New Poll: Do you think Homosexual Acts are Sinful?

[CMatt25]

**Umm…no…never even set foot in an Episcopal **

I apologize for obviously having you mixed up with another poster.

 

[jmcrae]

The lack of logic in what happened at the University of Illinois is hard to believe.
Did anyone start a thread in one of the News forums about this story?

There’s at least four threads on it that I’ve seen, so far. Everybody’s really upset.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, with respect, I cannot make any sense out of this position. To offer communion to those who are in mortal sin IS taking action that implies that such behavior is legitimate.

Guanophore,

That’s exactly why I said that I am not convinced that such relationships *are *mortally sinful.

However, as I’m sure you know, Anglicans don’t exactly think in these terms. We would generally say that all of us are sinful, all of us are on a journey of sanctification, and all of us need the sacraments to heal our sinfulness and help us along. Many Anglicans wouldn’t want to talk in terms of mortal or venial sin at all. I think the distinction is helpful, but I would define mortal sin considerably more narrowly than the RCC does, and probably make the distinction less sharp.

The point is that we all agree that at some point a person may so clearly reject the claims of Christ on their life that for them to continue to receive the Eucharist is an act of hypocrisy and public scandal. I am not convinced that a committed, monogamous sexual relationship in a case where the partners are unable to marry according to the Church’s teaching (whether because of divorce, or because they are of the same sex, or for some other reason) falls under this category.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That was not a “custom” - it was a one-time incident, and Lot received the consequences for it quite harshly, as I recall.

Actually something similar happens in Judges 19.

And in Lot’s case, I think it’s clear that the narrative presents his action as a virtuous one–by the cultural standards of that day, he was behaving in a noble way by sacrificing his own daughters to protect his guests.

Many people have trouble accepting that hospitality was a major moral issue in that society, and think that this is just some kind of liberal dodge. But I think that failing to see hospitality as the main issue distorts the story hopelessly.

On the other hand, I also think it’s clear that the homosexual nature of the proposed rape was a huge aggravating factor in the eyes of the narrator. And on the other hand again, that may have been because of the assumption that for a man to be violated in that way is degrading because he’s being treated like a woman.

Edwin

 

[Carlan]

Dear God, Enlighten us all to obedience and Truth.Peace, Carlan

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Guanophore,

That’s exactly why I said that I am not convinced that such relationships *are *mortally sinful.

Perhaps these verses will help you resolve this question.

Rom.1
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lev.18
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

[CMatt25]

Dear God, Enlighten us all to obedience and Truth.Peace, Carlan

Amen! He will. The light at the end of the tunnel will shine all truth and knowledge brightly upon us all when He, the Truth, shall come again. And it is at that time when our faith and beliefs shall become both infallible and omniscient. Peace.

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps these verses will help you resolve this question.

Rom.1
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lev.18
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

It is by no means certain that these passages are speaking of the kind of relationships defended by liberal Christians today–indeed I would say that it’s quite obvious historically that they are not.

That doesn’t make them irrelevant. But one cannot simply apply them literally, in their full force, without looking at context, intention, and how they fit into the overall teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

That should be obvious if you are a Catholic!

Edwin

 

[Lycorth]

It is by no means certain that these passages are speaking of the kind of relationships defended by liberal Christians today–indeed I would say that it’s quite obvious historically that they are not.

That doesn’t make them irrelevant. But one cannot simply apply them literally, in their full force, without looking at context, intention, and how they fit into the overall teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

That should be obvious if you are a Catholic!

Edwin

Actually, they seem quite obvious in their condemnation of both male and female homosexual behavior, especially when read in the light of other relevant Scriptures and Church tradition.

 

[Carlan]

People twist and spin their behavior to justify their sin. They kid themselves . I pray for them that they will wake up to themselves , repent and experience the joy of forgiveness.The love of God…Peace :sad_yes:Carlan

 

[jmcrae]

It is by no means certain that these passages are speaking of the kind of relationships defended by liberal Christians today–indeed I would say that it’s quite obvious historically that they are not.

He talks about men being sexually attracted to other men. Isn’t that the definition of homosexuality? That they are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, instead of to persons of the opposite sex. The passage doesn’t identify the possible causes of this, but simply tells the reader not to act on such impulses.

