Why do many assume that Gays want a cure?

[jrgiancola]

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s ridiculous, and against the will of God, to apply scripture to a situation without honestly accepting whatever reality is present in that situation. Again I go to St. Paul’s exhortation for Christian slaves to obey their masters. Clearly St. Paul accepted the reality that slavery would not be abolished in his lifetime. He did not tell Christian slaves to rebel against their situation. Instead, he advised them to respond to it in a way that glorifies God in accordance with the teachings of Christ. I believe that a homosexual, monogamous couple gives glory to God, and I believe that the RCC will one day realize this. Ours is the only church in history that is willing to change its doctrines when confronted with reality. Take for example the findings of Galileo. Our church first opposed them, but later, accepted the reality of them. Today on Abundant Life, on EWTN, one of the commentators paraphrased a statement by St. John-Paul II in this way: Our task is to reconcile or balance the abundant truths of psychology with the abundant truths and teachings of the church. This is what I am trying to say. Only God can make a true homosexual into a true heterosexual; it requires a miracle from God. There are many aversion-type therapies that claim to work, but they do not. I believe that, at times, God grants such a request from a homosexual; but for the most part, He does not tend to work this miracle, and I believe He has His own good reasons for this. Interesting that Jesus said that Sodom and Gomorrah will fare better on judgment day than many of the cities in existence during His time on earth. Clearly, this indicates that whatever the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were, they were not as heinous as those of the cities of Jesus’ time, which were strict literal adherence to a moral code, which adherence had no provision for love, mercy, assistance to the poor and needy, and general lack of faith in God. Think about this. Sodom and Gomorrah will be judged less severely than Capernaum, Jerusalem, Corozain. I also believe that any interpretation of the epistles or the OT must conform to the teachings of Christ as found in the four Gospels. Any interpretation of the OT or epistles that contradicts Christ’s own actions or teachings, is an incorrect interpretation. The writers did not intend to add to Christ’s message; only to more fully explain it.

 

[fix]

Lauds, I agree with you 100%. I’ve known too many gays to believe they are not created this way. But I have faith in my church, the RCC. One day science will prove this fact, and the church will acknowledge that the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity do not apply to these who were created by God this way. My opinion is that St. Paul, in Romans, is speaking to heterosexuals who engaged in homosexual behavior just for the fun and lust of it all. As for the Old Testament, St. Paul makes it very clear that since Christ fulfilled the OT law, it is no longer binding on Christians; Christ satisfied it once and for all. We are judged by Christ’s New Covenant or New Testament law. Our church has been wrong in the past. If I lived in 1400 AD, I would believe that the sun revolved around the earth. If I lived in 440 AD, I would believe that Jesus was not “made of the same substance” and therefore not co-equal with the Father. Ours is the ONLY church that, once science proves the reality of a situation, accepts that reality. Gay marriage is certainly preferable to cruising bars and casual sex. Joe

Science cannot prove right and wrong. It is not their domain.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

The Church cannot change the Truth that it has always taught. The truth is the truth and it is unchangeable and eternal. The Sacrament of Marriage by its very definition is between one man and one woman. Two men or two women cannot form a Sacramental Marriage, it simply is not possible.

The Church or any leader within Her cannot change this, even if they wanted to or believed differently.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Ah. So consent is the big factor here. Then you have no problem with polygamy and brother/sister, incest marriages provided they are all of age and freely consent?

