New Poll: Do you think Homosexual Acts are Sinful?

[jmcrae]

I knew that argument was forthcoming.

And I must say, I struggle with that one, too. It does seem inconsistent to argue that since homosexual unions can’t reproduce they are invalid, yet conclude that an infertile heterosexual couple’s marriage remains valid.

The heterosexual couple’s marriage remains open to life (assuming their infertility isn’t self-imposed) - but a homosexual couple was never open to life, to begin with.

 

[LongJourney]

LOL This thread is getting off the wall. Gay sex is not sex? It is genital contact for pleasure. That is sex, but it does not embody the ultimate aim of sex. If gay sex is not sex, then it is not sin.

Gay couples need some legal protections-- thus civil unions. The law recognizes “common law marriage,” between a man and a woman, to protect rights. Even if they are living together without sex, in many states.

I am 60 years old. If I were to get married, I certainly am capable of fantasizing and wishing I could conceive.

And infertile couples and singles are second-rate citizens? Hunh-- that sounds Mormonish.

Like I said, this thread is getting bizarre.

 

[CMatt25]

Why does it need any kind of legal status at all?

They can set a good example to the young, and they still have a natural instinct to take care of children, meaning that they can care for their nieces and nephews and other children - an instinct that homosexual persons lack.

Why shouldn’t it? Does the gay couple who might live down the street from you cause harm to you or affect you any differently now than they would if legally united with a piece of paper? Oh great now gays lack caring for their nieces and nephews.

 

[Lycorth]

I would agree that we shouldn’t play the numbers game, actually. I don’t think one can easily make the case that either religious or secular states are more violent. One can cherry-pick one’s data to make either case, of course.

The only meaningful thing to be said about this, I think, is the tautology: whatever sanctions violence is violent!

Edwin

Actually, it’s a rather easy case to make, without cherry-picking.

The problem is that modern “enlightened” libertarian-types will always assume a variety of things about confessional states. They like their boogeymen.

I think a case can be made for giving people who are deeply involved in each other’s lives some legal way of recognizing this. Whether those people are involved in a sexual relationship or not does not have to be the government’s business.

Edwin

It has proven already that it is dangerous for the state to recognize homosexual relationships, because it just snowballs into state support for homosexuality. The gay lobby will eventually guilt and nag and pressure the state into cowing to their agenda; it is always a foolhardy and dangerous thing for the state to permit what God does not.

We wouldn’t have the issues about gay “marriage” now if homosexuality weren’t given civil acceptance and state support. It would have remained a non-issue while homosexuality remained in the closet and out of the public eye. Now, the cat is out of the bag and the snowball is rolling down the hill.

 

[CMatt25]

I knew that argument was forthcoming.

And I must say, I struggle with that one, too. It does seem inconsistent to argue that since homosexual unions can’t reproduce they are invalid, yet conclude that an infertile heterosexual couple’s marriage remains valid.

Better people than I will certainly be able to address this argument, however. Looking forward to the responses!

PR, and seeeeee you’ve been wondering about something I struggle with too.

 

[jmcrae]

I think a case can be made for giving people who are deeply involved in each other’s lives some legal way of recognizing this.

What about something like a permission form that allows non-relatives to participate in medical decision-making - for example, if I’m the only one in town when my step-father is taken away in an ambulance, they should be allowed to contact me and let me know where he is and what’s going on, and be able to let them know about his medical history - but I certainly don’t want to be contracted into a “civil union” with my step-father.

Or allowing his best friend to come and visit him, if he wants to. And again, without contracting a “civil union” with his best friend.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, and seeeeee you’ve been wondering about something I struggle with too.

I think you misunderstood my question, Matt. (To all others: this refers to a question I asked Matt on another thread)

You missed the part about “yet still feel is part of God revelation”. So you are agreed that God has revealed that homosexuality is a sin?

 

[CMatt25]

What about something like a permission form that allows non-relatives to participate in medical decision-making - for example, if I’m the only one in town when my step-father is taken away in an ambulance, they should be allowed to contact me and let me know where he is and what’s going on, and be able to let them know about his medical history - but I certainly don’t want to be contracted into a “civil union” with my step-father.

Or allowing his best friend to come and visit him, if he wants to. And again, without contracting a “civil union” with his best friend.

Sure you nor I may not want to contract into a civil union. So then that gives us the right to tell someone who does that they can’t I guess. We aren’t talking life or death here. We’re talking about the couple who may already be our neighbors simply having a piece of paper legalizing their union. No biggie. Don’t call it marriage if you don’t want to and everyone’s happy or happier. Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

Sure you nor I may not want to contract into a civil union. So then that gives us the right to tell someone who does that they can’t I guess. We aren’t talking life or death here. We’re talking about the couple who may already our neighbors simply having a piece of paper legalizing their union. No biggie. Don’t call it marriage if you don’t want to and everyone’s happy. Peace.

Don’t call it anything. If they want visiting rights for when one of them goes into the hospital, there should be a different process for that. We shouldn’t need to set up some kind of a legal fiction that they are “the same as being married, but not, really.”

It is already legal for them to live together, and to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own home.

 

[CMatt25]

I think you misunderstood my question, Matt. (To all others: this refers to a question I asked Matt on another thread)

You missed the part about “yet still feel is part of God revelation”. So you are agreed that God has revealed that homosexuality is a sin?

