Redeeming Qualities in Same-Sex Relationships

[Louie1983]

Forbidding the public from believing in the sun being the center of the solar system is Church teaching. Tell priests not to marry that is discipline and I am sorry that you can’t see how a body comprised by imperfect men has NOT changed throughout time…it has. The very presence of Christ in the bread was debated for a long time. …

But it’s not dogmatic or infallible teaching relating to faith and morals. There is a difference, Sure the church had an opinion on this (an understatement) but it was never proclaimed as infallible nor protectedunder under the charism of infallibility. Try and do a bit of research as to how infallible teaching comes about…

Yes, Non- married priests is also a discipline but it is also biblical. So how can you make the distinction between what is discipline and what is teaching but The Catholic church guided by The Holy Spirit can’t?

Presence of Christ was debated? But from the beginning, From Christ to the early church fathers the church taught of the real presence of Christ in the universe:

““They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).”

““For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).”

“”[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…" Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200)."

 

[lileli]

So why should the Church change its teaching on homosexual actions? Because society has suddenly decided it’s for selfish reasons (ie because it’s just easier to let it happen, just like 2 people playing house)?

The Church has always sought the Truth. Homosexual relationships are a lie morally and scientifically they offer no net benefit to society.

So two loving people can’t benefit society because they obviously can’t clean their communities, help the poor, buy property, pay taxes, serve on government boards…etc

 

[SuperLuigi]

=lileli;13189811]The fact that you mention man to man explicitly shows me your bias against gay men You easily could of used women in your example but alas.

Again, how does it harm you or anyone else if a man ejaculates into another man?

Why do we have to pay for it and recognize it as equal and good, and have that taught to our kids to make people feel good?

Can’t so-called gay “marriage” stand on its own merit (which it can’t because it doesn’t have any)?

 

[SuperLuigi]

So two loving people can’t benefit society because they obviously can’t clean their communities, help the poor, buy property, pay taxes, serve on government boards…etc

1. They can do all of those things whether or not they are in a sexual relationship, so there is no reason to subsidize/recognize their relationship on that basis.
2. No one has a net-benefit to society if they negatively impact the culture, especially in the raising of children.

 

[lileli]

Why do we have to pay for it and recognize it as equal and good, and have that taught to our kids to make people feel good?

Can’t so-called gay “marriage” stand on its own merit (which it can’t because it doesn’t have any)?

exactly how do you have to pay for it? Children to learn tolerance in order to function in a multi cultural society.

 

[JD1789]

Well Jesus being True God and True **man **…

I would like to add that we refer to God the father as “he” because he has revealed himself as father, a masculine realtionship. Also in many languages, including English, if men and women are present, the masculine form of a word is always used. Since God possesses both masculine and feminine traits, one might be able to go ahead and use the masculine form just because of the masculine form being the standard in language.

 

[lileli]

1. They can do all of those things whether or not they are in a sexual relationship, so there is no reason to subsidize/recognize their relationship on that basis.
2. No one has a net-benefit to society if they negatively impact the culture, especially in the raising of children.

Prove, scientifically, how it hurts the culture. Asbury Park in NJ would beg to differ a lot…

 

[JD1789]

exactly how do you have to pay for it? Children to learn tolerance in order to function in a multi cultural society.

Do you mean tolerance or acceptance?

 

[Rau]

The fact that you mention man to man explicitly shows me your bias against gay men You easily could of used women in your example but alas. Again, how does it harm you or anyone else if a man ejaculates into another man?

Like I said earlier, the accusations are more prevalent than the fact.

I have no bias against any person, including those who experience SSA. I reject the nation that two women engaging in sexual acts is moral. Or two men. We have seen harm in the physical world. There is also the greater harm to their souls.

 

[SilverLight]

I would like to add that we refer to God the father as “he” because he has revealed himself as father, a masculine realtionship. Also in many languages, including English, if men and women are present, the masculine form of a word is always used. Since God possesses both masculine and feminine traits, one might be able to go ahead and use the masculine form just because of the masculine form being the standard in language.

