J
JChapel
Guest
I think we all need not forget Leviticus 19:18.
- Status
S
Seeker2010
Guest
While Leviticus 19:18 is, in and of itself, not so bad (Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.), you should be very careful quoting Leviticus.
Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
(ED: Good thing that my parents didn’t follow that, else I would not have lived to be 20. Actually, I would likely not have lived to be 7.)
Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
(ED: So slavery is okay. Seems to me that’s not right.)
Leviticus 19:27
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
(ED: Damn, I keep shaving my face to prevent a beard. I tried a beard once, trust me, it doesn’t work on my face. Guess I’m evil.)
Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
(ED: Too bad lobsters taste so good. Not to mention clams and oysters. But I guess I’m evil.)
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
It needs to be said so more citizens know what is in the horizon, what is beyond gay ‘marriage’: the destruction of marriage. This very exchange we are having is a confirmation of the message of social commentator Stanley Kurtz back in 2003 that the bottom of the slope is visible from where we stand.
I submit that you would like to see polygamous or polyamorous relationships having legal standing right behind gay ‘marriage’. What else to conclude when you in the same breath say that you are for gay ‘marriage’ although you do not desire homosexual activity for yourself? And the drum you beat on consensual non-monogamy right in this forum?
Social commentator, Stanley Kurtz wrote, Beyond Gay ‘Marriage’, following landmark case Lawrence v Texas striking down the sodomy laws of Texas. I am providing the link more for the benefit of other posters and readers of this thread. Some, I suspect, are too young or too naive, unable to look back and ahead for the long view.
The second paragraph in Mr. Kurtz’s article:
Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and “polyamory” (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage.
And his concluding paragraph in the article:
Fair-minded people differ on the matter of homosexuality. I happen to think that sodomy laws should have been repealed (although legislatively). I also believe that our increased social tolerance for homosexuality is generally a good thing. But the core issue here is not homosexuality; it is marriage. Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we’ve been sure of is that marriage means monogamy. Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all.
. . . . .
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
I think gay marriage should be legalized, and it will someday.
They are adults and can make their own choices and mistakes. Besides, every gay person already knows that God says its wrong. I mean considering Christians always shove the bible in their face.
If they want to read it, they will. Just back off and let them do their thing without pressuring them and bullying them.
Besides, what two consenting adults do in their bedroom isn’t your business.
As for the passage James noted, I am. I am sticking up for the gay people just like they have to do for themselves everyday. Well, im not sticking up for their act, im sticking up for their freedom.
There are many gay people at my school, more bisexual people, well, the majority is straight, but there are a few that are gay and bisexual. Anyways, I understand their pain. I mean I talk many people when I’m at school, and even have some gay/bi friends. Let me tell you, they were extremely confused about it at first, but these people claim they were even looking at their gender all the way from kindergarden. These people don’t live easy lives until they accept themselves. I suggest you accept them too.
They are adults and can make their own choices and mistakes. Besides, every gay person already knows that God says its wrong. I mean considering Christians always shove the bible in their face.
If they want to read it, they will. Just back off and let them do their thing without pressuring them and bullying them.
Besides, what two consenting adults do in their bedroom isn’t your business.
As for the passage James noted, I am. I am sticking up for the gay people just like they have to do for themselves everyday. Well, im not sticking up for their act, im sticking up for their freedom.
There are many gay people at my school, more bisexual people, well, the majority is straight, but there are a few that are gay and bisexual. Anyways, I understand their pain. I mean I talk many people when I’m at school, and even have some gay/bi friends. Let me tell you, they were extremely confused about it at first, but these people claim they were even looking at their gender all the way from kindergarden. These people don’t live easy lives until they accept themselves. I suggest you accept them too.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
As someone who deals with SSA, I’ve thought about this issue a lot as of recently. I’ve also thought about the purpose and intention behind the sex act. I have arrived at the fact that most of the disagreement about homosexuality comes from mainly two different viewpoints about the sex act. The side that supports homosexuality (by this I mean the actual acts) tends to think the sex acts serves a purely unitive function and that the procreative function is just an icing on the cake and considering that this side of the debate tends to support contraception and less so abortion, it’s not surprising. The Catholic Church on the other hand sees the sexual act as fundamentally unitive and procreative. For her, these two aspects are equally important. For the reason that homosexual acts are not procreative, she rejects them and with a remarkable consistency rejects all other sexual acts not open to life.
