scripture and homosexuality

[feetxxxl]

Jesus came not to abolish the law but so that the law might be fulfilled. The new laws are to love God above all else and love neighbor as self. But he never uprooted creation.

This is a mis-quote worthy of the hall of fame. If you are not called to marry, you are to remain a UNICH FOR THE KINGDOM. People without genitals cannot have sexual contact.

Again, what about beastiality and NAMBLA? Are those not about love?

“But he never uprooted creation”…im not sure what that means…god wiped out the people of noah’s time(they had multiplied and prospered) not only them but every living thing associated with them.

remain a UNICH FOR THE KINGDOM. People without genitals cannot have sexual contact…like i said not be limited with legalisms and traditonal thinking.

what would be the purpose to tell someone without genitals they are not called to have a one flesh relationship. it would be like tellling a man with no arms, he wasnt called to be a baseball pitcher.

 

[LittleDeb]

under christ the essence of marriage becomes loving ones neighbor as oneself, ones neighbor being ones spouse, the difference between the relationship with ones spouse and those relationships with other neighbors is that spousal relationship is a one flesh relationship, and is covered with vows of infidelity of cherishing and primacy “forsaking all others”.

but the essence of all marriages is loving ones spouse as one loves themselves

Ok let’s just focus right here then from your “post 161 asked and answered.”

There is ONE act that creates one flesh. (Just FYI one flesh also refers to a complementarity of souls that make one flesh and of course the obvious that there is ONE act that makes babies. One man, one woman.) But for the sake of this argument let’s focus instead on just the first part…one flesh, from a human standpoint.

Would you consider a man and a woman who only engaged in what’s known as “oral sex” or “manual sex” one flesh? How do you define one flesh? I know that there are men who believe that violating another’s rectum makes them one flesh, but what about the women? How are they one flesh?

One of my arguments against condoms in marriage is that it violates one flesh. How are two men, or two women one flesh? Leaving the spiritual aside for a moment, (even though it is even more important) how do you get past that simple statement in Genesis? “They shall become one flesh.”

And as I asked earlier, how do you decide that the spousal relationship is only for two people if there is no actual support for that in a same sex relationship? There is nothing built into the biology of two men that COMMANDS only two. So again, you have arbitrarily drawn your line at a ‘couple.’ WE know that a spousal relationship is meant for only two. It is built right there into our biology. One of each, complementary part. I will agree with you that our body is a nuptial body. How do you decide that two men or two women can have a nuptial relationship of one flesh? And how do you draw your arbitrary line at two?

 

[Delora]

*“homosexuality is the human bonding between those of the same gender motivated by mutual love, respect,trust, devotion, and attraction, for a committed shared life together. the same motivating spirit as with heterosexuals”
*
**No, according to Mirriam Webster, my favorite dictionary:

homosexuality is
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual 2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

and homosexual( adj) is
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex **

See, your definition is wrong.

And while a homosexual relationship may include trust, and respect. Those are not elements of sexuality, and so cannot be mentioned as defining “homosexual”

Those elements are elements of friendship and can be deemed as neighborly. It is perfectly acceptable for peace and trust to be exchanged between two men, or two women. No one here is contesting that.

We are arguing that sex is not a neighborly activity, or an activity for oneself. And therefore cannot be exchanged as a love of one’s neighbor as oneself
*
“homosexuals dont think “like a woman” because in most cases the attraction began at early childhood…so there is no like woman to make any comparison.”
*

I believe you have made this argument before, but here the grammar interferes with my understanding of your intended meaning.

I believe you say that since homosexuals to not want to have sex with women, then they cannot lie with men as they would lie with women. and cannot love men as they love women.

But in the spirit of the meaning :
Mathematically speaking, since the orifices of a man are a subset of the orifices of a women, a homosexual cannot have sex with man the same way he can have sex with a woman. Or in more gentle terms Man cannot “love” a man as he would “love” woman.

*being a heterosexual do you say that you are attracted to woman like homosexuals are attracted to a man?
*

I can honestly say no, as I am a woman.

 

[ralphinal]

“But he never uprooted creation”…im not sure what that means…god wiped out the people of noah’s time(they had multiplied and prospered) not only them but every living thing associated with them.

And because of their SIN, God wiped them out. Uproot creation means alter the rules set forth on day one, or day 6. In other words, male and female he created them for each other. Man is meant for woman alone.

remain a UNICH FOR THE KINGDOM. People without genitals cannot have sexual contact…like i said not be limited with legalisms and traditonal thinking.

what would be the purpose to tell someone without genitals they are not called to have a one flesh relationship. it would be like tellling a man with no arms, he wasnt called to be a baseball pitcher.

