Speaking the truth in love about homosexuality (Bishop James Conley)

[Quirious]

Verily there are more questions than answers. Also how about that luminiferous aether (hypothesized thing which turned out to be bunk)?

The Church does not waver on nonnegotiable things.

Life is change, whether we like it or not. It can’t be resisted indefinitely.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

There are as more questions than answers about human sexuality. I would not say it the same way as Whitecrayon did, but the essential point is that the Church is diverging from scientific advance at this time. The rift between what is believed by some religions, and what is theorized in the study or human sexuality is growing wider.

It is not clear how this will be reconciled. However, it has been possible to do so on other controversial issues in the past. It will take some time.

The church is not in conflict with true science. There was no science or data when the psychological community changed their position from one saying that homosexual tendencies were disordered, to one that says it they must have been born that way. The change was purely political based on pressures from activists.

In fact, the psychological community refuses to even acknowledge that, like many other disorders, Same Sex Attraction can be “cured” - (reduced or eliminated) in about 30% of cases.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

The reason the Catechism says “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” is because in no situation can it be ordered

I hope you understand, I was ageeing with your position that “sex outside of marriage is wrong and homosexual acts can never be within marriage ergo homosexual acts are always wrong”.

And I was offended by whitecrayon’s remark about education:

it’s just that often the less educated are more likely to adhere to or to fall back on out-dated, conservative viewpoints on topics allegedly dealing with morality than are better educated folks

 

[Quirious]

I hope you understand, I was ageeing with your position that “sex outside of marriage is wrong and homosexual acts can never be within marriage ergo homosexual acts are always wrong”.

And I was offended by whitecrayon’s remark about education:

At least since 1860 in the US, conservatives have been stereotyped as being less intelligent and less educated by liberals. On the other hand, liberals have been characterized by conservatives as being of lesser moral fiber. This game has been going on for a while.

 

[Quirious]

The church is not in conflict with true science. There was no science or data when the psychological community changed their position from one saying that homosexual tendencies were disordered, to one that says it they must have been born that way. The change was purely political based on pressures from activists.

In fact, the psychological community refuses to even acknowledge that, like many other disorders, Same Sex Attraction can be “cured” - (reduced or eliminated) in about 30% of cases.

Actually, you make the point for me, if your thinking is typical. Just read the scientific literature, instead of the religious spin on it.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Life is change, whether we like it or not. It can’t be resisted indefinitely.

And some things do not change, for example murder is heavily frowned on

I hope you understand, I was ageeing with your position that “sex outside of marriage is wrong and homosexual acts can never be within marriage ergo homosexual acts are always wrong”.

And I was offended by whitecrayon’s remark about education:

I fully understood, I was simply elaborating

indubitably

Actually, you make the point for me, if your thinking is typical. Just read the scientific literature, instead of the religious spin on it.

The Catechisms don’t even hint at the possibility of SSA being cured

 

[francisca]

just as religionists, including catholics at all strata, denied the possibility that evolution was factual and true, so today relligionists tend strongly to be frightened by the facts about homosexuality

The church has never denied the possibility that evolution may be factual.

By the way, since you bring up evolution, I’d like to ask you this:

What is the chance of homosexual traits in those animals-- as you claimed have been documented-- to survive in their habitat?

Let me guess: the chance of the homosexual traits (if there is such thing) are zero, because those traits will never produce any offspring. It turns out that all of those animals offsprings were produced through heterosexual behavior!

How’s that for a start,

 

[Debora123]

“Courage is designed to be a source of strength, of guidance, and of solidarity for men and women who struggle with a lonely, and often humiliating, temptation.”

This, I believe, is one of the problems with Courage. This viewpoint literally takes what for many is their very sexuality and reduces it to nothing more than a temptation. (Hence the 12-step approach.)

A person’s sexuality, disordered or not, is far more than a sum of temptations. In fact, the word “temptation” is probably the last on my list of words best used to describe a person’s sexuality.

The issue is so far beyond the scope of temptation. For many with a homosexual orientation, overcoming temptation is the least of their problems. For many, it isn’t about leaving a lifestyle behind or correcting a behavior, it’s about learning to embrace themselves, all of themselves, and to see themselves not as the world does, but as God does.

Every person’s sexuality can be lived in a beautiful way, one pleasing to God. It’s much more than temptation, and for many, courage is only the first step. Personally, I would love to see Courage focus on how SSA person’s can live their sexuality in a beautiful way, rather than focus on denying that “humiliating temptation”.

Well said.

 

[Quirious]

And some things do not change, for example murder is heavily frowned on

I fully understood, I was simply elaborating

indubitably

The Catechisms don’t even hint at the possibility of SSA being cured

This is going to take some time to play out. History will run its course. Those who are able to grow with new knowledge and social progress, will. Others won’t. The fundamental challenge here is that the argument is teleological… what is the nature and purpose of marriage? This sort of thing is rarely settled easily.

