S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Nobody’s condemning them personally, it is the homosexual act that is wrong. They may love each other, but engaging in the act of sodomy and calling it an expression of love is simply a falsehood.
- Status
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
The other sins are NOT being ignored (abortion anyone?), but what you are missing is that there is a major movement underway to try to force through intimidation and legislative fiat that homosexual acts are morally acceptable. Rest assured, if there is ever a Thieves’ Pride Week, you will see a lot more posts about the wrongness of stealing.
Scott
P
pittsburghjeff
Guest
Look, we aren’t the ones “dirtying things.”
True love does not express itself by doing what homosexuals do to eachother, that is engaging in unnatural, non-procreative acts for the mere purpose of pleasure.
How do we know homosexual acts are wrong?
Well, if you don’t want to take the Bible at its word, “no sodomite will enter the kingdom of heaven”, then look towards nature and natures’s laws. Only a man and a woman have body parts that complement eachother for sexual expression. Homosexual acts involve putting body parts in places they don’t belong, to be blunt about it.
Yes, we are called to love everyone, including people struggling with their sexual identity. But we don’t love them by accepting their behavior as normal and masking homosexual behavior as Christian love.
J
johntkd
Guest
Ok I am going to post this as I feel its says a lot,
A friend of mine whom was at a Catholic college in Canada, did some experiments with Mice, rats ,hambsters and gerbils.
Basically she took a given test group of these animals and played with the Chromosomes, I dont know the ewxact logistics of what the Chromosomes actually are but basically there are three, x y z
one os for female one for Male and the third turns off the other
basically if something is supposed to be female the turn off chromosome shuts down the male chromosome, and vice verse
anyways by playing with the turn off chromosome she was able to make any test group she wanted Homosexual,she was also able to make “hermaphrodite” groups at will as well. ( which is having both male and female organs)
so I do not agree Behavior modification can work with a “true Homosexual” I believe its more a type of Birth defect, I do not agree its a disease or a sickness.
I should add that her experiments went on for several years at this college and performed without Fail.
I will admit many self proclaimed “Homosexuals” are not “true Homosexuals” they Learned that behavior,or assumed it and could be treated with modifications,
John
I
Irene
Guest
What do *I *think of homosexuality? Why does it matter what I think? The Church teaches that the act is disordered. The end.
S
St.Sharky
Guest
Brenda V.:
Brenda V.:
Please could you explain how the acts of these people affect me in even the slightest?
Brenda V.:
Ah, but being out of turmoil and denial doesnt necessarilly mean in a sexual relarionship. I just meant to say that they are not in conflict about who they are and what type of person they are.
U
Urf
Guest
I’m curious to see why no one ever brings up 2 homosexual males in a relationship that arent having anal sex, because they are out there.
I’m also curious as to how the line “sodomites will not enter the kingdom of heaven” has anything to do with lesbians.
I’m also curious as to how the line “sodomites will not enter the kingdom of heaven” has anything to do with lesbians.
W
Wammy101
Guest
GO SHARKY! WHOOP GO!
N
nkelly
Guest
It sucks!
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Rigorous cheerleading for a bad argument does not strengthen the argument.GO SHARKY! WHOOP GO!
The argument fails on two counts:
A. It’s not about whether one can show a direct influence on others. It’s about truth and right and wrong. The shooting of an innocent clerk in a convenience store 2000 miles away doesn’t affect me in the slightest, but it is still evil and wrong.
B. It’s patently false that it is all a matter of what goes on in the bedroom. If it were, homosexuals could practice there disordered activity and no one would necessarily know they are doing it. The reality is we are witnessing a massive public square effort by homosexuals and their apologists to intimidate everyone into accepting homosexual acts.
R
RyanL
Guest
I think part of the problem here is that we, as a society, receive next to no training in how to properly evaluate moral decisions / acts. That seems to be the case with several posters on this thread. Therefore…GO SHARKY! WHOOP GO!