Jesus means that blessed are those who choose no sexual contact. If that means hetero fine. If itmeans homosexual, fine. You are saying that there is no reason for oyu to deny the cross. If the cross is SSA, then take it up and follow him. Trying to force a new interpretation that allows sin is not what Jesus had in mind.

The fact that you keep dodging the quesitons about beastiality and NAMBLA worries me. What is the standing of them according to your anything for love theology?

 

[Moireach]

how do u unsubscribe to this thread?
cos i keep getting emails

 

[LDNCatholic]

all relationships that are of god have the love of the commandment.

all relationships that are not nothing have this love.

whether its marital, friendship, family, even co worker, or even for a pet.

I didn’t see ‘‘civil union’’ or ‘‘homosexual life partnership’’ in there so I’ll assume you agree that those things are not of God. Again, which ‘‘love’’ is in the scriptures you provided? I’m sure you have misunderstood their meaning.

 

[mercygate]

how do u unsubscribe to this thread?
cos i keep getting emails

At the top of every page, is a “thread tools” button; click “unsubscribe.” See you there.

 

[feetxxxl]

Ok let’s just focus right here then from your “post 161 asked and answered.”

There is ONE act that creates one flesh. (Just FYI one flesh also refers to a complementarity of souls that make one flesh and of course the obvious that there is ONE act that makes babies. One man, one woman.) But for the sake of this argument let’s focus instead on just the first part…one flesh, from a human standpoint.

why do you put so much emphasis on procreation. the people of noah’s time procreatrd and god wiped them out. not only them, but every living thing associated with them.

god’s concern was someone’s heart. committed homosexual couples offer loving nurturing homes equal to those of heterosexual married couples for rejected and abandoned children of heterosexual unions. and their sexual intimacy enhances the loving nurturing environment in the home.

Would you consider a man and a woman who only engaged in what’s known as “oral sex” or “manual sex” one flesh? How do you define one flesh? I know that there are men who believe that violating another’s rectum makes them one flesh, but what about the women? How are they one flesh?

the truth about our bodies is that the anus is an errogenous zone and that anal orgasms are possible.

one flesh relationship is any exchange of sexual energy that is satisfying and unifying to those involved. just how do think couples where one is parallized from the waist down have sex. would you condemn that as well.

One of my arguments against condoms in marriage is that it violates one flesh. How are two men, or two women one flesh? Leaving the spiritual aside for a moment, (even though it is even more important) how do you get past that simple statement in Genesis? “They shall become one flesh.”

one flesh is the description of a committed relationship where there is an exchange of sexual energy to the point of orgasm where it is physically possible for each person.

And as I asked earlier, how do you decide that the spousal relationship is only for two people if there is no actual support for that in a same sex relationship? There is nothing built into the biology of two men that COMMANDS only two. So again, you have arbitrarily drawn your line at a ‘couple.’ WE know that a spousal relationship is meant for only two. It is built right there into our biology. One of each, complementary part. I will agree with you that our body is a nuptial body. How do you decide that two men or two women can have a nuptial relationship of one flesh? And how do you draw your arbitrary line at two?

in genesis1:20, the scriptural words are “suitable helper”. what would the point of having one flesh relationship with a helper that one was not attracted to, and even possibly repulsed by.

 

[feetxxxl]

I didn’t see ‘‘civil union’’ or ‘‘homosexual life partnership’’ in there so I’ll assume you agree that those things are not of God. Again, which ‘‘love’’ is in the scriptures you provided? I’m sure you have misunderstood their meaning.

you assume wrong.

 

[feetxxxl]

And because of their SIN, God wiped them out. Uproot creation means alter the rules set forth on day one, or day 6. In other words, male and female he created them for each other. Man is meant for woman alone.

Jesus means that blessed are those who choose no sexual contact. If that means hetero fine. If itmeans homosexual, fine. You are saying that there is no reason for oyu to deny the cross. If the cross is SSA, then take it up and follow him. Trying to force a new interpretation that allows sin is not what Jesus had in mind.

The fact that you keep dodging the quesitons about beastiality and NAMBLA worries me. What is the standing of them according to your anything for love theology?

this is the scripture

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

not every person can accept the word about a man woman one flesh relationship. but only those to whom it has been given. and even to those it has been given if they cannot accept it should nt do so.

enuchs can mean anything one who is not disposed to mating with the opposite sex, because of the way they were born, mentally, emotionally or physically. others were made that way from the trauma they suffered thru fellowman, and other renounced sexual relations thru the grace of god, for the sake of the kingdom…the spirit of celibacy being a gift of the spirit.

if those of the same sex bond thru the same spirit of mutual love, devotion, trust, attraction for a shared committed life together, the same as heterosexual couples …how can they be denied what is given heterosexuals…out of regulation?

Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the NEW WAY OF THE SPIRIT, and not in the old way of the written code.

that was the relationship we had to regulation under the old covenant.

hebrews8 says in regards to the old and new covenants is… that what is old becomes obsolete, and will eventually pass away.

under the new covenant “loving ones neighbor as oneself” is the summation of all the law. for same sex bonding to be a sin it has to come against loving ones neighbor as oneself. in other words, how does it violate the spirit of the commandment.

how does it?

 

[teancum79]

Love is not the same thing as lust of sex.

 

[feetxxxl]

*“homosexuality is the human bonding between those of the same gender motivated by mutual love, respect,trust, devotion, and attraction, for a committed shared life together. the same motivating spirit as with heterosexuals”
*
**No, according to Mirriam Webster, my favorite dictionary:

homosexuality is
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual 2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

and homosexual( adj) is
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex **

See, your definition is wrong.

And while a homosexual relationship may include trust, and respect. Those are not elements of sexuality, and so cannot be mentioned as defining “homosexual”

Those elements are elements of friendship and can be deemed as neighborly. It is perfectly acceptable for peace and trust to be exchanged between two men, or two women. No one here is contesting that.

We are arguing that sex is not a neighborly activity, or an activity for oneself. And therefore cannot be exchanged as a love of one’s neighbor as oneself

why would you say that sex is not neighborly? in bonded human relationships, sexual imtimacy is an expression and an affirmation of the connection and devotion of the relationship.

when one sees a marriage counnselor is not her concern abou the frequency and satisfaction of sexual intimacy?
“homosexuals dont think “like a woman” because in most cases the attraction began at early childhood…so there is no like woman to make any comparison.”
*

I believe you have made this argument before, but here the grammar interferes with my understanding of your intended meaning.

I believe you say that since homosexuals to not want to have sex with women, then they cannot lie with men as they would lie with women. and cannot love men as they love women.

But in the spirit of the meaning :
Mathematically speaking, since the orifices of a man are a subset of the orifices of a women, a homosexual cannot have sex with man the same way he can have sex with a woman. Or in more gentle terms Man cannot “love” a man as he would “love” woman.

*being a heterosexual do you say that you are attracted to woman like homosexuals are attracted to a man?
*

I can honestly say no, as I am a woman.

in the realm of the human body the anus is an errogenous zone and anal orgasms are possible.

heterosexual couples have been involved with some form of anal stimulation since the beginning of man…without recrimination…do you have some sin rule about about the anus being touched during heterosexual sexual intimacy?

 

[peary]

in the realm of the human body the anus is an errogenous zone and anal orgasms are possible.

heterosexual couples have been involved with some form of anal stimulation since the beginning of man…without recrimination…do you have some sin rule about about the anus being touched during heterosexual sexual intimacy?

You are not open to life or to conception through anal intercourse.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Love is not the same thing as lust of sex.

feet has misunderstood the word ‘‘love’’ as presented in the bible, probably not realising that in Greek there are different words for the different types of love, having been asked twice to identify what type of love it is in the scripture they quoted, the question has been dodged.

One more time. Is the word ‘‘love’’ in those scriptures Agape, Eros or Philios?

 

[feetxxxl]

You are not open to life or to conception through anal intercourse.

in a fifty year marriage where sex was performed twice a week, out of 5200 times of sexual intimacy what percentage would you say that sex was engaged in solely for procreation? if both pardners were very fertile…less than 1%?, the rest of the time what was the other 5148 times for having sex f for?

 

[LDNCatholic]

in a fifty year marriage where sex was performed twice a week, out of 5200 times of sexual intimacy what percentage would you say that sex was engaged in solely for procreation? if both pardners were very fertile…less than 1%?, the rest of the time what was the other 5148 times for having sex f for?

Who is this couple? Do they exist or are you making them up to prove a point?

Sex is a procreative act, it can be used as an expression of love between husband and wife but at all times they are called to be open to the possibility of conception.

 

[Delora]

LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
I shall love my neighbor as I love myself.Since we are talking about love, in the meaning “making love” This can be restated as:

I shall have sex with my neighbor, as I have sex with my self.

And since you are not to have sex with yourself. You are not to have sex with your neighbor.

SEX AS AFFIRMATION OF A RELATIONSHIPI am in a bonded relationship with my mother that bore me. Sexual relation is not an expression and affirmation of the connection and devotion of our relationship.

THE IMPORTANCE OF MARRIAGE COUNSELORS
"“when one sees a marriage counselor is not her concern about the frequency and satisfaction of sexual intimacy?”