 

[francisca]

To believe that something is ‘disordered’; you have to believe that it was, or could be, ‘ordered’. Sexual reproduction is only one of the forms of reproduction that have evolved, and it does not represent any sort of ‘order’.** Rather, it represents a form of reproduction that has proved successful for some species. **

Well except if our reproductive system were different, then we would turn out to be different species atogether.

 

[Hokomai]

The church has never denied the possibility that evolution may be factual.

By the way, since you bring up evolution, I’d like to ask you this:

What is the chance of homosexual traits in those animals-- as you claimed have been documented-- to survive in their habitat?

Let me guess: the chance of the homosexual traits (if there is such thing) are zero, because those traits will never produce any offspring. It turns out that all of those animals offsprings were produced through heterosexual behavior!

How’s that for a start,

Not quite. Evolution is more complex than that. You share half your(variant) genes with your siblings on average. Therefore a behaviour that helps two siblings reproduce is as beneficial as reproducing yourself. This has been used to explain the presence of non-reproducing females in populations. Homosexuality would also contribute to stable, defended pologamy, which leads to strong success for the male with multiple partners. A male with many females, supported by homosexuals with no interest in fighting him has advantage. Therefore the presence of genes favouring homosexuality in the population (as a minority) would be an advantage. This is speculation of course, but there is every reason to think that any behaviour which is widespread in a population has (had) some evolutionary advantage. The key to thinking about this is to realise that the unit of evolution is not the individual but groups.

 

[francisca]

that the Church is diverging from scientific advance at this time. The rift between what is believed by some religions, and what is theorized in the study or human sexuality is growing wider.

Our biological body is designed so meticulously sexual, so as to make it impossible to ignore the fact of our gender and biological sexuality.

Our bible tells us that we are created by God male and female. God himself is a male being, who love the church, who is a female being. God’s love for the church produce His children.

Both science and the bible attest to the same truth, that we are supposedly male and female, and that the purpose of our sexuality is to produce ofsprings.

In order to become a homosexual, a person must deny the truth of his own body. He also has to deny the truth of science and the bible. He will be robbed of his own true-self, his true-sexuality, his ofsprings, and his heavenly inheritance. All that is to be replaced by a false concept of sexuality which basically a lie. I think such is the most sad situation a person can be in.

The bible tells us that sin produce death. But the world say that a homosexual can’t be cure, otherwise they may become so unhappy that they commit suicide.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Our biological body is designed so meticulously sexual, so as to make it impossible to ignore the fact of our gender and biological sexuality.

Our bible tells us that we are created by God male and female. God himself is a male being, who love the church, who is a female being. God’s love for the church produce His children.

Both science and the bible attest to the same truth, that we are supposedly male and female, and that the purpose of our sexuality is to produce ofsprings.

In order to become a homosexual, a person must deny the truth of his own body. He also has to deny the truth of science and the bible. He will be robbed of his own true-self, his true-sexuality, his ofsprings, and his heavenly inheritance. All that is to be replaced by a false concept of sexuality which basically a lie. I think such is the most sad situation a person can be in.

The bible tells us that sin produce death. But the world say that a homosexual can’t be cure, otherwise they may become so unhappy that they commit suicide.

Um, to become a Roman Catholic priest precludes the possibility of having children

 

[francisca]

Um, to become a Roman Catholic priest precludes the possibility of having children

A Roman Catholic priest follow the path of Christ. He serve the church in His love for her. Believers are his children. We call a priest “father”.

 

[francisca]

Not quite. Evolution is more complex than that. You share half your(variant) genes with your siblings on average. Therefore a behaviour that helps two siblings reproduce is as beneficial as reproducing yourself. This has been used to explain the presence of non-reproducing females in populations.

If a certain variant is not very successful in producing offsprings, this varian will get less and less and eventually extict.

In homosexual trait in animals (if there ever be one), the possibility to produce offsprings is zero, thus it would go toward extiction for sure. Such trait will extict surely and quickly in the wild.

Unless there is un-natural causes.

The possibility of pollution and other un-natural causes has nothing to do with evolution. Rather, un-natural causes produce discrepancy in the body and/ or behavior. In other words disordered condition.

Disordered condition is not natural and is a threat to the species survival.

Homosexuality would also contribute to stable, defended pologamy, which leads to strong success for the male with multiple partners. A male with many females, supported by homosexuals with no interest in fighting him has advantage. Therefore the presence of genes favouring homosexuality in the population (as a minority) would be an advantage.

The “supporting males” who doesn’t father offsprings will not pass their traits to the next generation.

