What if the Church's teaching on homosexuality is wrong?

[Mumbles140]

You aren’t going to be punished, but homosexuals who choose chastity to adhere to church teachings would be punished.

Not punished by God - rather they will be rewarded for their chastity, as all virgins are. Look at some of the early saints who were virgins, who accepted death rather than give up their bodies for earthly pleasures.

Which means you must assume controlling one’s urges is punishment, but did you ever consider it as a form of self-discipline? By learning to control and restrain one’s temptations is how one masters control over physical objects, whether it is sex, tobacco, alcohol, etc. I know that being in control of my body’s actions has helped me quit cigarettes, which I’ve smoked regularly for the past 8 years (3.5 months since my last smoke).

What about someone who is a kleptomaniac? It isn’t their fault that they have a desire to steal things, but does that mean we should openly allow them to do it? Don’t we ask them to control their actions? Does that mean they are being punished? Of course not.

The only difference I see in these two examples is you associate harm to someone else when a person steals, but not with homosexual sex, even though you have been presented with countless facts concerning the health risks, and that is where the stalemate occurs.

 

[crazzeto]

This is speculation, not fact. Facts are that we don’t know all the factors involved. But as you say below, Bob, the cause of the attraction is irrelevant, it’s the behavior that is the choice.

Maybe that’s what you’re saying i.e. that the **behavior **is not genetic…if so, yes, I agree. The cause…we just don’t know and may never know.

This is what’s important.

Appologies for not replying sooner, I’ve only followed this thread on and off. First of all just in case, I’m not Bob just so we don’t get confused =)

With regard to my point regarding a genetic cause for homosexuality, no what I mean is there is no gene which causes it. There is simply no basis (nor has there ever been actually) for such a belief. If one wishes, then I suppose one could attempt to try and build an argument based upon a lack of information for the existance of this gene in the sense of, well we haven’t found it so it might be there.

I’m not fond of this approch, rather I would suggest this. We can’t find any evidence of a gene (the only claims that such a thing was found has been soundly batted down), more over, again, we can’t find any evidence in nature to supprot such a hypothisis. What one would look for is exactly what the poster I was replying to, that homosexuality would then be a response to over population.

It’s really the only reasnoble case for homosexuality being “natural”.

The next thing to look for would be a defect or natural disposition of some sort, but we haven’t seen evidence of this either. For instance, one would expect greater instances of homosexuality with in family groups then, but again we don’t see this either. One might expect to see twins in particular to all have the same sexual preference, but again we don’t see this either.

There isn’t merely no evidence to support a genetic theory, but rather all the evidence at hand contradicts the genetic theory. As such, I feel quit comfortable with what I previously posted.

 

[Spirithound]

If Jesus endorses people becoming eunuchs, then why must Catholic priests have at least one working testicle?

To be clear for anyone else who had some trouble, I did mention “willfully giv[ing] up those attractions,” not “willfully giving up his testicles”. The end result is the same; the man lives chastely, according to his vocation, that is, single life. His will exalts the spiritual, and so he is a eunuch for the sake of the spiritual, the Kingdom of God.

No, I would not agree. Celibacy is an objectively higher state of life than non-celibacy, as St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8. More to the point, Jesus speaks of men who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (Matthew 19:12). For a man who has same-sex attractions to willfully give up those attractions because he feels God is asking him to, is for that man to make himself a eunuch for the kingdom of God, which Jesus recommends.

 

[bingbang]

Not punished by God - rather they will be rewarded for their chastity, as all virgins are. Look at some of the early saints who were virgins, who accepted death rather than give up their bodies for earthly pleasures.

Which means you must assume controlling one’s urges is punishment, but did you ever consider it as a form of self-discipline? By learning to control and restrain one’s temptations is how one masters control over physical objects, whether it is sex, tobacco, alcohol, etc. I know that being in control of my body’s actions has helped me quit cigarettes, which I’ve smoked regularly for the past 8 years (3.5 months since my last smoke).

What about someone who is a kleptomaniac? It isn’t their fault that they have a desire to steal things, but does that mean we should openly allow them to do it? Don’t we ask them to control their actions? Does that mean they are being punished? Of course not.

