Why Did God Create Gays?

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbygrace92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cena said:
Code:
If they are kissing or something that could be scandalous.

If I bake them a cake for their so called wedding, then I am condoning the “wedding” then I am condoning the sexual activity in this union, and condoning it would be wrong

If I baked a cake for the wedding of someone who was married in the Church, got a civil divorce and remarried then that would be condoning it, and condoning that would be wrong. This principle goes with any unlawful wedding (like a Protestant and a Catholic getting married in a Protestant community)
Click to expand...
I’m sorry i don’t see any condoning going on. How about unmarried straight couples kissing in your restaurant, is that condoning kissing (and the possible sex when they get home) before marriage.😃

What if a condom packet accidentally falls out of a guys pocket? Will you ask him to leave?

I don’t imagine that you will be having much business.
 
Thorolfr said:
That’s just because racism is no longer considered acceptable (although it’s still alive and well under the surface). If we went back a century and a half, we could probably find many people in the US who thought that there racist views were all in accord with their Christian religion.
Click to expand...
Today we have self declared Catholics here on the forum who think certain things are in accord with Catholic teachings…and they are 100% wrong. Nothing new.
 
ChainBreaker said:
I’m sorry i don’t see any condoning going on. How about unmarried straight couples kissing in your restaurant, is that condoning kissing before marriage.😃
Click to expand...
I know you are joking but a straight couple kissing without tongue before marriage is not necessarily a sin. Also, you can’t know for sure if they are married

And if they are making out they shouldn’t be, I’ve heard non religious complain about people making out in public
 
cena said:
I know you are joking but a straight couple kissing without tongue before marriage is not necessarily a sin. Also, you can’t know for sure if they are married

And if they are making out they shouldn’t be, I’ve heard non religious complain about people making out in public
Click to expand...
Well most people are having sex before marriage. The point is why deny them a service? I don’t see how one would be condoning sex before marriage.
 
cena said:
Am I one of them?
Click to expand...
I don’t know cena.

I have not been following your posts. Let’s say that if you think God created gays…then you would be one of those who are 100% wrong
 
Thorolfr said:
What I’m saying is that Catholics have their own special definition of the word “conjugal”. The word “conjugal” is an adjective which comes from Latin conjungere “to join, unite in marriage”. So it relates to anything having to do with marriage or married couples. Only a Catholic would understand that sex between a straight married couple but with a condom is no longer “conjugal” even though the couple is still married.
Click to expand...
Funny, I thought I just explained that?
 
Thorolfr said:
… Homosexual sexual behavior can be used to strengthen social bonds and for pleasure and this has been documented in humans and in closely related primates…
Click to expand...
Does the presence of sperm in your body not give you an inkling of the relationship-context in which your reproductive organs are to be used? Does it not give you a moment’s pause?

A separate question. Had you no partner, would you consider it moral to masturbate for pleasure?

And a third question - does the behaviour of animals provide any guide at all as to what is moral? Hint: no.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Today we have self declared Catholics here on the forum who think certain things are in accord with Catholic teachings…and they are 100% wrong. Nothing new.
Click to expand...
What is self declared? If they declare Catholic because they were baptized or confirmed in the Catholic Church, then they are merely declaring what the Catholic Church declares. Don’t you like that teaching?
 
Thorolfr said:
Sex can also be used to create or strengthen an emotional bond, so sex between two men could be “ordered to” strengthening that bond.
Click to expand...
That may have been the idea behind the “free love” movement of many years ago. We all need more strong bonds! But perhaps we should think about the type of bond that’s appropriate, and strengthen it in appropriate ways.
 
ChainBreaker said:
I am not of the opinion that the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage is homophobic… But refusing to serve a homosexual couple, at a restaurant for example, is to me true homophobia and is just as prejudice as refusing to serve a mixed couple. There is no justification.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The Catholic Church also agrees 100%
 
Rau said:
Does the presence of sperm in your body not give you an inkling of the relationship-context in which your reproductive organs are to be used? Does it not give you a moment’s pause?

A separate question. Had you no partner, would you consider it moral to masturbate for pleasure?

And a third question - does the behaviour of animals provide any guide at all as to what is moral? Hint: no.
Click to expand...
Exactly, animals practice things like incest, I don’t know why people are using it as an excuse for this.
 
Rau said:
“Probably fine”??? Do you think there might be doubt?
Click to expand...
If they are kissing or something that might be scandalous(I have no idea what the government laws on this are), but if they aren’t doing anything you can’t necessarily prove they are a couple unless you ask so it wouldn’t be scandalous or necessarily condoning it to serve a homosexual couple who weren’t doing anything
 
cena said:
I think you have to baptized or have baptism of desire(look up more if you don’t know what it ish to be one of God’s children, it’s not just anyone. We are all God’s creation, but only the Christians are God’s children.

