scripture and homosexuality

[feetxxxl]

matt5: 27"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

if according to christ one can commit adultery without committing a sexual act, why would that be any different for this understanding of homosexuality not being a sin but it is only the sexual act?

 

[sydcatholic80]

No matter how you flip it, homosexual sex is abnormal and disgusting. Let me put it this way, in 20 years in the Navy, and in 20 years in the Fire Department, I had friends that I loved more than brothers, men who saved my very life and I theirs. BUT… we certainly had no desire to have sex with one another. I know what the Bible says about homosexuals and it offends me that somebody is going to try to make Scripture say what it does not.

Up front, I am not saying homosexual sex is ok.

Just for thought, over on anther thread that was discussing permissible sex, heterosexual anal sex was being discussed as a possibility as foreplay for example. People over there are saying, well in essence “well, its not for me, but whatever floats your boat so long as the act follows and ejaculation is inside the woman in the right place!”.

So in general, people think its permissible for a man to do something un-natural to a woman, but for two men to do it is abhorrent.

Same for oral sex. Over on that thread it is ok as foreplay.

Using the idea of Natural Law which is often quoted as the basis for the churchs teachings, a man and women engaging in anal intercourse, or oral intercourse seems to be contrary to natural law. The Mouth is made to allow food, water and air to enter the body. The Anus allows waste products to exit the body.
Any other use is contrary to that natural law.

It would be great to see some consistency from fellow Catholics. If something is condemned on the basis of natural law, the surely it applies to all. If the argument goes that the end of the digestive tract is only for expelling waste, then this applies to everyone!

I guess the clear message here is, sexual acts are only permissible between a married man and woman, and as long as each complete act is open to life. Anything outside this is SIN. PERIOD.

A homosexual couple engaging in sexual acts is no more or less sinful than an unmarried heterosexual couple engaging in sexual acts, or a married heterosexual couple engaging in sexual acts that are not open to life (other than NFP).

Again, this it NOT an argument for homosexual acts to be permissible. Just seeking clarity and consistency.

 

[LittleDeb]

Up front, I am not saying homosexual sex is ok.

Just for thought, over on anther thread that was discussing permissible sex, heterosexual anal sex was being discussed as a possibility as foreplay for example. People over there are saying, well in essence “well, its not for me, but whatever floats your boat so long as the act follows and ejaculation is inside the woman in the right place!”.

So in general, people think its permissible for a man to do something un-natural to a woman, but for two men to do it is abhorrent.

Same for oral sex. Over on that thread it is ok as foreplay.

Using the idea of Natural Law which is often quoted as the basis for the churchs teachings, a man and women engaging in anal intercourse, or oral intercourse seems to be contrary to natural law. The Mouth is made to allow food, water and air to enter the body. The Anus allows waste products to exit the body.
Any other use is contrary to that natural law.

It would be great to see some consistency from fellow Catholics. If something is condemned on the basis of natural law, the surely it applies to all. If the argument goes that the end of the digestive tract is only for expelling waste, then this applies to everyone!

I guess the clear message here is, sexual acts are only permissible between a married man and woman, and as long as each complete act is open to life. Anything outside this is SIN. PERIOD.

A homosexual couple engaging in sexual acts is no more or less sinful than an unmarried heterosexual couple engaging in sexual acts, or a married heterosexual couple engaging in sexual acts that are not open to life (other than NFP).

Again, this it NOT an argument for homosexual acts to be permissible. Just seeking clarity and consistency.

I am one who agrees with you in seeking consistency from fellow Catholics. Although I do differentiate between oral sex and oral stimulation. They are two completely different acts.

From my studies, where the acts cross over into the unnatural is when a body part designed for one purpose is used to mimic another part. An obvious example is when the rectum is used to mimic a vagina. When the mouth is tasting and receiving it is a still a mouth. When it is penetrated, it becomes a mimic.

Scripture records a fairly consistent message of maintaining everything according to it’s design. There are some who, I feel, have read something incorrectly into Theology of the Body that certain acts are acceptable. But the deepest message of TOB is that the design is perfect and there is no need to substitute a mimic in place of the authentic.

This is shown most clearly in the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church. Our entire lives are modeled from that marriage. Anything that is not modeled after that authentic marriage, whether it be a marriage or the single life or the life of a consecrated celibate, is merely a mimicry.

 

[LilyM]

matt5: 27"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

if according to christ one can commit adultery without committing a sexual act, why would that be any different for this understanding of homosexuality not being a sin but it is only the sexual act?