The only difference I see in these two examples is you associate harm to someone else when a person steals, but not with homosexual sex, even though you have been presented with countless facts concerning the health risks, and that is where the stalemate occurs.

Homosexual sex can cause health problems…so can mountain biking. I bet a lot more people die from mountain biking, driving, mountain climbing, and all sorts of other things than form homosexual sex…but I doubt you would chastise me for putting on some gear and riding my bike down a mountain.

As for God rewarding those who stay virgins…yes, maybe he does. But maybe he doesn’t. And you can’t really prove it one way or the other. The only thing we are left with is homosexuals who are taught that living a chaste (and likely lonely and miserable) life is the only moral way. The loneliness they feel is the only thing we can be sure of, because God’s punishments and rewards are certainly not accepted by all and don’t have any real proof behind them.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Homosexual sex can cause health problems…so can mountain biking. I bet a lot more people die from mountain biking, driving, mountain climbing, and all sorts of other things than form homosexual sex…but I doubt you would chastise me for putting on some gear and riding my bike down a mountain.

As for God rewarding those who stay virgins…yes, maybe he does. But maybe he doesn’t. And you can’t really prove it one way or the other. The only thing we are left with is homosexuals who are taught that living a chaste (and likely lonely and miserable) life is the only moral way. The loneliness they feel is the only thing we can be sure of, because God’s punishments and rewards are certainly not accepted by all and don’t have any real proof behind them.

I have no intention to argue this one way or the other except to say you commit an error in supposeing that chastity ( for any person ) necessarilly presupposes loneliness. Indeed the obverse is also true…sexual activity does not of necessity prevent loneliness.

In short it is inaccurate to assert as you do that “the loneliness they feel is the only thing we can be sure of”…we cannot be sure of any such thing.

 

[bingbang]

I have no intention to argue this one way or the other except to say you commit an error in supposeing that chastity ( for any person ) necessarilly presupposes loneliness. Indeed the obverse is also true…sexual activity does not of necessity prevent loneliness.

In short it is inaccurate to assert as you do that “the loneliness they feel is the only thing we can be sure of”…we cannot be sure of any such thing.

You should read through this thread…particularly the posts of LCMS and then get back to me.

I agree with you though. Sex doesn’t prevent lonliness and you don’t have to feel lonely without sex, but obviously everyone is different and I believe many in the courage program are lonely…as is evidenced by some people on this board.

 

[neophyte]

…So, what if the church is wrong about its teaching on homosexuality?...

Then Jesus is not God, he is not raised form the dead, and our faith is in vain.

 

[Seeker2010]

And genocide (Armenian) after genocide (Assyrian) after genocide (Tanzanian) also seems to return.

Genocide is an atrocity, to be sure, but it’s one that is typically carried out by a relatively small group of people, who in other circumstances would spend their entire lives rotting in a prison cell somewhere. And it’s got nothing to do with sexual morals in the first place.

What does that mean? Are you saying the rules society finds acceptable tend to stick? If that’s the case then wouldn’t those rules that tend to stick be a bit…immutable?

What I mean is that something once considered ‘immoral’ by society, when that feeling shifts to ‘hey, you know what, it wasn’t really immoral after all’ that it’s unlikely to reverse. Do you really think we’re going back to the day where ankles were scandalous?

The common factor in all of these was human dignity. If you were to ask the men of these cultures they wouldn’t say “because hair is evil” or “breast should just be hidden” or “ankles are scandalous”. They would say “It is undignified for a woman to be showing her [insert body part] to entice other men, she should show some respect for her neighbors and cover up, there are children around”.

OK. But what’s your point? That different societies (or the same society at different times) has different standards of decorum (i.e. moralities)? I think that’s what I’ve been saying all along, no?

That’s the key. When a woman dresses inappropriately she is being oggled at by men, not because they are showing her any actual love or real appreciation, but because they are merely appreciating one or two parts of her, thus, she is being objectified.

If your standard is ‘it doesn’t matter as long as nobody gets objectified’, I suppose you have a point. But what it takes to create mental objectification varies from person to person. The problem with your standard (and indeed, some religious extremists take it to, well, extremes, and we get things like the burka) is that UNLESS people are literally walking around in burkas, somebody, somewhere is going to end up objectifying them anyway, even if it’s just someone they pass in the street and never see again.