There are absolute moral truths, if people disagree with that they are wrong. Two people can’t have two completely views on truth and be right. If someone thought rape was okay would we say “well we can’t force our morals on them they have different views.” No, because rape is always wrong. The individual committing it is wrong

Before you start complaining that I’m calling homosexuals rapists, I have tried using other examples (including lying, polygamy, etc.) and people tried to justify those actions. If I don’t use an extreme examples you are just going to focus on trying to find a loophole instead of focusing on my point.

We aren’t casting stones at particular people we are saying a behavior is wrong.

No they are not saying chocolate or strawberry is better, that metaphor has nothing to do with this, a better metaphor would be they like to eat gasoline even though they were not biologically designed to do so. But they like it so we have no right to oppose it
Click to expand...
I know what you’re saying but for me it’s just too much semantics to bother dealing with. Otherwise if a woman creates a child, and the child departs, it would be like saying the child is not her biological child.

No where did I say there are not moral truths or absolutes. Or that 2 completely different views can be right. I just don’t believe we can know with complete certainty without a large measure of faith and belief. Faith In God, in writings of 2000 or more yrs ago, in a particular interpretation, and so forth. Elzium23 said earlier, “There is no way I can know or see whether a host has been consecrated in the Mass, but I can still believe it is the Eucharist”. Amen to that. (Bolded emphasis mine)

Yes rape is a violent crime under the laws of the land where I live. But no I wasn’t presuming you were calling homosexuals rapists. At least I hope you weren’t comparing the 2.

Yes but it’s a very fine line between just saying behavior is wrong and then picking up a stone. I’m far from perfect so I’m just going to more or less strive to leaving it in the hands God.

Peace
 
shelby_sun said:
Sorry, but IMO that is a stretch at best. With your thinking, isn’t your responsibility for a business person, doctor, policeman to do an extensive background check on who they do business with or who they help so they do not violate their beliefs. When someone thinks as you do they must limit themselves to their “own kind”, which verges on Hitler like.
Click to expand...
Good point because yes limiting ourselves to our “own kind” is something that I find troubling. But then that’s me. OTOH someone else did ask what a scoop of chocolate was doing on a strawberry site.
 
Rau said:
Does the presence of sperm in your body not give you an inkling of the relationship-context in which your reproductive organs are to be used? Does it not give you a moment’s pause?
Click to expand...
Human beings also have a mouth with teeth and a tongue and lips. The teeth are used to chew and the tongue can be used to lick. But the cavity in the mouth with the teeth and the tongue can also be used to speak. The lips and the tongue can also be used to kiss. So all these body parts can be used in more than one way. So who’s to say that a penis, for example, should not be used in more than one way? (or two actually since it’s also used for urination).
 
cena said:
If they are kissing or something that might be scandalous(I have no idea what the government laws on this are), but if they aren’t doing anything you can’t necessarily prove they are a couple unless you ask so it wouldn’t be scandalous or necessarily condoning it to serve a homosexual couple who weren’t doing anything
Click to expand...
  1. As a catholic restaurateur, you would feel obliged to ask a couple of blokes holding hands and giving a peck on the cheek to leave the restaurant?
  2. You believe that to serve them would be to provide sufficiently close material cooperation in a relevant sin as to warrant the above action?
As a commercial venture offering a service to the public, you can understand I think how the law would struggle to accept your decision?
 
Thorolfr said:
Human beings also have a mouth with teeth and a tongue and lips. The teeth are used to chew and the tongue can be used to lick. But the cavity in the mouth with the teeth and the tongue can also be used to speak. The lips and the tongue can also be used to kiss. So all these body parts can be used in more than one way.
Click to expand...
Yes, all these seem to be in accord with right reason.
So who’s to say that a penis, for example, should not be used in more than one way? (or two actually since it’s also used for urination).
Click to expand...
Using the penis for urination and sexual intercourse are also in accord with right reason.

But it is the depositing of sperm I was enquiring about…

In fact my 3 questions to you were:
  1. Does the presence of sperm in your body not give you an inkling of the relationship-context in which your reproductive organs are to be used? Does it not give you a moment’s pause?
  2. Had you no partner, would you consider it moral to masturbate for pleasure?
  3. Does the behaviour of animals provide any guide at all as to what is moral? Hint: no.
 
Rau said:
  1. As a catholic restaurateur, you would feel obliged to ask a couple of blokes holding hands and giving a peck on the cheek to leave the restaurant?
  2. You believe that to serve them would be to provide sufficiently close material cooperation in a relevant sin as to warrant the above action?
As a commercial venture offering a service to the public, you can understand I think how the law would struggle to accept your decision?
Click to expand...
I like the "gays kissing in a restaurant discussion. While I generally support (perhaps 95% support) the decision of the bakers to not bake a cake for a gay wedding, the “gays in a restaurant” scenario is making me question my support.

How about this:
Serving food to a gay couple is not participating in their gay lifestyle. Everyone has to eat, and providing food is simply giving them sustenance. Baking a cake for their wedding is directly participating in the celebration of a gay marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top