You’re talking about THREE entirely different things there:

1. an attraction which falls short of lust (which Christ never condemned and is fine for those with SSA and otherwise),
2. an attraction which IS lustful (which He did condemn for all people, SSA and otherwise) and
3. sex (which in all situations outside of legitimate marital vows between man and woman, He also condemned - and this is regardless of whether it’s prompted by lust or not, regardless of whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual)

You are seriously confused if you can’t appreciate the differences, both moral and factual, between the above three situations. This being the case you have an absolute moral obligation not to have sex with anyone of either gender until you can distinguish sex from lust from non-lustful attraction to a person.

 

[LittleDeb]

You’re talking about THREE entirely different things there:

1. an attraction which falls short of lust (which Christ never condemned and is fine for those with SSA and otherwise),
2. an attraction which IS lustful (which He did condemn for all people, SSA and otherwise) and
3. sex (which in all situations outside of legitimate marital vows between man and woman, He also condemned - and this is regardless of whether it’s prompted by lust or not, regardless of whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual)

You are seriously confused if you can’t appreciate the differences, both moral and factual, between the above three situations. This being the case you have an absolute moral obligation not to have sex with anyone of either gender until you can distinguish sex from lust from non-lustful attraction to a person.

Well said!

 

[sydcatholic80]

This is shown most clearly in the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church. Our entire lives are modeled from that marriage. Anything that is not modeled after that authentic marriage, whether it be a marriage or the single life or the life of a consecrated celibate, is merely a mimicry.

For someone who has not read TOB, could you explain the concept of the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church?

Josh

 

[LittleDeb]

For someone who has not read TOB, could you explain the concept of the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church?

In a nutshell? No I can’t.

But since it does pertain to this thread I will attempt as short an answer as is humanly possible. (For me, that can be very long.)

The marriage of Adam and Eve is the first earthly model of marriage. Scripture begins with their uncorrupted perfectly complementary marriage. Adam (the word literally means “first man”) declares that she is ‘flesh of my flesh.’ He sees that she shares his humanity, yet is his perfect helpmate. In Eve he finds everything of himself that the animals didn’t possess. And more so he finds in her the complement to himself. He sees in her everything that he isn’t. That is what a complement means. It is not just an “opposite.” It is a fullness. If Adam had been fine in his solitude, he wouldn’t have needed a helpmate. He needed what he himself didn’t already have.

But our original parents fell short and sinned.

The original and divine definition of masculine means ‘to give.’ The definition of feminine means ‘to receive.’ This was the perfect model of what it means to be human. God, in His divine masculinity, gives to us. We are His bride. We receive. In the end of Scripture we learn that the goal of all humans is a divine marriage. The book of Revelation reveals the Christ as the second (and final) Adam. His bride, is the Church. From Genesis we learn that bridegroom and bride become ‘one flesh.’ From Revelation we learn that the one flesh of Christ and his bride is not a temporary, single act. But that it is an eternal bond. All of Scripture records that we (the Church) are the body of Christ. The bride actually becomes the body of Christ.

All humans are called to marriage. We are called to marriage with Christ as our Bridegroom. Human marriage is not just a symbol to be looked at. Marriage is not an emotional status. It is an actual change. We cease being two fleshes and become one flesh. We see from Christ and his bride, that the bride was not the same as the Groom before the marriage. The bride is complementary to her groom. She receives from outside of herself. Her Groom does the giving. When we, as humans, give, we are expressing the masculinity of God. When we receive, we are expressing the femininity of the bride.

Jesus has always existed because He is God. His marriage to his bride is outside of time and is one flesh, one body, with Him. To be created in the image of God is to be created in the image of the nuptial relation of the masculine Christ and the feminine Church. Male and female are the biological results of the masculinity of God and the femininity of Church. When males and females live the divine definition of masculine and feminine created on our very bodies, we are a clear reflection of the Body of Christ.

Clear as mud? That was actually pretty short for me. Either I have become less redundant and more precise, or I have just made less sense in a shorter post.

Welcome to the forums. I hope this helps.

 

[revelations]

Modern definition? What do you mean?

Well, some have argued that the word sodomy didn’t originally intend what it means today. I use the term sodomy to describe the action of genital stimulation by same sex people, as well as the…euhm…other act.

 

[feetxxxl]

Up front, I am not saying homosexual sex is ok.

Just for thought, over on anther thread that was discussing permissible sex, heterosexual anal sex was being discussed as a possibility as foreplay for example. People over there are saying, well in essence “well, its not for me, but whatever floats your boat so long as the act follows and ejaculation is inside the woman in the right place!”.