I have asked myself frankly: Yes, but what’s wrong with two people (even of the same sex) expressing love to each other?
The answer that I received for this question (it may very well be from God himself) is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with two people of the same sex expressing love to each other. The problem lies in particular *ways *that two people of the same sex express love each other. Sex, it appears to me, not only from Catholic teaching, but also from nature, cannot be one them.
In science (and philosophy) it is taken for granted that each body part serves a particular function. It can be honestly said that scientists have discovered these functions, not assigned them. For example, the stomach serves the function of digesting food. Of course, nobody can prove that this is the purpose of the stomach. But no reasonable person would doubt it. The molecules, the acids, the stomach cell shapes all lend credence to the idea. Now when in comes to sex, in science, it is largely taken for granted that sex serves a largely procreative purpose. But when scientists turn to society, they seem to be almost in complete denial of the purpose. The structure of the reproductive organs combined with the actions and shapes of gametes, hormones and various other factors, seem to me, at least, to support the Catholic Church’s view of sexuality.
I’m still rather wobbly over this, but I think this is where the grace of God has lead me.
I have asked myself frankly: Yes, but what’s wrong with two people (even of the same sex) expressing love to each other?
The answer that I received for this question (it may very well be from God himself) is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with two people of the same sex expressing love to each other. The problem lies in particular *ways *that two people of the same sex express love each other. Sex, it appears to me, not only from Catholic teaching, but also from nature, cannot be one them.
In science (and philosophy) it is taken for granted that each body part serves a particular function. It can be honestly said that scientists have discovered these functions, not assigned them. For example, the stomach serves the function of digesting food. Of course, nobody can prove that this is the purpose of the stomach. But no reasonable person would doubt it. The molecules, the acids, the stomach cell shapes all lend credence to the idea. Now when in comes to sex, in science, it is largely taken for granted that sex serves a largely procreative purpose. But when scientists turn to society, they seem to be almost in complete denial of the purpose. The structure of the reproductive organs combined with the actions and shapes of gametes, hormones and various other factors, seem to me, at least, to support the Catholic Church’s view of sexuality.
I’m still rather wobbly over this, but I think this is where the grace of God has lead me.
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
I think it has to do with hormones while the baby is forming. Either way, say for example you fell in love with a guy like you would with a girl. And you couldn’t get married, you were told that anything you did with him sexually was an abomination (even if you were married to him). How would you deal with this? Oh, and of course, the bullying or hate being thrown at you through life because of it.
What would you do? Wouldn’t you be confused why God would allow you to be born gay if its so wrong? Its sad, really sad that this type of thing even happens. I just really really reallyyyy want to know wether they are born gay or not. I think that will definitely affect my ultimate decision on how I think on this.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Among other things, I have also thought of the implications that homosexuality has for the existence of two genders.
- First of all, why do we have two genders?
- If homosexuality is correct, then what does that mean for the existence of two genders?
- Just because we feel an attraction towards the same gender, does that mean we should act on it? (what if sexual desire very similar to an emotion such as anger?)
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
You’re right, what if we were the animals that can change genders and fertilize themselves (forgot the word for it). But that’s obviously not what God wanted.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
I’m no stranger to the confusion that you state here. But I understand that people are born with all kinds of things, all kinds of inclinations to do certain things. For example, some people have a greater problem with anger than others. Does that mean they shouldn’t practice restraint? Others are born with an inclination towards alcohol. Does that mean that they should not try and control it. On my path, I think that God has so graciously given me the light to see the difference between desire and will. I have certainly felt attraction towards members of the same sex, but I realize that what I desire may not be what I actually want. I think part of the problem for many people, SSA or not, is the idea that what they desire and what they want can truly be separate. Many people unify their sexual desire with their wants simply because its more convenient. I agree that it’s far more easier to to have you wants unified with desires beyond your control. That has certainly been my experience. But is it right?
Some people have sexual desires for children. Such unions between children and adults is not only an abomination to God, but also to most of us. I ask for your opinion on them Blue Shadow.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
It is also noteworthy that animals that fertilize themselves still contain “male” and “female” reproductive organs. Each organ serves a function that cannot be completed without the other. And in this particular case, the sexual act takes place within, so if that were the case with us, there would not be any point of sexual contact between two different people. And sexual contact would probably not be pleasurable considering the reason why sex would be pleasurable in the first place.