This is speculation of course, but there is every reason to think that any behaviour which is widespread in a population has (had) some evolutionary advantage. The key to thinking about this is to realise that the unit of evolution is not the individual but groups.

Even if the group of animals become successful because of the contribution of the “supporting males” who doesn’t father offsprings, they do not contribute genetically the existance of the next generation. Thus their traits are not successful. The successful traits will be of the males who father offsprings. In this way, we can easily conclude that homosexuality traits hardly exist.

By the way, let’s come back to reality: no scientist has found any homosexual genes yet. In my opinion, they never will…

 

[Wardog]

Um, to become a Roman Catholic priest precludes the possibility of having children

This is incorrect. First of all, you are assuming that the priest is going to follow his vows. Nothing in ordination removes the physical capability of having children. Unless there is something in the ceremony that is not told to the rest of us.

Plus, married Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism can stay married; they just can’t remarry if the wife dies. Many of them have children.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

This is incorrect. First of all, you are assuming that the priest is going to follow his vows. Nothing in ordination removes the physical capability of having children. Unless there is something in the ceremony that is not told to the rest of us.

Plus, married Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism can stay married; they just can’t remarry if the wife dies. Many of them have children.

nothing about same sex attraction removes the person’s ability to procreate with someone of the opposite gender

That’s the exception rather than the rule

 

[francisca]

nothing about same sex attraction removes the person’s ability to procreate with someone of the opposite gender

Except that they prefer to engage in sex that is impossible to proceate.

That’s the exception rather than the rule

See that the rule is heterosexuality (with openness to procreation) while homosexuality (without it) is the exception.

Comparison to catholic priesthood:

A catholic priest choose celibacy because they are committed to “a vow” with the church. This vow is equivalent to marriage in non-celibate couples. Thus a priest “marry” to the church.

A man who is married to a woman will give birth to “sons of man” meaning
“the flesh”, the worldly aspect of man. But Children who are born of “faith” are “children of God”. The marriage to God’s church is supposedly give task to a priest to become the “father of faith” so that the church give birth to “children of God”.

On a contrast, a homosexual man who is married to another homosexual man will never give birth to anything. In fact their relationship deny God’s word bluntly. As if they say “Look God, we do not believe that you created us male and female, so we can do whatever we want with our body. We also do not believe that You said “multiply and be fruitful”, neither do we believe that You are God of life whose desire is life and prosperity, who hate death and deseases. so we do not mind to become filthy and barren and sick and dead so long we are entertained for a shortwhile, we willingly sacrifice all eternity”.

Homosexuality is seen as abomination by God. Abomination means there is some aspect of idolatry. Idolatry always consist of some kind of worshipping “other gods”, and these gods are “male” beings, with whom God feel jealous of. Jesus say that the enemy of God of Life is “a murderer of men”. Apostle James in is epistle say that sin when it is fruitful, it will “give birth” to death. Tadaaa… here is the main message: it is possible for sin to give birth! Except that it gives birth to nothing but death!

I hope you can see the contrast between a homosexual relationship and celibacy in catholic priesthood regarding “openess to life (procreation)”

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Except that they prefer to engage in sex that is impossible to proceate.

See that the rule is heterosexuality (with openness to procreation) while homosexuality (without it) is the exception.

Comparison to catholic priesthood:

A catholic priest choose celibacy because they are committed to “a vow” with the church. This vow is equivalent to marriage in non-celibate couples. Thus a priest “marry” to the church.

A man who is married to a woman will give birth to “sons of man” meaning
“the flesh”, the worldly aspect of man. But Children who are born of “faith” are “children of God”. The marriage to God’s church is supposedly give task to a priest to become the “father of faith” so that the church give birth to “children of God”.

On a contrast, a homosexual man who is married to another homosexual man will never give birth to anything. In fact their relationship deny God’s word bluntly. As if they say “Look God, we do not believe that you created us male and female, so we can do whatever we want with our body. We also do not believe that You said “multiply and be fruitful”, neither do we believe that You are God of life whose desire is life and prosperity, who hate death and deseases. so we do not mind to become filthy and barren and sick and dead so long we are entertained for a shortwhile, we willingly sacrifice all eternity”.

Homosexuality is seen as abomination by God. Abomination means there is some aspect of idolatry. Idolatry always consist of some kind of worshipping “other gods”, and these gods are “male” beings, with whom God feel jealous of. Jesus say that the enemy of God of Life is “a murderer of men”. Apostle James in is epistle say that sin when it is fruitful, it will “give birth” to death. Tadaaa… here is the main message: it is possible for sin to give birth! Except that it gives birth to nothing but death!

I hope you can see the contrast between a homosexual relationship and celibacy in catholic priesthood regarding “openess to life (procreation)”

homosexual acts are absolutely unequivocally sinful. My terrible analogy was terrible (gee, what a surprise).