You recognize that she is a person, and you do not separate her beauty from her person-hood. A woman who is objectified has their looks and beauty separated from their person-hood.

Perhaps you and I are using the term differently, then, because while of course I see my wife as a person (and a pretty amazing one, at that) I also see her as an amazing seductive sexual creature. And a bit of a mynx.

And have you tried the “Catholic rules”? Go to the family living forums and ask the Catholics who use the “Catholic rules” whether or not they are happy, I’m sure many of them will say yes. Before you make the assumption that the “Catholic rules” will be bad, try them for a month or two.

Um, again no offense intended but I’ll pass. Would put a significant pair of handcuffs on us, not to mention we have no intention of having a child so the whole ‘must be open to life’ standard means we’d end up having no sex at all, with each other or anyone else.

 

[Seeker2010]

I would argue no, you are not a hedonist. Your moral system is based of beneficence, which means any acts that will lead to a person’s or society’s good (what that good is, that is for you to decided and tell me if you wish).

If you’re using the term in a specific way that implies adherence to a specific moral system, perhaps I am not. For myself, I meant a more generic usage of the term, and given how we roll, it applies. We’re freaks, and we act accordingly.

Since your moral code seems to be beneficence, it turns out that you and I in the end, have the same moral code, beneficence. The difference is what we may define as that “good” that our moral codes are supposed to bring lead to. My ultimate good is union with God. Yours, well, you haven’t defined that yet it seems.

I have a very different opinion of God than do you. Ultimately, I believe the union you seek is in everybodies future, but that we all are on different paths to get there. You believe God demands certain behavioral restrictions when it comes to sexuality that I don’t. My moral code is about not causing harm to others, and really could be summed up by the golden rule, and the reverse golden rule. Those two things do not lead one to the conclusion that condoms, the spillage of seed, orgies, homosexual sex, fornication, or just about any other sexual act you could think of are immoral, assuming all parties are consenting adults.

Thus in hedonism, no, you don’t punish that child, because that child is only doing what gives it pleasure. You don’t give the child surgery, because that surgery is painful. And well…you get the rest.

While we pursue pleasure in many forms, it is not to the exclusion of reality. Damn, I guess I’m not really a hedonist after all. But really, casually speaking, I am.

A person who dates a woman who slept with 30 people in the past is affected by the baggage of that person.

Not necessarily, as not everyone views sex through the same glasses that you do. Both my wife and myself have slept with well over 30 people, and that’s since we’ve been married. Some of them we never even knew their names and would not recognize them if we saw them again. Others have gone on to become lifelong friends. It’s a different perspective.

Yet we can see what is horribly wrong with our current acceptance of unrestrained sexual behavior.

Strange, though I suppose not surprising, but you and I look at the same problem and have opposite opinions on how to solve it. You see emotional pain caused by sexual intimacy as an argument to limit sexual intimacy, and I see it as an opportunity to point out, hey, it’s just sex, don’t get all emotional over it. Over the years, many have observed that men can separate sex from love, while women cannot. I can tell you from personal experience, they most certainly can, and have come to believe there is no inherent difference between the genders on that point, but that it is a learned behavior. Girls have been taught from the word ‘Go’ that ‘good girls don’t’, and that it’s strictly for love, whereas ‘boys will be boys’. And it becomes self-fulfilling, so women end-up intertwining emotion and recreation.

If everyone would realize ‘it’s just sex’ many problems would go away.

 

[stevejosemkat]

HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)

The term men who have sex with men (MSM) refers to all men who have sex with other men, regardless of how they identify themselves (gay, bisexual, or heterosexual). In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous impact on MSM. Consider these facts:
• AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM. Over 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died since the beginning of the epidemic.
• MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.
For complex reasons, HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.

Source:
HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

 

[bingbang]

Then Jesus is not God, he is not raised form the dead, and our faith is in vain.

Not necessarily, but likely. Yes, this is sorta what I am getting at.

 

[bingbang]

Source:
HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

What are you trying to prove with this data?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Genocide is an atrocity, to be sure, but it’s one that is typically carried out by a relatively small group of people, who in other circumstances would spend their entire lives rotting in a prison cell somewhere. And it’s got nothing to do with sexual morals in the first place.