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
The fact that you are comparing pedophiles to homosexuals is unbelievable.
First off, a pedophile should know better than to go after children. It is inappropriate, the children do not know enough about sex, and it is not consenting between two adults.
A homosexual couple IS mature enough to know about sex, and its between two consenting adults.
You are just wrong for comparing the two. You’re lucky that there are so few gay people on this site, they would be jumping on your post right now.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
You read something in my post that I obviously didn’t intend. I’m sorry if I offended you or any other person. My intentions are furthest from the idea. My idea was to get you to see what people who suffer pedophilia probably go through. I don’t suffer from pedophilia, so I don’t know exactly what they feel like. But given that you see such a sexual action as immoral, it is a given that you think they should restrain them. And I agree. My idea was not to compare a homosexual couple to pedophilia.
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
Well I used to be against homosexuality, but I realized it doesn’t harm me in anyway whats so ever. I would never be gay, I know I could if I forced myself, because I know that if you think something long enough it becomes true to you, but I have gay/bisexual friends. And they are just awesome. Quite silly too. I laugh when a guy looks like a girl. Like drag queens.
Funny stuff, at least I think.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Spoken like a practiced moral relativist. No absolute truth. Just more blurring of delineations, wrong becomes not wrong, bad becomes not bad, because ‘no harm is claimed’ or the act is between consenting adults.
We are talking about our culture. It must happen here, the reason we have incest laws in every state in the U.S.
Likewise, I am not knowledgeable about the subject of incest. I just know sex between between close family members is a taboo across cultures including in ours.
So, you qualify that in incest between consenting adults, because of the risk of future children having genetic defects, you therefore agree it should be prohibited. And if the possibility of having children is eliminated by the parties, does this change your position?
Further, I ask you this: if you are truly concerned about the welfare of children, how about the risk to the mental and social health of children adopted or ‘created’ by IVF or use of surrogates by same sex couples? Or, the children in polygamous / polyamorous relationships, which if legalized, you said you would not have problems with?
. . . . . .
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
This is what you posted:
Well as I have stated many times, I don’t understand why (if they are born gay) God would allow that to happen. That means that those who are gay are not able to fall in love and get married to those that they choose. And that is wrong. That is why if they are born gay, that means God allowed it, and I would have a huge problem with that. Because then it pretty much makes their life suck if they know that they can never fall in love other wise they are committing an abomination. How sad is that? Anyways, what people do in their bedroom (if it is between two consenting adults and not harming anyone) is their business, not mine.
to which I replied with a link on Homosexuality: The Phantom Gene to help explain that there is no gay gene, and words by Bishop Sheen to help explain how Christians are called to love but not to be approving or to serve as enablers of homosexual behavior in others. “How sad is that?” which I underlined is the only question you posed, and it was a rhetorical question.
Then you replied with this
The content of your posts down the thread are repetitive, so, yes, we get what you are saying.
In reading the exchanges you had with other posters, I glean that you are young and are not clear in your mind if gays are born that way. You have repeated “if gays are born that way …” enough times. You are influenced greatly by a number of gay and bisexual students with whom you interact in school, who talk about their feelings. There is a lot of information to digest if you really wish to arrive at the best informed position on the subject of SSA, what is appropriate for a Christian to do in various situations when confronted with the issue, the impact of gay ‘marriage’ on society, etc. You probably already know that CAF has very good tracts on the subject that any member can look up, from the Library drop down menu.
Finally, the posts from Image of God are very reasoned; I hope they help you sort things in your head. Forming the right values in life is very important and a good moral compass will serve you well in the future.
The above is advice I would give my own child, so please take it in the best light.
. . . . . .
Well as I have stated many times, I don’t understand why (if they are born gay) God would allow that to happen. That means that those who are gay are not able to fall in love and get married to those that they choose. And that is wrong. That is why if they are born gay, that means God allowed it, and I would have a huge problem with that. Because then it pretty much makes their life suck if they know that they can never fall in love other wise they are committing an abomination. How sad is that? Anyways, what people do in their bedroom (if it is between two consenting adults and not harming anyone) is their business, not mine.
to which I replied with a link on Homosexuality: The Phantom Gene to help explain that there is no gay gene, and words by Bishop Sheen to help explain how Christians are called to love but not to be approving or to serve as enablers of homosexual behavior in others. “How sad is that?” which I underlined is the only question you posed, and it was a rhetorical question.
