Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[HarryStotle]

You do seem intent on avoiding the question. So, care to answer it yet?

You mean these two?

… are the previously mentioned cause for divorce and if not then what is according to that Bible passage that you have declared must be in relation to a Christian marriage?

Care to clarify what the questions – plural, because there are two – are actually asking and how they relate to the topic?

In particular, the question “…what is according to that Bible passage that you have declared must be in relation to a Christian marriage?” is pretty much indecipherable.

You seem to be asking 1) whether the passage you quoted refers to causes for divorce and 2) if not what, in my opinion, are causes of divorce?

If those are your questions why are they relevant to the topic of this thread? They don’t appear to be.

 

[Alex337]

This is pretty straight forward no matter how much you want to wiggle out of answering.

I provided a passage that gives detail on when a divorce is merited. Either this means there is a time when Catholics can divorce, not just separate but divorce, or Jesus was referencing a marriage outside of the Church; which is it?

 

[PetraG]

That’s because your standpoint attacks adoptive parents.

Sorry, friend, but adoptive parents are just as valid. And many, many homosexual couples choose to adopt. Some have children from previous relationships, and they remain their parent. Some continue to have the surrogate or donor in their families life, and they’re valid.

Some don’t and it seems you would prefer these children didn’t exist than that they should exist with their loving family. Because that’s the real option. These children were never going to exist otherwise.

No, it does not attack adoptive parents and it does not imply that any children shouldn’t exist. It implies that when people plan from prior to a child’s conception to deprive that child of her biological parents, whether it is her biological parents who do it or someone else, that child is by that act being treated by the adults in her life more as if she were chattel or a pet than a human being.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

That’s because your standpoint attacks adoptive parents.

Sorry, friend, but adoptive parents are just as valid. And many, many homosexual couples choose to adopt. Some have children from previous relationships, and they remain their parent. Some continue to have the surrogate or donor in their families life, and they’re valid.

Some don’t and it seems you would prefer these children didn’t exist than that they should exist with their loving family. Because that’s the real option. These children were never going to exist otherwise.

No, it does not attack adoptive parents and it does not imply that any children shouldn’t exist. It implies that when people plan from prior to a child’s conception to deprive that child of her biological parents, whether it is her biological parents who do it or someone else, that child is by that act being treated by the adults in her life more as if she were chattel or a pet than a human being.

No, they are being treated as a child that their parent loves and went to great lengths to bring into the world. They are not being deprived any more than an adopted child is. Their biological parents chose to give them to their parents, no one came creeping in the night to steal them.

If their parents didn’t go out and seek to have these children they would not exist. Their biological parents do not want to have them. So yes, you seem to prefer that they don’t exist because that is the other option.

 

[Eddie18]

Read the quotes I posted slowly and carefully. None of them imply rape.

I take it you’re an atheist?

 

[Alex337]

Read the quotes I posted slowly and carefully. None of them imply rape.

I take it you’re an atheist?

Nope, Christian. And ease up on the condescension.

Now, the tale of Sodom does speak about rape. And that is where the word “sodomy” comes from. That’s what that was about.

 

[Alex337]

Here’s the quote regarding the city of Sodom;
“But he was very urgent, until at last they went home with him, and he set a great feast before them, complete with freshly baked unleavened bread. After the meal, 4 as they were preparing to retire for the night, the men of the city—yes, Sodomites, young and old from all over the city—surrounded the house 5 and shouted to Lot, “Bring out those men to us so we can rape them.””

 

[BlueMaxx]

Eddie18:

Read the quotes I posted slowly and carefully. None of them imply rape.

I take it you’re an atheist?

Nope, Christian. And ease up on the condescension.

Now, the tale of Sodom does speak about rape. And that is where the word “sodomy” comes from. That’s what that was about.

Well…that was not what it was entirely about…that was just part of the rampant sin in the cities…

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Eddie18:

Read the quotes I posted slowly and carefully. None of them imply rape.

I take it you’re an atheist?

Nope, Christian. And ease up on the condescension.

Now, the tale of Sodom does speak about rape. And that is where the word “sodomy” comes from. That’s what that was about.

Well…that was not what it was entirely about…that was just part of the rampant sin in the cities…

Yes, the rampant sin that wasn’t really described beyond some mention of fornicating and this blatant mention of rape.

 

[Alex337]

Indeed it looks like that rape was the only sin specified:
“20 So the Lord told Abraham, “I have heard that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are utterly evil, and that everything they do is wicked. 21 I am going down to see whether these reports are true or not. Then I will know.””