Quick lesson:
In order for an act to be “morally good”, all three of the following things must be present:
- **The act itself **- this is an **objective **determination based on an “absolute” evaluation of the act as an end unto itself
- The intent - this is a **subjective **determination of the desires of those engaging in the act
- The circumstances - this is a **relative **determination that may vary based on time / location / society
Application #1:
Since we’re talking about sex, let’s use sex as an example. It is a morally good act to have sexual relations with your spouse, objectively speaking. It propogates the species, unites the couple emotionally / spiritually, and serves an objectively good end in and of itself. However, if you have sexual relations with your spouse and your intent is wrong (i.e., spousal rape or imagining you’re having sex with someone else, etc.), the act becomes immoral. Likewise, if you have sexual relations with your wife and your intent is rightly-ordered, but you do so in the wrong circumstance (i.e., in public, when it’s medically dangerous for her, etc.) the act again becomes immoral. The act is objectively good, but can become bad through the subjective or relative elements.
Application #2:
Now, if a person is sufficiently confused, they can be “in love with” their dog. It can (and does) happen (I can find mental health journal citations, if required). Because of this, the intent element is fulfilled - it is subjectively good. This person then wants to have sex with their dog in the privacy of their own home - it is therefore good in a relative way (because of the right relative circumstances). Is this then a morally “good” act? Nope. The act itself, objectively speaking, is immoral. It is not a good in and of itself, and therefore this act can never be considered moral.
Please don’t mistake what I’m saying - I’m not saying that homosexuals have sex with dogs or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that certain acts, no matter how good the intent or how appropriate the circumstances, can never be moral.
Examples of objectively wrong acts:
-Deliberately killing innocent human persons (see: abortion)
-Sloth, Greed, Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath and Lust
-Intentionally inflicting pain on innocent human persons
-Cowardice
These acts can never be considered “morally good” (i.e., a good in and of themselves) - they can only be justified as a “lesser evil”. Don’t believe me? Try and justify it as an end in and of itself.
Would it then be “forcing our religion” on people to tell them that an act is objectively wrong, or for us to prohibit/condemn an objectively wrong act? I don’t believe so, as the right/wrong question in the present discussion isn’t a “religious” question at all - it’s a question about human nature, which is an argument that should appeal to secular humanists. Take the very anti-religious Dr. Sigmund Freud, for example:
Dr. Freud believed this to be the case, despite not being “religious”. Why?
Would we be “forcing our religion” on Dr. Freud if we agreed with him? Of course not.
For those who would hail homosexuality as at worst a morally neutral act, I would ask the following:
- Why would the sex-with-a-dog example above be immoral (or would it be)?
- Why is NAMBLA completely morally out-to-lunch (or are they)? They stress that consent by both members has to be present…why should we shun their organization (or should we)?
RyanL
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Abortion doesn’t directly affect me. Do you think that that is wrong? I would hope so. Since when did something only become immoral when it “affects me”? I’ve never heard of such reasoning, at least not from any Christians. Care to explain?
K
kamz
Guest
The OP asked… what do you think of homosexuality?
I think it is a Sin.
I Hate the sin but I love the sinner’s and I will not stop praying for them or reaching out to them and show them the error in their way but I will Never be o.k. with the sin and will do everything in my life to make sure that homosexuals are not allowed to be recognized in marriage or any other rights a husband and wife have.
Does that mean I hate the homosexual person?? No way but I Hate the sin just as I hate the sin of the persons living together before marriage or having an abortion etc.
It is a Sin and there is no way around it and it most certainly Does affect me if I am to be a Christian and live my life as such I am responsible to go out and preach the word and to let homosexuals live the lie that they are not sinning is doing them a great injustice.
I think it is a Sin.
I Hate the sin but I love the sinner’s and I will not stop praying for them or reaching out to them and show them the error in their way but I will Never be o.k. with the sin and will do everything in my life to make sure that homosexuals are not allowed to be recognized in marriage or any other rights a husband and wife have.
