t possible.

 

[contemplative]

ega:

Sex between same-sex couples is purely unitive (assuming consent). .

Sex between same-sex couples is purely selfish. The sexual results of same sex partners is nothing more than an orgasm…then what?

Answer: zilch

The python balls, frogs, toads and lions have more to speak of after there toss in the hay than homosexual sexual activity.

And may even be considered purer than mixed-sex unions

Huh? :whacky:

Purer what?

 

[ega]

YinYangMom:

The drive to reproduce is animalistic, as you so pointed out.
Catholicism acknowledges this.
Animals recreate because it’s hardwired into them to do so.
They don’t have reason, so they can’t say yes or no to their instincts. They can only give in to them.

This is doctrine, not fact. Study the ethology of dogs to begin to understand the ability to resist instinct under instruction. Then compare and contrast.

BTW, female hyenas, like female humans face real problems in giving birth. As a species they have a high incidence of celibacy, though only on the female side.

So much for instinct.

Man, however, being made in the image and likeness of God, was given reason and free will. This is what separates us from the animals and why we were given dominion over them.

Assertion is not fact. proofs please.

With reason and free will comes responsibility. God has revealed His design for man.

The simpler explanation is that the church, unable to control the reproductive urges of the congregation rationalised those urges into a doctrine that allowed those urges to be managed.

Rationally nature is rampant, monogamy a rarity, natural law, such as it is does not reflect this and is therfore flawed (ignoring all the other reasons).

 

[YinYangMom]

ega:

This is doctrine, not fact.

Actually, it’s TRUTH.
You are certainly free to accept or reject it.
Obviously, you have chosen to reject it.

I will keep your soul in my prayers.
You can thank me, and the rest of us believers, in the afterlife.
We will look forward to the party when you arrive for it will be a joyous moment.

 

[Brad]

ega:

Assertion is not fact. proofs please.

Good point. I had a pretty good proof until I started seeing your posts. Back to the drawing board.

 

[buffalo]

ega:

This is doctrine, not fact. Study the ethology of dogs to begin to understand the ability to resist instinct under instruction. Then compare and contrast.

BTW, female hyenas, like female humans face real problems in giving birth. As a species they have a high incidence of celibacy, though only on the female side.

So much for instinct.

Assertion is not fact. proofs please.

The simpler explanation is that the church, unable to control the reproductive urges of the congregation rationalised those urges into a doctrine that allowed those urges to be managed.

Rationally nature is rampant, monogamy a rarity, natural law, such as it is does not reflect this and is therfore flawed (ignoring all the other reasons).

It’s pointless to keep asking for proofs. (you seem to be debating like an amateur atheist trying out his arguments)

You are proposing that some animals are homosexual and using that to prop up your argument for homosexuality. Now this smacks of an agenda to justify a behavior. Do you believe a human should give in to his base instincts?

 

[Bella3502]

Topher:

Although, those “living in sin” are welcome, they are not living in communion with Christ nor the Church. If you truely loved those people you would try to help bring them to Christ and away from immpurity. Love does not always mean keeping the peace but sometimes means rocking the boat if that is what is best for another’s soul. False love is not love at all.

Hmmmmmm, wow… thanks…
at least now I know what TRUE LOVE IS.

As a sinner far from perfection, right now I don’t feel comfortable asking couples to provide a copy of their marriage certificate. Nor do I ask them about their sex lives…

Maybe one day, when I lead a sinless life, I can turn to my neighbor and rock the boat.

 

[Brad]

ega:

The simpler explanation is that the church, unable to control the reproductive urges of the congregation rationalised those urges into a doctrine that allowed those urges to be managed.

One man, one woman committed families have been shown to best for society in every culture that has been historically tracked.

Funny how the Church now has a way to control those “reproductive urges” and still teaches that marital acts should be open to life.

Perhaps you are spewing your infamous “assertions” rather than facts?

 

[ega]

contemplative:

Sex between same-sex couples is purely selfish. The sexual results of same sex partners is nothing more than an orgasm…then what?

Do you speak from experience? Is that experience shared by other same-sex couples? Have you asked them?

Because I doubt both your experience and expertise on the subject.

Further, please demonstrate that wanting to reproduce your own genes is not selfish? I ask because so many couples want children, but would rather go through IVF and painful procedures than adopt.

Answer: zilch

The python balls, frogs, toads and lions have more to speak of after there toss in the hay than homosexual sexual activity.