I would have a problem, because biologically, should the siblings conceive a child, it would mean a whole host of problems for the child medically. Genetically, we are not supposed to reproduce with people who are closely related. It waters down the gene pool, and there are a lot of things that happen because of in-breeding. In the animal kingdom, you rarely if ever see incestuous relationships. This is because the animals can detect different scents from those it is related to, from those who are not. As far as I am aware, incest has not been documented in the animal world. However, homosexuality HAS been documented in over 700 or so species of mammals or birds. Incest and homosexuality are two completely different things.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Polygamy is not monogamy; I believe I’ve already answered that one. As for incestuous relationships, science has proven that this weakens the bloodline, such as it did the ancient Egyptian pharonic bloodline. It actually damages the genetics over time and creates mutant strains. Some products of longterm incestuous relationships even have webbed feet and hands. I’d say that this should prohibit such relationships. I find it quite interesting, and a homophobic grasping of straws to make a point, that strong anti-gay apologists always compare homosexuality to the very extreme, and totally unrelated, sexual proclivities: child molestation, polygamy, incest. The only real comparison is between heterosexuality and homosexuality. After all, more of the above crimes are committed by heterosexuals than homosexuals. If you say homosexuality justifies the above crimes, then you are also saying that heterosexuality justifies the above crimes. The only thing that I advocate is the recognition that homosexuality is created by God in some people and that these people should have the same rights as those created heterosexual by God. They should not have any more or less rights. I’m not saying “If it feels good, do it.” I’m saying just the opposite. True homosexuals are not capable of functioning on a mental, physical, spiritual or emotional level with the opposite sex. That’s the plain fact of it. Many heterosexuals engage in homosexual behavior for a variety of reasons: addicts to obtain drugs, men and women in prison are just a few that come to mind. These behaviors clearly are wrong. Women who are strongly against homosexuality tend to be so because they resent not being able to use and control gay men with their sexual powers. They tend to be over-controlling women who are used to dominating men. Men who are against lesbians tend to come from the same perspective. Men who strongly oppose homosexuality tend to be those who suffer from homosexual urges and hate themselves so much that they project their hatred onto other homosexuals who have come to terms with their sexual identity. Let’s stop using God and the Bible to justify hatred of homosexuality and instead examine ourselves before we do this kind of thing. Men have committed too many crimes against humanity through out the past 2000 years, justifying these in the name of God and Christianity; the Inquisitions, the Salem witchcraft burnings, are a few that come to mind. The history of the fourth century church is replete with murders, lies, and other atrocities done in the name of Jesus.

Wow, that is pretty much everything I was going to say. Jeese, you are one step ahead of me…

 

[choy]

Do homosexuals perceive their homosexuality as a problem that needs a cure? Or not? Have they ever voted as a group on whether they want a cure? Have we ever considered that maybe they’re happy with their lifestyle and they don’t desire a cure? If they are happy and fine with their lifestyle, why do so many heterosexuals feel sorry for them if they don’t feel sorry for themselves? An aquaintance from the bay area said they’re actually promoting it as the preferred lifestyle there. Does that sound like they want a cure or pity?

Creation of a new life is the deepest union of the true love between 2 people. Are we incorrectly assuming that all homosexuals actually want and seek this deepest union of true love? How do we know? If they do desire it, then why aren’t they attempting to go straight and find a cure for their homosexuality? If they feel they are missing out on the deepest union of true love, we’ll be glad to help them. Changing the legal definiton of marriage is not going to miraculously cause 2 women or 2 men to defy nature and be able to have a baby without artificial means. If the definition of marriage exists to claim that 2 people love each other, yet, they’ll never be capable of reaching the deepest union of true love by creating new life, then how can this marriage claim to be of the same level when it is incapable of the greatest depth of love due to biology? If you wanted to experience the deepest union of true love, wouldn’t you want to go straight? Why would anyone be satisfied with partial love when they can seek FULL love? If one wanted to be a “little” in love, then one does not need to get married. If one wants the deepest love union, then this can only be achieved by going straight. At what point are the voluntary homosexuals blaming half the world’s population? At what point are people voluntarily choosing to be intolerant of the entire opposite gender? Do we know for sure? Promiscous heterosexuals don’t want to get marrried either. Then why vote to change the marriage definition until we know?

Either it’s a problem where they want us to help them find a cure, or it’s not. Which is it?

its not a matter of want but a matter of need

many alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, sex addicts, gamblers, etc, they’re just happy the way they are and don’t think they need to be cured. doesn’t mean they’re in the right

think of Tiger Woods, do you think he would have been sorry if the proverbial beans weren’t spilled?

a lot of people are enslaved to sin that they don’t see a better life outside of that sin. they have this perception of happiness which they think is true happiness but its not.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

The Church cannot change the Truth that it has always taught. The truth is the truth and it is unchangeable and eternal. The Sacrament of Marriage by its very definition is between one man and one woman. Two men or two women cannot form a Sacramental Marriage, it simply is not possible.