Does that mean I hate the homosexual person?? No way but I Hate the sin just as I hate the sin of the persons living together before marriage or having an abortion etc.
It is a Sin and there is no way around it and it most certainly Does affect me if I am to be a Christian and live my life as such I am responsible to go out and preach the word and to let homosexuals live the lie that they are not sinning is doing them a great injustice.
B
Brenda_V
Guest
Just by saying something is not evil that is objectively evil (see RyanL’s post) means it has affected you.
You and I then are in agreement here. That is what I meant. Now if you are saying that two men or two women who live together with SSA are not acting out sexually then you are fooling yourself!
I want you all to know that I am a woman who is happily married and have had women see if I was interested in them and they had a “partner”! It was by far a very freaky, nasty feeling to say the least. I asked my daughter about this and she told me part of it was because I kept my hair short, part of it was because I accept people where they are - so, what they are doing in their bedroom with their “partner” is not affecting me? I don’t think so.
Brenda V.
S
siamesecat
Guest
- My personal opinion is that sex with a dog is animal abuse because a dog cannot consent to it nor does it benefit at all from it. Morally I don’t think it’s evil just really bizarre and disturbed. Having a sexual relationship with a clueless animal is much different from having a relationship with a consenting adult with whom you can have an emotional connection and possibly love.
- I’m not sure the age group NAMBLA is after. If it’s prepubescent boys that’s completely wrong because they are simply children and their bodies aren’t ready. I suppose teen boys they could have a case for, as not so long ago it was legal for 14 year old girls to marry 40 year old guys and still is in some places. However, I don’t believe anyone legally considered a minor, meaning someone who hasn’t had a chance to finish school and who likely isn’t mature enough to enter a sexual relationship particularly one with someoe older, should be allowed to do what NAMBLA wants. This is different than two consenting adults.
J
JimmyV
Guest
KOOL. I was planning on illegally putting toxic waste from my factory into the local river, but that would get me in big trouble with the environmentalists. I guess it would be better for me to have the toxic waste sent from my factory to my bedroom and than dumped into the river since it is nobody’s business what I do in my bedroom.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Brenda V.:
I must break my lenten fast to respond here. Two men who experience SSA can live in the same home w/o having a relationship. Many exgays do just that because it would be too much of a financial hardship to move out independently. To assume that they are can’t live this way is a ridiculous judgement.
M
movingmom
Guest
I feel pity for gay people, just like I do for the constant sinner.
C
Celtic_FC
Guest
It is despicable. 
B
Brenda_V
Guest
I am sorry if I offend by saying what I did but if they are living together and not having a sexual relationship all the more power to them because they are not living in sin! But to think that this is something that is possible without a lot of prayer and help is naive and perhaps naive on my part to think otherwise (for all things are possible with God).
There are several layers of misconduct in this kind of relationship though, two people with SSA living together that is. One is just like a couple of opposite gender living together and that is one of causing scandal. Sadly, appearances are important, if two people are living together and they are known to be homosexual (or SSA) or a boy and a girl living together it is a safe (if maybe bad in some cases) assumption (not judgment) that there is sexual interaction, if not initially then eventually. Perhaps this is changing in todays society because of the need to have two incomes to have a place to live.
This safe assumption that I allude to brings me to my second point and that is one of avoiding temptation. Here is an anology that doesn’t involve sex - some people who really like sweets must never have them in their house or they will eat them - not having the sweets around is avoiding temptation (or in the words I was taught “to avoid the near occassion of sin”).
Did any of this make sense to any one?
I will re-state what I said in my initial post on this subject, I will love the person with SSA but will not condone any actions they take in regards to sexual interaction with someone of the same gender. I certainly have my own crosses to bear but will not tolerate an “in your face” attitude about your (a general “your”) sexual orientation.
Brenda V.
- Status