So in general, people think its permissible for a man to do something un-natural to a woman, but for two men to do it is abhorrent.

Same for oral sex. Over on that thread it is ok as foreplay.

Using the idea of Natural Law which is often quoted as the basis for the churchs teachings, a man and women engaging in anal intercourse, or oral intercourse seems to be contrary to natural law. The Mouth is made to allow food, water and air to enter the body. The Anus allows waste products to exit the body.
Any other use is contrary to that natural law.

It would be great to see some consistency from fellow Catholics. If something is condemned on the basis of natural law, the surely it applies to all. If the argument goes that the end of the digestive tract is only for expelling waste, then this applies to everyone!

I guess the clear message here is, sexual acts are only permissible between a married man and woman, and as long as each complete act is open to life. Anything outside this is SIN. PERIOD.

A homosexual couple engaging in sexual acts is no more or less sinful than an unmarried heterosexual couple engaging in sexual acts, or a married heterosexual couple engaging in sexual acts that are not open to life (other than NFP).

Again, this it NOT an argument for homosexual acts to be permissible. Just seeking clarity and consistency.

the only problem with this line of thinking, is that again the concept of sin is focused on the act, and not of the spirit of the act. a couple practices anal sex. because it is mutually pleasing to both people , because it is mutally pleasing it is an act that affirms and expresses the devotion in the relationship.

how can anyone find it pleasing? because the anus is an erogenous zone(wikipedia) and anal orgasms are not only possible but with some people are much more intense than vaginal orgasms. then there is also digital massage, that accompaning vaginal sex can also produce the same result.

so because of this law, what are the rules about touching someone around the anal area. are you saying as long as there is no penetration there is no sin. how about massaging the area around so as to make one want penetration.

the same thing is also true about oral sex as well. so you are saying that if one uses his mouth to touch the genitals of another even if it is pleasing to both parties out of a technicality they are sinning. what spirit are they given over to that comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself. it would seem that if one party desired it, not to do it, would be unloving. paul didnt say dont withhold your genitals from each other. he said dont withhold your bodies.

1cor7:4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent

doesnt this dialogue have a similarity to the old covenant and the 600 some odd laws the jews tried to obey.

Romans 4:13
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Romans 9:30-32
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

but you appear to go even further. you attempt to disinfranchise those who live by faith, because they wont submit to your laws. your arguement is similar to the jews who believed they were saved because they were of the 12 tribes. you bellieve your “natural law” construct is valid because it comes thru a church that has lineage to peter.

where is the spirit of christ in that?

dont you find it peculiar that these laws were made those the celibate? surely you dont think they were more holy. because our holiness does not come from anything that we do(works)…but only thru grace thru faith thru the one who lives in us.

where in scripture is there any referral to this" natural law" or this code about masterbation and anal and oral sex?

 

[LittleDeb]

the only problem with this line of thinking, is that again the concept of sin is focused on the act, and not of the spirit of the act. a couple practices anal sex. because it is mutually pleasing to both people , because it is mutally pleasing it is an act that affirms and expresses the devotion in the relationship.

how can anyone find it pleasing? because the anus is an erogenous zone(wikipedia) and anal orgasms are not only possible but with some people are much more intense than vaginal orgasms. then there is also digital massage, that accompaning vaginal sex can also produce the same result.

so because of this law, what are the rules about touching someone around the anal area. are you saying as long as there is no penetration there is no sin. how about massaging the area around so as to make one want penetration.

the same thing is also true about oral sex as well. so you are saying that if one uses his mouth to touch the genitals of another even if it is pleasing to both parties out of a technicality they are sinning. what spirit are they given over to that comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself. it would seem that if one party desired it, not to do it, would be unloving. paul didnt say dont withhold your genitals from each other. he said dont withhold your bodies.

This is just more and more of your misguided interpretation of “if it feels good, just do it.”

Please stop that destructive thinking!! All sinful things feel good on some level! If they didn’t, we would stop doing them. I mean the rationale otherwise is, “Well that was just the single, most painful thing I have ever done. I got absolutely nothing out of it. Let’s do that again!!”

Of course not. We do sinful things because we find momentary pleasure in them. Your obsession with orgasms has me worried for your future. If your “partner” can no longer give you orgasms will you look elsewhere? If you do, then you will be like the majority of same sex partnerships out there. The ONE thing they will not embrace is celibacy. Even for the better of their supposed “partner,” it is rejected.