Depends on if I believe 20th century Bibles correctly translate from Greek to the word homosexual. If so, then depends on if I take it literally. Or perhaps not so literally. The same as many Catholics don’t take a 144 hr Creation literally from start to finish with man and woman being created in the last 24 hrs of those 144 hrs. Or if I take it as customary thinking of the times simliar to the way I take women covering their heads and not speaking in church to be a custom of the times. Or all sorts of things we don’t take literally. I’m still on my lifelong walk to omniscience you know PR.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t have “my belief of what the truth is”, I have only the Church’s teachings, to which I assent.

I was clearly using a metaphorical expression which was then used against me. Why, I don’t know.

Again, no one is “bashing” anything. If I have to offend someone’s sensibilities when I must defend the Church’s reputation or Church teaching, that’s not my problem nor am I commanded by God to respect feelings or be politically correct.

Furthermore, you quote verses without the slightest knowledge of the time and place Jesus gave those instructions or to whom. If the Lord wanted pacifism of us, He would have commanded it through Church teaching. No such teaching exists, but there are teachings regarding just war and self-defense, supporting the notion of both.

If by proving that Protestant churches are far more rife with sexual abuse than the media would have you believe that the Catholic Church is means I’m “bashing” Protestants, then I’m bashing Protestants, I guess. My intention was not to “bash” Protestants but rather to point out facts and defend the truth. I’m (not) sorry if that offends you.

You don’t offend. Remember people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[JadeStarr]

Sure you nor I may not want to contract into a civil union. So then that gives us the right to tell someone who does that they can’t I guess. We aren’t talking life or death here. We’re talking about the couple who may already be our neighbors simply having a piece of paper legalizing their union. No biggie. Don’t call it marriage if you don’t want to and everyone’s happy or happier. Peace.

That’s a very good solution. In the USA the Gays are not allowed to marry legally in all states, as a result they are denied civil rights that other people in committed relationships enjoy. I do NOT believe that any Church should have to marry Gay people, however in the interests of justice, civil unions should be recognized by all the states.

 

[PRmerger]

Depends on if I believe 20th century Bibles correctly translate from Greek to the word homosexual. If so, then depends on if I take it literally. Or perhaps not so literally. The same as many Catholics don’t take a 144 hr Creation literally from start to finish with man and woman being created in the last 24 hrs of those 144 hrs. Or if I take it as customary thinking of the times simliar to the way I take women covering their heads and not speaking in church to be a custom of the times. Or all sorts of things we don’t take literally. I’m still on my lifelong walk to omniscience you know PR.

I’m not talking about taking Scripture literally.

I’m talking about the CC’s teaching on homosexuality–do you agree that this is part of God’s revelation? Is this an example of a teaching that you agree has been handed down by the Magisterium, (“he who hears you hears me”) and thus you ought to accept?

 

[JadeStarr]

Don’t call it anything. If they want visiting rights for when one of them goes into the hospital, there should be a different process for that. We shouldn’t need to set up some kind of a legal fiction that they are “the same as being married, but not, really.”

It is already legal for them to live together, and to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own home.

But it’s obvious that they are NOT receiving equal treatment under the law. That’s just not fair, they pay taxes just like the rest of us, they deserve the same breaks that married couples enjoy, imo.

 

[PRmerger]

But it’s obvious that they are NOT receiving equal treatment under the law. That’s just not fair, they pay taxes just like the rest of us, they deserve the same breaks that married couples enjoy, imo.

No one is discrminating against anyone–homosexuals can get married. They can choose any member of the opposite sex who’s free to marry and get hitched.

 

[jmcrae]

Depends on if I believe 20th century Bibles correctly translate from Greek to the word homosexual.

What do you think the original writers might have meant, instead?

 

[JadeStarr]

No one is discrminating against anyone–homosexuals can get married. They can choose any member of the opposite sex who’s free to marry and get hitched.

No, you don’t understand the issue here. They don’t want to marry the opposite sex, they want a partner who is the same sex as they are. I agree that if they wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex that they could, and I’m sure that some homosexuals do just to get the benefits, it’s a marriage of convenience.

 

[edwest2]

Sure you nor I may not want to contract into a civil union. So then that gives us the right to tell someone who does that they can’t I guess. We aren’t talking life or death here. We’re talking about the couple who may already be our neighbors simply having a piece of paper legalizing their union. No biggie. Don’t call it marriage if you don’t want to and everyone’s happy or happier. Peace.

It’s not that simple. Ellen Degeneres had a candidate for President on her show. While he talked about contracts, she insisted on marriage. I often see variations of, Hey. What’s the big deal? here.

Same sex marriage advocates have already said that a “civil union” amounts to separate but equal. It has to be marriage. But I can certainly understand why they’d go for civil unions to then go on to marriage. That’s the big deal.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

No, you don’t understand the issue here. They don’t want to marry the opposite sex, they want a partner who is the same sex as they are. I agree that if they wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex that they could, and I’m sure that some homosexuals do just to get the benefits, it’s a marriage of convenience.

Unfortunately, in a civilized society there are some restrictions to marriage. It’s not a violation of civil rights that 2 men can’t marry, any more than it’s a violation to my civil rights that I can’t marry. (I am already married, but if I wanted to marry Hugh Jackman, alas, the state wouldn’t let me :sad_yes:. I guess I could crow about a violation of my civil rights, but to what end?)

http://woodenspears.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/hugh-jackman.jpg

Hugh Jackman

 

[CMatt25]

I’m not talking about taking Scripture literally.

I’m talking about the CC’s teaching on homosexuality–do you agree that this is part of God’s revelation? Is this an example of a teaching that you agree has been handed down by the Magisterium, (“he who hears you hears me”) and thus you ought to accept?

Considering I am a Catholic who is informed but whose conscience still can not accept every teaching, I can at this pt agree the Magisterium has handed us a teaching.