That doesn’t make them irrelevant. But one cannot simply apply them literally, in their full force, without looking at context, intention, and how they fit into the overall teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

That should be obvious if you are a Catholic!

The Tradition tells us that the Sacrament of Marriage takes place between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman who intend to work together to become the parents of a new family, and that sexual activity outside of the union of husband and wife is sinful.

So, there’s not really anything from the Tradition that nuances the passage in question.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I would tend to agree, although I think “trying to play state” is a rather simplistic generalization. (I frequently make such generalizations–I’m just saying that I might be more sympathetic to some of what you mean by this than you are, and we’d have to get into more detail to determine that.) But I think that when we use the phrase “it didn’t work out very well,” we should be careful to define what constitutes “working out well.” It seems to me that often when people say such things, they have already assumed that “working out well” means “looking like a modern secular democracy.” Which obviously is circular and determines the result.

Edwin

I agree, but a few examples off the top of my head are Crusades any of them, Thirty years war. I do understand that obviously there were some internal national politics involved with any of these conflicts, but it always seemed to be a religious bent as the primary focus and then the other struggles just kept adding fuel.

And then on the other side there is the church that should have been protected from the secular trying to influence or outrightly placing their choice in Rome.

This discussion kind of reminds me of that SNL skit of Coffee Talk with Linda Richman, where she asks the audience to discuss “The Holy Roman Empire is neither holy nor Roman? Discuss.”

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Yeah, in America we hear about the seperation often in debates like this. Its original intent was to protect the church from the state and keep the government out of religious affairs (ie marriage). Our nation was founded by people who wanted to live Christian values, but were leaving Europe to leave theocracies behind.

Actually, I don’t think the original intent was to protect the church from the state. I think the original intent was to keep the citizenry safe from the state imposing church on them. I think the thought of what happened in England under Henry and also certainly what happened to the Puritans was fresh in the minds of what could happen to citizens when the state has a religious will and forces it onto it’s people.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Marriage is important to society because it produces children. Marriage and family life need to be supported because well-adjusted children grow up to be contributing citizens.

Homosexual unions, by contrast, contribute nothing of value to society, and distract from the things that do.

Well since marriage produces children then that makes it OK. I actually think there are some married couples who shouldn’t have procreated and based on the actions of their children I think they should have probably eaten them at birth. I think your argument that marriage and family create well-adjusted children who grow up to be contributing citizens is fallacy. But maybe I’m wrong, Alois and Klara Hitler were married and had children. The well adjusted part is questionable but boy did their son contribute to society!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Really? My elderly next door neighbors have been married for 52 years, he is a retired fireman. They chose not to have children because they never really liked children. Are they a good example? And what about the people who get married, have children and then beat their children, not discipline but beat? Since they are married, shouldn’t they have a natural instinct to take care of their children or are they really closeted homosexuals living a lie?

And do you have any data that homosexual persons lack the instinct for caring for children or are you speaking as a homosexual with that lack of instinct and applying it to the entire group?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

And you have solved the dilemma! And then they can sleep with people of the same sex and it wouldn’t be adultery?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

One way you can tell that a sex between two men is sinful or at least, not meant to be, is in the fact that men’s anuses don’t become naturally lubricated, and therefore, any sex without petroleum jelly will be a definite OUCH.

So if your 80 year old grandmother no longer lubricates naturally then her having sex with your 80 year old grandfather must also be a sin?

 

[Dokimas]

It is “unfair” for Catholics to think that their church teaches the Truth because so many Catholics embrace it?

 

[jmcrae]

Sure liberal protestants mix in homosexuality.

And all Protestants set the stage for separating sex from procreation by approving of artificial methods of birth control, thus making homosexuality to be “understandable.”

As soon as sex is no longer about family and children, every kind of perversion becomes thinkable.

 

[jmcrae]

And do you have any data that homosexual persons lack the instinct for caring for children …

That’s the whole point of the “natural evolution of homosexuality,” isn’t it? That, since we’re overpopulated, “nature” has produced homosexuals - that is to say, persons with no procreative instinct - in order to reduce the birthrate.

Isn’t that the line that you guys are towing?