You still have no idea what a marriage IS. You have it pegged as some emotional state full of warm fuzzies, and orgasms every day until you die. What an amazingly shallow view of marriage! You think marriage is merely loving neighbor as oneself. WOW. Ouch.

Marriage is a covenant, co-ve-nant. In marriage we are called not to merely love our spouse as ourself, but to become an entirely NEW self in one flesh. We are called to a permanent change. We are called to give our entire self. We are not just called to a really deep friendship in marriage. We are called to an intimacy that transcends the 5 senses. We are called to an affection that cannot be expressed with our neighbors. It is an affection so connected in Christ Jesus that we experience the other’s joy because we are ONE FLESH.

Until you stop blowing off the complementarity of ONE FLESH, you just won’t get this. Although from this long thread it is clear that you don’t want to understand God’s way. You have not succeeded in revealing God’s will in scripture. You have succeed in writing yourself into scripture. You are fallibly rewriting scripture to say things you want to believe. What you want scripture to say is simply not there!

 

[feetxxxl]

This is just more and more of your misguided interpretation of “if it feels good, just do it.”

Please stop that destructive thinking!! All sinful things feel good on some level! If they didn’t, we would stop doing them. I mean the rationale otherwise is, “Well that was just the single, most painful thing I have ever done. I got absolutely nothing out of it. Let’s do that again!!”

Of course not. We do sinful things because we find momentary pleasure in them. Your obsession with orgasms has me worried for your future. If your “partner” can no longer give you orgasms will you look elsewhere? If you do, then you will be like the majority of same sex partnerships out there. The ONE thing they will not embrace is celibacy. Even for the better of their supposed “partner,” it is rejected.

You still have no idea what a marriage IS. You have it pegged as some emotional state full of warm fuzzies, and orgasms every day until you die. What an amazingly shallow view of marriage! You think marriage is merely loving neighbor as oneself. WOW. Ouch.

Marriage is a covenant, co-ve-nant. In marriage we are called not to merely love our spouse as ourself, but to become an entirely NEW self in one flesh. We are called to a permanent change. We are called to give our entire self. We are not just called to a really deep friendship in marriage. We are called to an intimacy that transcends the 5 senses. We are called to an affection that cannot be expressed with our neighbors. It is an affection so connected in Christ Jesus that we experience the other’s joy because we are ONE FLESH.

Until you stop blowing off the complementarity of ONE FLESH, you just won’t get this. Although from this long thread it is clear that you don’t want to understand God’s way. You have not succeeded in revealing God’s will in scripture. You have succeed in writing yourself into scripture. You are fallibly rewriting scripture to say things you want to believe. What you want scripture to say is simply not there!

im answering 5 different people.

i focused on the act in response to earlier emails. when i started this dialogue my concern was about one flesh human bonding. the gay couples in my church marry.

unless you annotate. you give the appearance of merely speaking an opinion.

and consider answering my questions.

 

[LittleDeb]

i focused on the act in response to earlier emails.

And the act, dear feet, is where you go so completely wrong.

If you want the footnote you have to read the WHOLE of Scripture for it. Cherry picking texts proves only personal fallibility.

 

[LilyM]

im answering 5 different people.

i focused on the act in response to earlier emails. when i started this dialogue my concern was about one flesh human bonding. the gay couples in my church marry.

unless you annotate. you give the appearance of merely speaking an opinion.

and consider answering my questions.

But you’re not actually answering anyone, that’s just it - you’re just spouting, over and over again, your misguided opinions - and you yourself aren’t actually responding to and ‘annotating’ their posts as you seem to want them to do.

I especially love your last post - you were trying to claim that because people get orgasms from anal sex it somehow makes it all right. Well buddy - people get orgasms from adulterous sex, incestuous sex, bestiality and every other sexual perversion you can think of. Since when does the end result of an orgasm justify ANYthing?

Look, I am perfectly capable of eating nothing but chocolate for the rest of my life. On one level it would be extremely pleasurable to do so. And God created chocolate and made it pleasurable, so on one level I could try to argue that it would be OK.

On another it would be a terrible and totally sinful abuse of my body, which being the temple of the Holy Spirit belongs above all to God. And of God’s gift of food, which must always be enjoyed in moderation (as He commanded us to fast (‘WHEN you fast’) at times, and did so Himself, as well as feasting at othrs).

Remember that - your and my bodies dont belong solely to our spouses or partnesr, nor to any other person, but to God first and foremost. So it is with any form of sexual behaviour outisde of a monogamous heterosexual marriage - it feels pleasurable but is an abuse of your body and the bodies of others.