Then you replied with this
It seems that you go through these posts so fast and not really giving it attention, more concerned with a fast contrary comeback instead of giving the offered information some thought first.
The content of your posts down the thread are repetitive, so, yes, we get what you are saying.
In reading the exchanges you had with other posters, I glean that you are young and are not clear in your mind if gays are born that way. You have repeated “if gays are born that way …” enough times. You are influenced greatly by a number of gay and bisexual students with whom you interact in school, who talk about their feelings. There is a lot of information to digest if you really wish to arrive at the best informed position on the subject of SSA, what is appropriate for a Christian to do in various situations when confronted with the issue, the impact of gay ‘marriage’ on society, etc. You probably already know that CAF has very good tracts on the subject that any member can look up, from the Library drop down menu.
Finally, the posts from Image of God are very reasoned; I hope they help you sort things in your head. Forming the right values in life is very important and a good moral compass will serve you well in the future.
The above is advice I would give my own child, so please take it in the best light.
. . . . . .
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Seeker
There have been homosexual humans for as long as there have been humans.
There have also been pedophiles. does that make pedophilia natural and God given?
This despite the fact, as you so observantly pointed out that ‘every civilization has regarded homosexual acts as shameful and disgusting’. They’ve been persecuted, they’ve been prosecuted, they’ve been spat on, executed, legislated, and banned. And yet, they persist. You think anyone would choose that?
Do you think anyone would choose to have incest with his mother if he thought he would be found out and found worthy of contempt? You think that disordered behavior is never freely chosen? Think again. You think God creates men to have sex with their mothers just because they desire it? Whew!
Your logic is simply baffling.
*
With incestuous relationships, the risk of having genetic defects to future children justifies restricting the freedom of those who would otherwise choose incest.*
So why doesn’t the risk of AIDS justify condemnation of behavior that can spread AIDS?
You seem to be very selective about which disordered behaviors are justifiable and which are not.
There have been homosexual humans for as long as there have been humans.
There have also been pedophiles. does that make pedophilia natural and God given?
This despite the fact, as you so observantly pointed out that ‘every civilization has regarded homosexual acts as shameful and disgusting’. They’ve been persecuted, they’ve been prosecuted, they’ve been spat on, executed, legislated, and banned. And yet, they persist. You think anyone would choose that?
Do you think anyone would choose to have incest with his mother if he thought he would be found out and found worthy of contempt? You think that disordered behavior is never freely chosen? Think again. You think God creates men to have sex with their mothers just because they desire it? Whew!
Your logic is simply baffling.
*
With incestuous relationships, the risk of having genetic defects to future children justifies restricting the freedom of those who would otherwise choose incest.*
So why doesn’t the risk of AIDS justify condemnation of behavior that can spread AIDS?
You seem to be very selective about which disordered behaviors are justifiable and which are not.
S
Seeker2010
Guest
With pedophilia there is a victim. With consensual homosexuality, there is not. You also have to consider societal ‘definitions’. Today, we find the idea of sex with a 12 or 13 year old as abhorrent, but it remains a fact that by that age, many are physically mature and it wasn’t that long ago that people routinely married at that age.
First, we’re not talking about incest, we’re talking about homosexuality. Homosexual behavior comes because homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of their own gender. Just as I look at an attractive woman and can become sexually interested, a homosexual male does not, but he does when he sees an attractive male. This desire is not of his choosing, it simply is. To the extent that incest is happening, I have never seen any evidence that participants are specifically drawn to family members simply because they’re family members, which is to say there’s no ‘incest’ orientation. Regardless, one thing has nothing to do with the other.
If homosexual acts can spread AIDS beyond the parties whom have chosen to participate, perhaps, but that is not the case. With incest, the risk is to non-participants. Interestingly enough, the rate of STD’s amongst lesbians is the lowest of all sexual orientations, including heterosexuals. Does that mean you are in favor of lesbianism?
And when a cure comes for AIDS, will you cease your objections on that ground?