We’re talking about moral rules changing overtime right? And you said that genocide is an atrocity, but at the same time said that morals depend on the society. You made it sound like genocide was an exception so I tried to show you that many societies, in fact a good chunk, committed genocide. The American massacres of Native tribes, as well as of those in Australia. The genocides in Egypt, the Japanese genocides of the Chinese, the Rwandan genocide, the Sudanese genocide etc, etc, etc. And I haven’t even gone in to tribes and cultures, just countries. Genocide happens quite often in history, though less so now. So genocide cannot therefore be an exception to the “morals are relative” rule since it is so common.

What I mean is that something once considered ‘immoral’ by society, when that feeling shifts to ‘hey, you know what, it wasn’t really immoral after all’ that it’s unlikely to reverse. Do you really think we’re going back to the day where ankles were scandalous?

Sure, i’ll concede that for now since I don’t have counter examples, though I don’t see how that matters.

OK. But what’s your point? That different societies (or the same society at different times) has different standards of decorum (i.e. moralities)? I think that’s what I’ve been saying all along, no?

No, we are not saying the same thing. The decorum does not equal a moral rule. That is where you are making your mistake here. The law enforces moral rules. The law is not a moral rule. That is what I was saying at the end of my last post, don’t confuse laws with morality. The law was: No ankle showing, or, no breast showing, or, no hair showing. The moral rule is: preserve human dignity and decency. What can be defined as dignified and decent can change over time (the law), but whether or not human dignity and decency should be preserved (the moral rule) rarely ever changes, unless there is a clear lapse in moral teaching in a society or generation, hence, genocides, mass murders, rapes, mass looting, etc we see from time to time.

If your standard is ‘it doesn’t matter as long as nobody gets objectified’, I suppose you have a point. But what it takes to create mental objectification varies from person to person. The problem with your standard (and indeed, some religious extremists take it to, well, extremes, and we get things like the burka) is that UNLESS people are literally walking around in burkas, somebody, somewhere is going to end up objectifying them anyway, even if it’s just someone they pass in the street and never see again.

Fair enough, but I deposit that whether or not a specific person is moved to lust should not be a problem. Everyone is different and needs to work on their issues. However, when the majority of people are moved to lust by the way you dress, then there is a line being crossed. For example:

“Emma wears short shorts and Joe has to go to confession every week because he keeps looking at Emma as an object and masturbating”, then the problem is with Joe.

However if,

“Emma wears short shorts and Joe, Bob, Ted, Mike, Chris, Kyle, Vinny, everybody except the blind dude and the guys who’s wives look better than Emma, etc. continually have to go to confession each week because they all keep looking at Emma as an object and masturbating”, then the problem is probably with Emma.

Perhaps you and I are using the term differently, then, because while of course I see my wife as a person (and a pretty amazing one, at that) I also see her as an amazing seductive sexual creature. And a bit of a mynx.

That’s good. You should see her that way. But as soon as it gets to the point when all she is to you is a seductive sexual creature whom you take out your horniness on, and not a person, then the objectification has happened.

Um, again no offense intended but I’ll pass. Would put a significant pair of handcuffs on us, not to mention we have no intention of having a child so the whole ‘must be open to life’ standard means we’d end up having no sex at all, with each other or anyone else.

Then don’t knock it if you yourself now admit that you cannot and will not try it.

 

[TheQuestioner]

If you’re using the term in a specific way that implies adherence to a specific moral system, perhaps I am not. For myself, I meant a more generic usage of the term, and given how we roll, it applies. We’re freaks, and we act accordingly.

Yeah…no.

I have a very different opinion of God than do you. Ultimately, I believe the union you seek is in everybodies future, but that we all are on different paths to get there. You believe God demands certain behavioral restrictions when it comes to sexuality that I don’t. My moral code is about not causing harm to others, and really could be summed up by the golden rule, and the reverse golden rule. Those two things do not lead one to the conclusion that condoms, the spillage of seed, orgies, homosexual sex, fornication, or just about any other sexual act you could think of are immoral, assuming all parties are consenting adults.

It’s not like my God says “you can’t do this and that and this and that and this and oh yeah…that”. My God says “look, this is the path to heaven. I am one God, one Lord, and I am unchangeable, and therefore there is one path to Me, my Son Jesus, this is how to follow it, these rules aren’t here to frustrate you, but liberate you from sin, follow it if you want to, but if you don’t you’ll get lost, trust me”.