The ‘bonding’ you speak of between homosexuals is fake, an illusion, a delusion, not real. It’s like those vegetarian meat substitutes, which however much you may want to pretend they are, are not really meat.

I’ve more than proven what I’m saying with the statistics I put up many posts ago on the breakdown of homosexual v heterosexual marriages, and the fact that homosexual marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual ones. Which I notice you conveniently didn’t respond to - due to your usual wilful blindness towards the truth about homosexuality.

 

[Eden]

Just for thought, over on anther thread that was discussing permissible sex, heterosexual anal sex was being discussed as a possibility as foreplay for example. People over there are saying, well in essence “well, its not for me, but whatever floats your boat so long as the act follows and ejaculation is inside the woman in the right place!”.

I don’t know who was saying this, but anal contact should never be followed by vaginal contact. This is a very unclean thing to do, as it introduces bacteria that can cause infections. The rectum and gastro-intestinal tract are full of harmful bacteria, like E-coli and group B strep.

 

[sydcatholic80]

I don’t know who was saying this, but anal contact should never be followed by vaginal contact. This is a very unclean thing to do, as it introduces bacteria that can cause infections. The rectum and gastro-intestinal tract are full of harmful bacteria, like E-coli and group B strep.

Yes Eden, that fact was also discussed. Then someone brought up the possibility of using a condom for hygienic reasons and then continuing the act in the vagina to completion.

Yes, conversations of this detail are occurring on another thread in this forum.

How is this act of sodomy OK with other catholics on the forum?
I was of the understanding that all sodomy was bad (based on Natural Law arguments).

It becomes a slippery slope when there can be exceptions for a different set of circumstances.

 

[LittleDeb]

It becomes a slippery slope when there can be exceptions for a different set of circumstances.

I totally agree. Just remember that it is theologians speculating on acceptable acts. The Magesterium hasn’t declared it. Theologians are just scholars. What they say is not binding on the faithful. They have no more authority than you or I.

 

[Frost]

believe what you want, but scripture has never declared homosexuality a sin.

…not from the prohibitions of lev(not all prohibitions of themselves were a sin, and other things that were condoned are now considered intolerable evils) to sodom’s condoning of the gang rape of strangers, to the shame based lust of romans( lust being the antithesis of human bonding. human bonding is done out of mutual love , respect, devotion, trust, and attraction for a shared committed life together) to the “malebed” of 1cor and 1tim(how can an animate person be transposed for an inanimate object, and how out of all the possible meanings was homosexual the one specific one designated.

jesus said we would recognize them from their fruits…fruits as depicted in fruits of the spirit in gal5.

paul said the things of the sin nature are OBVIOUS…by their very essence, it is self explanatory on how they come against the fruit of the spirit (gal5) and loving ones neighbor as oneself(the summation of all the law)(romans).

what is self evident of the essence of homosexuality that it would come against both of these?

The first command to Christians is to love God. We are also told to love our neighbours, as you say. To put God first means that we are to follow his will out of love to him, even if it is difficult, almost impossible.

If God says a man shall not lie with a man, I take it seriously. If God says I shall not lie, I try to obey.

All sin is opposing God and overlooking our love for him. All sin is to put ourselves and our interests before him. Those fighting for homosexual marriage claim to be doing it for love. But we see that they are actually doing it for themselves, putting themselves before God and thereby loving themselves higher than God himself.

 

[feetxxxl]

And the act, dear feet, is where you go so completely wrong.

If you want the footnote you have to read the WHOLE of Scripture for it. Cherry picking texts proves only personal fallibility.

WHAT SCRIPTURE?

 

[feetxxxl]

The first command to Christians is to love God. We are also told to love our neighbours, as you say. To put God first means that we are to follow his will out of love to him, even if it is difficult, almost impossible.

If God says a man shall not lie with a man, I take it seriously. If God says I shall not lie, I try to obey.

All sin is opposing God and overlooking our love for him. All sin is to put ourselves and our interests before him. Those fighting for homosexual marriage claim to be doing it for love. But we see that they are actually doing it for themselves, putting themselves before God and thereby loving themselves higher than God himself.

you are saying i know god’s will for you. how do you presume to know the mind of god, when scripture says no one knows the mind of god.

 

[Frost]

you are saying i know god’s will for you. how do you presume to know the mind of god, when scripture says no one knows the mind of god.

We do know some of God’s will, which he has revealed to us. It’s called “the Bible”.