Reasons why someone sees a marriage counselor:​

Courtesy of Southwest Washington Medical Center:
1)Do you feel like you are more committed to the health of your relationship than your partner is?
2)Do you trust your partner?
3)Do you feel appreciated byyour partner?
4) Have you considered divorce if things don’t change?
5)Are you satisfied with your sexual relationship?
6)Do you and your partner have frequent arguments that are unresolved?
7)Do you criticize one another even in public?
8)Do you feel hopeful about your future as a couple?
9)Doyou feel like your partner is there for you in hard times?
10)Do you and your partner engage in physical fights?
11)Do you feel loved?
12)Do you feel like your partner finds you desirable?
13)Have either one of you had (or is one of you having) an affair?
14)Do you share household chores?
15)Do you feel like you or your partner shut one another out?
16)Do you share in the care of the children?
17)Do you think others don’t know what your relationship is really like?
18) Do you feel like your partner tries to control you?
19)Do you feel like you and your partner agree on financial matters?
20)Do you argue about the children or step children?
21)Do you and your partner have general problems with communication?
22)Do you tend to spend time at home and only infrequently engage in conversation during an extended time together?
23)Do you feel like you dislike your partner?
24)Do you feel like your partner puts your relationship above all others – do you feel as though you do?
25)Do you find your self envying your friends’ relationships?

If you have looked at these items and find your relationship may be in need of growth and improvement, give us a call. Counseling can often help! Let us help you find solutions for your relationship.​

For your reading ease, I have bolded the reasons that involved sex.You will notice that only 8 percent of them involve sex.
So while a person might see a marriage counselor for sex, the majority of concerns are not related to sex. So I feel completely secure in saying the concern is probably not sexual. In other words, NO.

I believe your point in saying that was saying that sex is a part of the relationship in a marriage. And since homosexuals cannot be bonded in the sacrament of marriage in the church, homosexuals cannot have the sex that is part of the relationship of marriage.

Before it is said that homosexuals can be bonded in the contract of marriage in the state, I would like to point out that is irrelevant
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s Here in this forum we care not about Caesar’s marriage contract, but care instead for our Lord’s bonding of two into one.

HAVING SOME SIN RULE
do you have some sin rule about about the anus being touched during heterosexual sexual intimacy?

No, I don’t. I’m pretty sure others understand there to be such a “sin rule in the bible” but the existence of such a “sin rule”, that is not the point of my statement.

The point is:

** MEN DO NOT HAVE VAGINAS **
Men and women have every orifice in common, except for one.
A man is able to put his penis in a women in every way that he is able to put his penis in a man.

A man is not able to put his penis in a man in every way he is able put his penis in a woman. Therefore, a man cannot lay with man the same way he lays with a woman. There is one way then “to lay with a woman.” all the other ways are to “lay with a human.”
,
This makes indisputably clear the meaning of “a man shall not lay with a man, as he lays with a woman " A man shall not have sex with a man, as he has sex with a woman”

This renders your statement

“homosexuals dont think “like a woman” because in most cases the attraction began at early childhood…so there is no like woman to make any comparison.”

pretty much impotent. Thank you.

 

[LittleDeb]

feet,

I am done with your bizarre interpretations. “One flesh” has nothing to do with orgasm. It has a lot to do with one flesh of genitals. Orgasms are just a nice side effect of sex that makes us want to have procreative sex. The anus is NOT a genital. Genitals refer to what make us male OR female. I didn’t think it was a news flash to you that both sexes have anuses. Besides, what you are talking about is rectal penetration, not the euphemism “anal sex.” Look on a biology chart and locate the anus. All skin on the human body is an erogenous zone. The anus does not hold a distinction.

Also you have AGAIN, dodged. How are lesbians “one flesh” if all you want to defend is male rectal penetration. Two men cannot be one flesh either. There is ONE ACT that is ONE FLESH. You are correct on one point. A man and a woman engaged in rectal penetration are also not one flesh.

Lastly, please learn how to quote properly. You have made it appear as though I have said things that I have not. It also made it so that I couldn’t easily quote you. Just highlight the part that you want to divide and click the box above the editor that looks like a cartoon bubble. It will quote what you want. There is a “sandbox” on the main page where you can practice things like quoting. Please learn there.

Scripture shows that one man and one woman become one flesh. Scripture records Jesus defining what is marriage by His clear reference to how it was “in the beginning.” Fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex acts, are all clearly condemned in Scripture.

 

[ralphinal]

I see no point in continuing. You misquote and misuse scripture. You refuse to explain why child abuse would be banned as they are “loving” the child. You are forcing sin onto the Bible. And, quite honestly, I am tired of trying to get you to see the truth. Go. God bless you. Be happy in this world. You may not be happy in the next.

 

[Bwsherman]

I know this thread is incredibily long, but I must ask those who are against the views put forth by the Church: For those of you who have attempted to use scripture to justify your position…what makes you so certain that your interpretation of the text is correct? Do you put it up against the early Church, the Church councils, or do you just read the text and make up your mind that your point of view is correct? Just curious…