And woooow. I love it when the non-religious use the golden rule, outside the context of religion. It is especially concerning because you are trying to use it against religious morality. When looking at the golden rule within the context the proper meaning therefore becomes illuminating. Do unto others as you would have done to you. I would not like anyone to try to derail me from the path to heaven, so I shall not do it to anyone else. So no, I will not have orgies or fornicate (most of what you mentioned above falls under this category, as well as homosexual sex) because not only do I hurt my own salvation, but I hurt the salvation of the one whom I am fornicating with, even if they are consenting. I will not use a condom and spill my seed because I am perverting the natural goal of sex because my partner will also be implicated in this. You see now, when we look at the golden rule in it’s proper context, we see that all that you mention above is therefore condemned.

And again, just like with Bingbang, the golden rule is a rule or law, but not something that can be said to be a moral code. Beneficence is however, but you have still yet to tell me what you define as “good” and why.

While we pursue pleasure in many forms, it is not to the exclusion of reality. Damn, I guess I’m not really a hedonist after all. But really, casually speaking, I am.

Hey man, that’s ok, I’m not a hedonist either. :aok: We people who take something more than mere pleasure as a moral basis need to stick together.

Not necessarily, as not everyone views sex through the same glasses that you do. Both my wife and myself have slept with well over 30 people, and that’s since we’ve been married. Some of them we never even knew their names and would not recognize them if we saw them again. Others have gone on to become lifelong friends. It’s a different perspective.

Really man? You’ve never stopped to wonder how many of those 30 people who you slept with are doing after their random encounter with a person they thought liked them who suddenly disappeared? You never stopped to think about how many people you’ve hurt?

Strange, though I suppose not surprising, but you and I look at the same problem and have opposite opinions on how to solve it. You see emotional pain caused by sexual intimacy as an argument to limit sexual intimacy, and I see it as an opportunity to point out, hey, it’s just sex, don’t get all emotional over it.

That’s only possible after having so many sexual partners and i’ll tell you why. You’ve probably heard this but when you have sex a chemical is produced in your brain which creates a bond between you two (the same chemical produced when a woman has birth, hence why she should be given the baby right away, or when she breast feeds, and hence becomes closer to her child). Oxytocin, also called the “cuddle hormone”.
Anyway, it must have evolved as a way of keeping mating partners close together and bonding them, so that they would be more faithful, and would stick around to raise kids. Some animals who are unable to produce this hormone show deficient social behaviors.

But, when you have sex with so many people the bond is created with so many others that each subsequent one wears thin (this may have evolved as well so that a mother could give equal attention to her children). So for you, having sex with a woman means nothing Mr. 30 woman stud, but for a woman for whom you are her first or second or even third love, she would be crushed when you leave her.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Over the years, many have observed that men can separate sex from love, while women cannot. I can tell you from personal experience, they most certainly can, and have come to believe there is no inherent difference between the genders on that point, but that it is a learned behavior. Girls have been taught from the word ‘Go’ that ‘good girls don’t’, and that it’s strictly for love, whereas ‘boys will be boys’. And it becomes self-fulfilling, so women end-up intertwining emotion and recreation.

If everyone would realize ‘it’s just sex’ many problems would go away.

Again, you can say that after having 30 lovers. However, Oxytocin is real, and so for those who haven’t had 30 partners, it isn’t “just sex” the first 1-5 times. Not only that, but imagine the baggage someone who has had 30 partners brings to one who hasn’t had any. To that person, it would seem as if you are not bonded to her, like she cares for you while you don’t care for her. You may be trying your best, but after 30 lovers it seems to you that you are actually doing a good job and bonding.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Quote:
What I mean is that something once considered ‘immoral’ by society, when that feeling shifts to ‘hey, you know what, it wasn’t really immoral after all’ that it’s unlikely to reverse. Do you really think we’re going back to the day where ankles were scandalous?
Sure, i’ll concede that for now since I don’t have counter examples, though I don’t see how that matters.