And you prove my point, what is love in the face of a reproductive opportunity?

So yes, sex without the chance of reproduction is pure by comparison.

 

[buffalo]

Bella3502:

Hmmmmmm, wow… thanks…
at least now I know what TRUE LOVE IS.

As a sinner far from perfection, right now I don’t feel comfortable asking couples to provide a copy of their marriage certificate. Nor do I ask them about their sex lives…

Maybe one day, when I lead a sinless life, I can turn to my neighbor and rock the boat.

True Christian charity demands fraternal correction.

 

[Brad]

Bella3502:

I am one of those people who does NOT assume that you are confused. Within our parish there are many Gays and Lesbians. They come to Church every Sunday and are very active in all capacities. They sit in the same pews as the couples who “live in sin” as well as the married ones who use artificial birth control.

They are all welcome.

And all going to Hell if they do not repent.

That is doctrinal fact of the Church you go to.

 

[buffalo]

ega:

Do you speak from experience? Is that experience shared by other same-sex couples? Have you asked them?

Because I doubt both your experience and expertise on the subject.

Further, please demonstrate that wanting to reproduce your own genes is not selfish? I ask because so many couples want children, but would rather go through IVF and painful procedures than adopt.

And you prove my point, what is love in the face of a reproductive opportunity?

So yes, sex without the chance of reproduction is pure by comparison.

The marital embrace (what you call sex) is for unitive and procreative purposes. Reproducing your own genes would be called cloning, and no, I don’t want a clone of myself.

 

[felra]

Bella3502:

Maybe one day, when I lead a sinless life, I can turn to my neighbor and rock the boat.

This sounds more like a cop out. It takes COURAGE to speak the truth in love, not out of presumption, but out of concern for the eternal welfare of another.

 

[ega]

buffalo:

It’s pointless to keep asking for proofs. (you seem to be debating like an amateur atheist trying out his arguments)

You are proposing that some animals are homosexual and using that to prop up your argument for homosexuality.

There is no suggestion, it is a fact. Sorry. get over it.

Now this smacks of an agenda to justify a behavior. Do you believe a human should give in to his base instincts?

Oh the irony…

The whole thing about Gods revealed plan is just an attempt to justify a base instinct…the one to reproduce. It is a rationalisation and nothing more.

Some people are supremely unsuited to be parents but do you think that stops them?

 

[ega]

buffalo:

Reproducing your own genes would be called cloning, and no, I don’t want a clone of myself.

Oh, so you have sex with your wife and you get my kid? Is that how it works?

 

[buffalo]

Bella3502:

I am one of those people who does NOT assume that you are confused. Within our parish there are many Gays and Lesbians. They come to Church every Sunday and are very active in all capacities. They sit in the same pews as the couples who “live in sin” as well as the married ones who use artificial birth control.

They are all welcome.

As they should be. The Church is a hospital for sinners. If you are without sin you don’t need the Church.

Now it is quite a different thing to champion your behavior and try to make it an acceptable lifestyle. This is the issue. The proposition of Catholicism is a hard one. It is a journey to the cross. A journey toward perferction.

 

[Brad]

ega:

The whole thing about Gods revealed plan is just an attempt to justify a base instinct…the one to reproduce. It is a rationalisation and nothing more.

When you walk on water I’ll take your word over the Church that Christ established.

 

[buffalo]

ega:

There is no suggestion, it is a fact. Sorry. get over it.

Oh the irony…

The whole thing about Gods revealed plan is just an attempt to justify a base instinct…the one to reproduce. It is a rationalisation and nothing more.

Some people are supremely unsuited to be parents but do you think that stops them?

You have got to be kidding!

Who are you to judge whether some parents are suitable or not?
I believe they are. My truth and your truth can co-exist. Right?

 

[ega]

Brad:

One man, one woman committed families have been shown to best for society in every culture that has been historically tracked.

Not everyone has kids. it has been shown that for infertile couples a committed relationship is still good for the health. Thus we should extend marriage opportunities to same-sex couples that they too may enjoy the benefits as well as the society they marry in.

Funny how the Church now has a way to control those “reproductive urges” and still teaches that marital acts should be open to life.

Funny how you dont notice what a restriction ‘marital acts’ constitutes when you cant get married.

Perhaps you are spewing your infamous “assertions” rather than facts?

Unfortunately my library is in another country, but dilligent research will prove my points if you can be bothered.