Why are there so many homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abrosz said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Anything that any two people do — straight, gay, or whatever — that deliberately brings completed sexual pleasure is mortally sinful outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
Small girls, sometimes just a couple of years old, deliberately masturbate until orgasm. What is “mortally sinful” about such activity? Moreover, you need to define what kind of “marriage” are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Your scenario is really not a subject I am comfortable discussing, but suffice it to say that infants cannot sin.

I refer to the act itself, when accompanied by the two other conditions (sufficient reflection and full consent of the will). All three factors have to be intact for mortal sin to be committed.

Marriage — an indissoluble sacrament, primarily ordained towards the begetting of new life, between one man and one woman for life. If either or both partners are not baptized Christians, it is not a sacrament, but a natural-law union, same principles apply, one man, one woman, primarily for procreation, for life.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
Your scenario is really not a subject I am comfortable discussing, but suffice it to say that infants cannot sin.
Click to expand...
Sure… so your way of putting it " Anything that any two people do — straight, gay, or whatever — that deliberately brings completed sexual pleasure is mortally sinful outside of marriage." was incorrect. That is fine by me.
HomeschoolDad said:
Marriage — an indissoluble sacrament, primarily ordained towards the begetting of new life, between one man and one woman for life.
Click to expand...
What about the stone age? And those times when there was only group marriage (it takes a village)? It that also problematic?
 
Abrosz said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Your scenario is really not a subject I am comfortable discussing, but suffice it to say that infants cannot sin.
Click to expand...
Sure… so your way of putting it " Anything that any two people do — straight, gay, or whatever — that deliberately brings completed sexual pleasure is mortally sinful outside of marriage." was incorrect. That is fine by me.
Click to expand...
Traditional, classical, orthodox Catholicism makes this very simple:

Mortal sin is committed when:
  • The matter itself rises to the level of mortal sin, or to put it in the simplest possible terms, “it’s bad enough to go to hell for” (this is the phrase I used in teaching my school-age son his catechism). Some people prefer to say “gravely” sinful or “seriously” sinful, and this is fine, but I prefer to keep the terminology as simple as possible, and to keep the distinction clear. I’ve noted (and have discussed on CAF before) a disturbing trend among some contemporary Catholics to view broad categories of sin as “grave”, without admitting relatively smallness (parvity) of matter. That is a recipe for scrupulosity and neo-Jansenism. If I grumpily snap at a slow cashier (5th commandment), pilfer an ink pen from my office (7th), tell Aunt Tillie that her ugly hat looks very nice to spare her feelings (8th), or sneak out of Sunday Mass right after communion without good reason (1st and 3rd), none of these things are “good”, but they aren’t “bad enough to go to hell for”. Yet they are all violations of the various commandments, and some modern Catholics make the mistake of calling them “grave”, therefore “mortal”, therefore resulting in the loss of the state of grace.
  • Sufficient reflection, meaning that you are sufficiently aware of the malice of the sin, put another way, you know it is a mortal sin. This is precisely why catechists, teachers, confessors, and preachers need to make it very clear, time and time again, “what is mortal sin and what is not”.
  • Full consent of the will, meaning that you fully want to do it, and aren’t impaired by such things as grave force and fear, being half-asleep, or compelled by some addiction or neurosis.
All of this used to be vest-pocket knowledge for any halfway-catechized Catholic.
Abrosz said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Marriage — an indissoluble sacrament, primarily ordained towards the begetting of new life, between one man and one woman for life.
Click to expand...
What about the stone age? And those times when there was only group marriage (it takes a village)? It that also problematic?
Click to expand...
Almighty God established marriage, in some primeval fashion, between one man and one woman, from the time of Adam and Eve onward. It is part of the natural law. In ancient Hebrew culture, He allowed some men to be married to more than one woman at the same time. We are past that. Christianity never condoned polygamy.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
Almighty God established marriage, in some primeval fashion, between one man and one woman, from the time of Adam and Eve onward.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was under the impression that the topic is about the percentage of homosexuals. Not even the church mandates the literal acceptance of Genesis.
 
Personally, I do’t believe it. There is a lot of seeming homosexual conduct among animals that is either just borne of deprivation or represents signification of sexual readiness. Never, ever have I seen animals that are exclusively homosexual or who will act in that way if there is a receptive and available partner of the opposite sex. I don’t think they exist.
 
Abrosz said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Almighty God established marriage, in some primeval fashion, between one man and one woman, from the time of Adam and Eve onward.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was under the impression that the topic is about the percentage of homosexuals. Not even the church mandates the literal acceptance of Genesis.
Click to expand...
The question of “what is sodomy?” came up. I addressed this. The subject of marriage entered into it — in defining what sexual acts are permitted, and to whom — and you asked a question, which I answered.

We must believe in a literal Adam and Eve, per Pius XII in Humani generis (1950):

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
 
I see certain members are using the ‘some animals engage in gay activities’ argument to justify it with people. Yeah, some animals also eat their own feces or abandon their young if anyone else touches them in the first couple of weeks. I assume you wouldn’t call it natural if people did either of those?
 
Polak said:
some animals also eat their own feces or abandon their young
Click to expand...
Coprophagia is the term for an animal eating excrement—both their own and that of others. … Most of them eat feces because it contains some undigested food—and thus vital nutrients—that would otherwise go to wast.
Humans would do it if that was the only source of nutrients, lucky it’s not.

I guess you never heard of human mothers abandoning their children, worse yet, they also kill them.
 
I have heard of mothers doing that, but it isn’t considered normal in society to do that, with the argument made that some animals do it too. That was my point.
 
You brought up animals abandoning their young and eating feces not me. I showed that homosexuality is normal with humans as well as animals.
 
I was arguing that defining something as normal just because animals do it, is flawed. I then gave examples of things some animals do that would not be considered normal among people. If you still do not understand the point I was making, let’s just move on.
 
I understand but there are also many things that animals as well as people do that ARE normal. Homosexuality is one. I never said that just because animals do it it’s normal.
 
You know that you’re on a Catholic forum right? Being patronising to Catholics about their beliefs amuses you?

I don’t understand why atheists (I assume you are one, but am not certain) visit a Catholic forum and are then shocked/amused to see a Catholic using Catholic Church teaching to explain their viewpoints on a particular issue.
 
I tip my fedora to your superior intellect. Please continue to spread your great insights and wake us morons up to the reality you see so clearly yet is indecipherable to us.
 
Do you really think that God made some men/women homosexual then make it a sin to act on their sexuality? Think about it.
 
Polak said:
Being patronising to Catholics about their beliefs amuses you?
Click to expand...
You are incorrect to believe that you are in the position to speak for all the catholics and especially for God. There are many areas where the catholic teaching is superior, or at least on the same level of respectability as the secular, rational, approach. Nothing wrong with giving the church respect when it is due.

The problem occurs when the church’s teaching is diametrically opposite to the biological reality. And since the church freely acknowledges that it is NOT in the science “business”, it should yield to science when there is a discrepancy.

As I said, not even the church requires you to accept the ultra-literal interpretation of the Genesis. That is what certain protestant “deviations” do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top