Just remembered an two examples. Gladiators (which was put to a stop eventually when Rome became Christian) and brutal treatment of slaves (which the Church put a stop to again, but which resurfaced during colonization)

 

[Newbie2]

Appologies for not replying sooner, I’ve only followed this thread on and off. First of all just in case, I’m not Bob just so we don’t get confused =)

With regard to my point regarding a genetic cause for homosexuality, no what I mean is there is no gene which causes it. There is simply no basis (nor has there ever been actually) for such a belief. If one wishes, then I suppose one could attempt to try and build an argument based upon a lack of information for the existance of this gene in the sense of, well we haven’t found it so it might be there.
Exactly. My point is that there is a possibility that such a gene might exist. Not that such would be in any way, shape or form an excuse for homosexual behavior, but we should not so quickly out of hand dismiss this remote possibility.

I’m not fond of this approch, rather I would suggest this. We can’t find any evidence of a gene (the only claims that such a thing was found has been soundly batted down), more over, again, we can’t find any evidence in nature to supprot such a hypothisis. What one would look for is exactly what the poster I was replying to, that homosexuality would then be a response to over population.

Well, humans are different than animals, right? I don’t think we can look at nature for arguments either way; that homosexuality is natural and therefor acceptable or not natural and therefor not acceptable. What we’re really looking at here, methinks, is SSA. It is quite possible that SSA is hard-wired, possibly with a genetic component in some individuals.

We know there is a gene predisposing some to alcoholism, at least it is so said. Perhaps there is a gene, maybe the same one, that turns on a complex set of behavioral desires in individuals…a “self destructive” gene? We don’t know.

Just because we cannot find a gene or genes does not rule out the possibility of SSA and the resultant homosexual behavior (in some cases, not all) having a genetic component.

It’s really the only reasnoble case for homosexuality being “natural”.

The next thing to look for would be a defect or natural disposition of some sort, but we haven’t seen evidence of this either. For instance, one would expect greater instances of homosexuality with in family groups then, but again we don’t see this either. One might expect to see twins in particular to all have the same sexual preference, but again we don’t see this either.

I think this is a bit simplistic in veiwing dispositions, tendencies and behavior, especially when discussing the possible tie to genetics.

There isn’t merely no evidence to support a genetic theory, but rather all the evidence at hand contradicts the genetic theory. As such, I feel quit comfortable with what I previously posted.

Again, just because we have not found something yet, does not mean it does not exist. Look, I’m not supportive of the genetic theory either, but I’m open to the possibility, however remote, that there may be a genetic component in some individuals to be attracted to those of the same sex.

That does not excuse the behavior that may result from such an attraction. There are many people with the “alcoholic” gene that are not alcoholics. Genetic predisposition to a behavior does not doom us to that behavior.

 

[estesbob]

It is interesting to see what occurs when one basesmorality on their personal discernment of what is right. One poster sees nothing immoral about a father having sex with his adult son but thinks there’s something disordered about lifetime celibacy while another sees nothing wrong with having sex with 30 different partners since he was married and believes the only problem is that people don’t realize that sex is just sex…

I think I will stick with the Judeo-Christian version of morality.

 

[Mumbles140]

Homosexual sex can cause health problems…so can mountain biking. I bet a lot more people die from mountain biking, driving, mountain climbing, and all sorts of other things than form homosexual sex…but I doubt you would chastise me for putting on some gear and riding my bike down a mountain.

As for God rewarding those who stay virgins…yes, maybe he does. But maybe he doesn’t. And you can’t really prove it one way or the other. The only thing we are left with is homosexuals who are taught that living a chaste (and likely lonely and miserable) life is the only moral way. The loneliness they feel is the only thing we can be sure of, because God’s punishments and rewards are certainly not accepted by all and don’t have any real proof behind them.

First off, I wouldn’t necessarily equate “health problems” with physical injury, as you are implying by mountain biking. But let’s look at some of your examples. Driving a car has the necessity of providing transportation. The same can be said for mountain biking, but that also falls into the exercise/fitness category (preventing health issues), as does mountain climbing (although that obvious had other applications before it became a fitness/adventure craze).

And as for your “maybe He does, maybe He doesn’t” argument, it’s all a load of bunk. Look, you are talking about God being wrong about homosexuality, but you are maintaining the other beliefs would remain in force. Therefore, He would bring joy to those who keep His words about sexual purity (again, not including homosexuality), so don’t try and be vague because you aren’t making an argument, you are being argumentative.