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
Your post didn’t answer a question I asked. I suggest its time somebody actually give me an answer. A truthful, logical answer. Quit beating around the bush and face the fact that you don’t know the answer to it either. You do not know why God would allow somebody to be born gay. All it does is confuse them and mess with their mind their whole life thinking everything they do is a sin. That is why most of them are atheists, because they don’t understand why God would allow the to be born that way. And you don’t know the answer to it either, because you are trying to escape from answering it. Don’t bother replying unless you CAN answer it.This is what you posted:
Well as I have stated many times, I don’t understand why (if they are born gay) God would allow that to happen. That means that those who are gay are not able to fall in love and get married to those that they choose. And that is wrong. That is why if they are born gay, that means God allowed it, and I would have a huge problem with that. Because then it pretty much makes their life suck if they know that they can never fall in love other wise they are committing an abomination. How sad is that? Anyways, what people do in their bedroom (if it is between two consenting adults and not harming anyone) is their business, not mine.
to which I replied with a link on Homosexuality: The Phantom Gene to help explain that there is no gay gene, and words by Bishop Sheen to help explain how Christians are called to love but not to be approving or to serve as enablers of homosexual behavior in others. “How sad is that?” which I underlined is the only question you posed, and it was a rhetorical question.
Then you replied with this
It seems that you go through these posts so fast and not really giving it attention, more concerned with a fast contrary comeback instead of giving the offered information some thought first.
The content of your posts down the thread are repetitive, so, yes, we get what you are saying.
In reading the exchanges you had with other posters, I glean that you are young and are not clear in your mind if gays are born that way. You have repeated “if gays are born that way …” enough times. You are influenced greatly by a number of gay and bisexual students with whom you interact in school, who talk about their feelings. There is a lot of information to digest if you really wish to arrive at the best informed position on the subject of SSA, what is appropriate for a Christian to do in various situations when confronted with the issue, the impact of gay ‘marriage’ on society, etc. You probably already know that CAF has very good tracts on the subject that any member can look up, from the Library drop down menu.
Finally, the posts from Image of God are very reasoned; I hope they help you sort things in your head. Forming the right values in life is very important and a good moral compass will serve you well in the future.
The above is advice I would give my own child, so please take it in the best light.
. . . . . .
However science and the bible cannot actually give an answer to this question. This is why I do not think you can answer it. Which means, you would essentially be in the same boat as me about not understanding why God would allow it and yet call it an abomination. 
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Seeker
With pedophilia there is a victim. With consensual homosexuality, there is not.
Unless, of course, one of the parties gives AIDS to the other.
To the extent that incest is happening, I have never seen any evidence that participants are specifically drawn to family members simply because they’re family members, which is to say there’s no ‘incest’ orientation. Regardless, one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Not so. Both are sexual disorders because they are unnatural attractions. God did not make us to have sex with our same sex any more than God made us to have sex with out mothers or fathers. Stop putting this on God. Why not put it on the Devil, where it belongs?
Interestingly enough, the rate of STD’s amongst lesbians is the lowest of all sexual orientations, including heterosexuals. Does that mean you are in favor of lesbianism?
This is downright false, and you know it. Lesbians also exchange bodily fluids. The risk of STDs is lowest among those who live in monogamous relationships with a spouse who has been faithful.
And when a cure comes for AIDS, will you cease your objections on that ground?
On that ground, perhaps, but there are other grounds for objecting, notably the psychological and moral ones.
By the way, since there is no cure for AIDS at present, why are you defending it as natural. Is self destructive behavior natural?
With pedophilia there is a victim. With consensual homosexuality, there is not.
Unless, of course, one of the parties gives AIDS to the other.
To the extent that incest is happening, I have never seen any evidence that participants are specifically drawn to family members simply because they’re family members, which is to say there’s no ‘incest’ orientation. Regardless, one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Not so. Both are sexual disorders because they are unnatural attractions. God did not make us to have sex with our same sex any more than God made us to have sex with out mothers or fathers. Stop putting this on God. Why not put it on the Devil, where it belongs?
Interestingly enough, the rate of STD’s amongst lesbians is the lowest of all sexual orientations, including heterosexuals. Does that mean you are in favor of lesbianism?
This is downright false, and you know it. Lesbians also exchange bodily fluids. The risk of STDs is lowest among those who live in monogamous relationships with a spouse who has been faithful.
And when a cure comes for AIDS, will you cease your objections on that ground?
On that ground, perhaps, but there are other grounds for objecting, notably the psychological and moral ones.
By the way, since there is no cure for AIDS at present, why are you defending it as natural. Is self destructive behavior natural?
- Status