I actually ponder if God can take on a form of either Female and Male. I have a few theories on what God may look like. We are made in his image after all and there are males and females.

 

[JD1789]

I have read it and I find it very funny how it tries to make it seem that the Church was smart because parts of His hypothesis were proven wrong. That speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of science…

Well the Church isn’t an institution of science. It has scientists. I would even go so far to say that science wouldn’t be where it is today without the institutions of higher learning established by the Church. The Church’s role in geocentrism was the struggle of egos getting in the way of science, not faith getting in th way of science. If memory serves me correctly, helioocentrism wasn’t even originally proposed by Galilieo but rather he just confirmed it with the telescope. If the church was so adamant on proving science wrong, why did Copernicus dedicate his original theses to the pope?

 

[Smack]

The Church used to teach that nonbelievers would go to hell but now it doesnt go there…marriage to non catholics wasn’t allowed until the 19th century…etc etc…

And yet the Bible remains the same. So the church’s position on some things may have changed, but their dogma has not. And God DEFINITELY has not changed. The only thing that changed was when God became a human for you, so that He could take the punishment that you deserve. I’m praying that you will seek Him and that He will give you a new heart. It’s amazing, I assure you!

 

[Louie1983]

The Church used to teach that nonbelievers would go to hell but now it doesnt go there…marriage to non catholics wasn’t allowed until the 19th century…etc etc…

Really?

Have you been to Vatican website and looked in the Catechism and see what it says about Athiesm?

Marriage to Non Catholics: Again how does this take away from what The church explains as Marriage? And also…The Church still teaches that you must marry in the Church, if you choose not to then there are possible consequences as a result of this.

 

[JD1789]

I actually ponder if God can take on a form of either Female and Male. I have a few theories on what God may look like. We are made in his image after all and there are males and females.

He’s not matter, so using the term “look” is already a misnomer because of the implication of sight. I thibk our physical reflection of God’s image begins and ends with Jesus. Now the family obviously reflects the trinity and the logical rules we miss follow are a part of the nature of God so we are made in His image there. It certainly is fun to ponder!

 

[Smack]

I actually ponder if God can take on a form of either Female and Male. I have a few theories on what God may look like. We are made in his image after all and there are males and females.

Well, the Bible does say that God made them MALE AND FEMALE in His image… interesting thought!

 

[SilverLight]

He’s not matter, so using the term “look” is already a misnomer because of the implication of sight. I thibk our physical reflection of God’s image begins and ends with Jesus. Now the family obviously reflects the trinity and the logical rules we miss follow are a part of the nature of God so we are made in His image there. It certainly is fun to ponder!

I actually think God is a natural force that drives people. It has no form but is more soul like. If we are like it then perhaps it is because we have souls. Now to define souls and what they actually are is another topic.

 

[JD1789]

I actually think God is a natural force that drives people. It has no form but is more soul I like. If we are like it then perhaps it is because we have souls. Now to define souls and what they actually are is another topic.

God must be a supernatural force, or else He is not God. He would need a creator like all other creations in In nature. God is also a person, well three, but this is from divine revelation. Referring to God as it can very quickly lead to a pseudo Eastern-mysticism. A soul is what allows a thing to have life and is animated by the body. God the father does not have a soul but the Son does. To say God is soul like is difficult because one person of the trinity hAs a soul yet not all of God has a soul.

 

[Faithdancer]

Sigh clearly you aren’t aware that a lot of philosophy has been proven wrong by real science. Universal guidance for mankind is nice but nothing in Natural ever proved homosexuality to be “wrong”

You don’t understand the term, “Natural Law,” do you? It is the law of God.

 

[Rau]

So two loving people can’t benefit society because they obviously can’t clean their communities, help the poor, buy property, pay taxes, serve on government boards…etc

Loving is good. It is sexual attraction that demands to be restrained. And out of place sexual acts that are to be avoided.

 

[Faithdancer]

Short answer to the OP:
None.