And please don’t act like you understand what Christians with SSA are going through. I have been praying for LCMS that they find the strength to deal with this burden, that through the sufferings of Christ they may be reminded of the prize God holds for those who suffer in His name. You use him as an example with the term ‘we’ but you are taking one person’s story and assigning it to a whole class of people. I’m not trying to say it is easy, but also don’t assume all Christians with SSA live miserable, empty lives because that only insults them.

Think about this - what about the people God doesn’t call to marry. Not someone who is ordained, or a lay brother/sister, but someone who never found their true love. Obviously, they have sexual desires, and they want to marry, but have never found love. Or maybe they did find love, but the person was previously divorced and never had a nullification of the first marriage. Are you saying the Church is wrong about premarital relations because it is unfair for anyone to have to restrain their sexual desires when they want to marry and are unable? If so, then you are opening the door to all unmarried people, including young teenagers, to openly have sex without sin. But hey, why not, it makes them happy and it doesn’t hurt anybody, right?

 

[Seeker2010]

You made it sound like genocide was an exception so I tried to show you that many societies, in fact a good chunk, committed genocide.

As you observed, this is something that happened more in the past than in modern times. And as I previously said, when it does happen, it’s not generally an act of society, but rather that of a sociopathic individual, or small group, that through the application of force and violence has claimed ‘leadership’ of a society.

The decorum does not equal a moral rule. That is where you are making your mistake here. The law enforces moral rules. The law is not a moral rule.

I’m not sure I agree. First, I’d have to ask what law you are referring to. Second, decorum (in this case, standards of dress) is most certainly a moral issue. My mother would certainly label my wife being topless at a beach as immoral, and my grandmother might even consider being clad in a bikini thusly.

What can be defined as dignified and decent can change over time (the law), but whether or not human dignity and decency should be preserved (the moral rule) rarely ever changes, unless there is a clear lapse in moral teaching in a society or generation, hence, genocides, mass murders, rapes, mass looting, etc we see from time to time.

How does the standard of what counts as ‘dignified and decent’ being flexible over time (and clearly, it is) NOT qualify as changing morality. We’ve been talking standards of dress, and admittedly the ankle example is a bit of a stretch, but behavioral standards are in flux, too. Take porn as an example. 50 years ago it was seen as only something that dirty, perverted old men partook in. In many areas it was literally illegal, and Larry Flynt was literally SHOT because he produced it. Today, more and more it’s seen as a normal part of life that most folks partake in from time to time. It’s available, legally, from many different sources and many of those sources don’t even cost money.

Does our society, here in 2010 consider porn immoral? While there are certainly individuals who do (and I’m guessing you’re one of them), I’d argue that society does not.

Then don’t knock it if you yourself now admit that you cannot and will not try it.

I don’t have to experience something to know that I wouldn’t like it, if sufficient knowledge is available about what it entails. I’m not big on rules, and ya’ll have WAY too many of them when it comes to sex. Mostly around things you CAN’T do.

My God says “look, this is the path to heaven. I am one God, one Lord, and I am unchangeable, and therefore there is one path to Me, my Son Jesus, this is how to follow it, these rules aren’t here to frustrate you, but liberate you from sin, follow it if you want to, but if you don’t you’ll get lost, trust me”.

But here’s the thing… your God never said all that. Men (and perhaps women) have said those things, and have given credit to God, but when all is said and done it was men who made those rules. Have you ever stopped to consider why God is supposedly so anti-sex? Do you think it’s possible that back in the day, when modern medicine consisted of little more than attaching leaches to affected individuals, promiscuous sexual behavior could, and frequently DID have really nasty results. Gonorrhea, Syphilis, you name it, there were many nasty ways to die. You think people might have observed that and concluded that those diseases were punishments from God for unapproved behaviors?

I don’t think that’s too much of a stretch.

You’ve never stopped to wonder how many of those 30 people who you slept with are doing after their random encounter with a person they thought liked them who suddenly disappeared?

Well, considering they knew it was nothing more than a casual thing with a virtual stranger before it even happened, no. You think they’ve considered the same thing of me? I rather doubt it.