 

[Eddie18]

You claim to be Christian and you are here defending sodomy? That is an absolute disgrace and I can’t believe the moderators are allowing it.

 

[Alex337]

You claim to be Christian and you are here defending sodomy? That is an absolute disgrace and I can’t believe the moderators are allowing it.

No, I’m pointing out that Sodom’s main sin seems to be rape. Rape is hideous, don’t you agree? I even provided quotations.

 

[Ignatius64869]

You claim to be Christian and you are here defending sodomy? That is an absolute disgrace and I can’t believe the moderators are allowing it.

There are plenty of Christian denominations that allow same sex unions. While we Catholics generally disagree with Alex337’s conclusions, I do not think it is disgraceful for her to defend and support her conclusions. She merely disagrees, and she has valid reasons to. Many biblical scholars would disagree with the Catholic use of the story of Sodom to condemn consensual same-sex relationships.

It’s okay to disagree.

 

[Ignatius64869]

No, I’m pointing out that Sodom’s main sin seems to be rape. Rape is hideous, don’t you agree? I even provided quotations.

This is also largely correct. It is important to note that Lot tried to offer his daughters to the men, and then he is ironically raped by his daughters later on, which leads to his name being disgraced. The consistent theme is honestly rape, but to be completely honest, biblical stories really were not written to show us morality. Instead, they show our disordered human nature.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Eddie18:

You claim to be Christian and you are here defending sodomy? That is an absolute disgrace and I can’t believe the moderators are allowing it.

No, I’m pointing out that Sodom’s main sin seems to be rape. Rape is hideous, don’t you agree? I even provided quotations.

Sodom and Gomhorrah’s depravity, not rape was the issue…rape was just one aspect of the great depravity…it was sin, sin so great it reached the ears of God…

Genesis 17

20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

Genesis 18
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

9 And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to [a]stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

 

[PetraG]

No, they are being treated as a child that their parent loves and went to great lengths to bring into the world. They are not being deprived any more than an adopted child is. Their biological parents chose to give them to their parents, no one came creeping in the night to steal them.

If their parents didn’t go out and seek to have these children they would not exist. Their biological parents do not want to have them. So yes, you seem to prefer that they don’t exist because that is the other option.

Ah, so if I’m concerned that children aren’t planned for and obtained as if they were puppies or kittens, I’m the one who doesn’t want them to exist? I see. Why, then, are so few people in favor of surrogacy not also opposed to abortion? Why? Because the objectors want children to exist based on what the parents want. It has nothing necessarily to do with what the child would want. The children are supposed to feel fortunate to have gained entry into existence at all…their protectors say this is “making sure children are wanted.” The idea that the parents would welcome their own children for the sake of the children, as the fruit of marriage? That is considered archaic. In this new age, marriage is all about the pursuit of personal happiness. Deciding to have children is about personal fulfillment. It isn’t about the kids, in the end, then. It is about what the parents want for themselves.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

No, I’m pointing out that Sodom’s main sin seems to be rape. Rape is hideous, don’t you agree? I even provided quotations.

This is also largely correct. It is important to note that Sodom tried to offer his daughters to the men, and then he is ironically raped by them later on, which leads to his name being disgraced. The consistent theme is honestly rape, but to be completely honest, biblical stories really were not written to show us morality. Instead, they show our disordered human nature.

Very true. There are a lot of good shows of this disordered nature and now I think on it it would be a bit shallow of me to try to read it as a morality tutor. Thank you for the insight.

 

[Alex337]

Yes, as you can see from those quotes while sin was mentioned the only sin that was detailed was rape. So it would seem that “The sin of Sodom”, a term which came up earlier from someone else, would most likely be rape. But the over all types of sin weren’t listed.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Lot offered his daughter because he knew the two were angels from God…He knew as soon as he saw them as he was sitting at the gate…he knew God and understood the holiness of God and would rather have his daughters touched than the two men…also it can be said that Eastern hospitality compelled Lot to offer his daughters…
Lot was not raped…

 

[Alex337]

Actually it’s both. And again, without these people deciding to have children the children wouldn’t exist. So you continue to wish otherwise because without the parents going through this option they wouldn’t exist.

You criticise parents choosing to have children while dictating how parents should have children. I think a person shows more care for a child by making sure they can care for them and seeking out a child than by having one by happenstance.