The Church or any leader within Her cannot change this, even if they wanted to or believed differently.

Marriage has changed definition numerous times throughout history. If you actually look at the bible, there are instances where marriage is not just between one man and one woman. For example, Sarah and Abraham were married, yet he had a concubine. Also, I forget who, but someone also had more than one wife. He worked seven years to marry her, ended up sleeping with her sister by accident, then had to work another seven years, and was married to both of them. Also, in Leviticus, it says a woman must marry her rapist. Obviously these are looked down upon in the church, and no one would force their daughter to marry her rapist. The definition of marriage has changed quite considerably.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Marriage has changed definition numerous times throughout history. If you actually look at the bible, there are instances where marriage is not just between one man and one woman. For example, Sarah and Abraham were married, yet he had a concubine. Also, I forget who, but someone also had more than one wife. He worked seven years to marry her, ended up sleeping with her sister by accident, then had to work another seven years, and was married to both of them. Also, in Leviticus, it says a woman must marry her rapist. Obviously these are looked down upon in the church, and no one would force their daughter to marry her rapist. The definition of marriage has changed quite considerably.

I am referring to the Sacrament of Marriage as ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ and that has been practiced in the Church from its beginning. Before Christ and the New Covenant we did not have the Sacraments. The Sacraments have their power and Grace attached to them because Jesus ordained them. There is a difference between a Sacramental Marriage and a natural marriage. Both however require a man and a woman.

Some good reading on the Sacrament of Marriage and the Catholic teaching about it:
catholic.com/library/Permanence_of_Matrimony.asp

 

[Eris_Discordia]

I am referring to the Sacrament of Marriage as ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ and that has been practiced in the Church from its beginning. Before Christ and the New Covenant we did not have the Sacraments. The Sacraments have their power and Grace attached to them because Jesus ordained them. There is a difference between a Sacramental Marriage and a natural marriage. Both however require a man and a woman.

Thank you for clearing up the meaning. However, if you are going to refer to natural marriage, then you need to take into consideration secular marriage. People of other faiths can get married, as well as no faith.There are plenty of people who see nothing wrong witho homosexuality, and to refuse them the right to be together based on matters of faith is going against the first amendment. Just because they cannot reproduce, does not make their love any less valid. It’s the same with infertile couples, or even impotent couples. Love, sex, and reproduction are all completely separate things.

Also, again, in the animal kingdom, there are instances of homosexual “mates”. It is naturally occurring in the world. So it can be a naturally occurring phenomenon. So it is “Natural” in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I was addressing the idea from earlier posts that The Church would in the future somehow recognize homosexual unions as some form of “marriage” or allow two men or two women to “marry” each other in The Church and call it Sacramental.

All orthodox forms of Christianity will never recognize homosexual unions as “marriage”. It simply is contrary to everything that Christians believe about marriage and about how God created us to function.

The idea of secular government recognizing or condoning homosexual unions as “marriage” and the morality or immorality of that occuring is somewhat of a different conversation.

I personally believe that the government simply does not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to legally force a new definition of marriage upon an entire society. If a country chooses to try to redefine marriage based on the will of the people I think that is a different story. I still believe it would be wrong and immoral, but at least it would be done with the people’s consent and the people would be responsible.

If it occurs in the USA however it will be forced upon us without our consent or support. The majority of Americans do not support redefining marriage, California is a perfect example of this.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

I was addressing the idea from earlier posts that The Church would in the future somehow recognize homosexual unions as some form of “marriage” or allow two men or two women to “marry” each other in The Church and call it Sacramental.

All orthodox forms of Christianity will never recognize homosexual unions as “marriage”. It simply is contrary to everything that Christians believe about marriage and about how God created us to function.

The idea of secular government recognizing or condoning homosexual unions as “marriage” and the morality or immorality of that occuring is somewhat of a different conversation.

I personally believe that the government simply does not have the authority to redefine marriage, or to legally force a new definition of marriage upon an entire society. If a country chooses to try to redefine marriage based on the will of the people I think that is a different story. I still believe it would be wrong and immoral, but at least it would be done with the people’s consent and the people would be responsible.

If it occurs in the USA however it will be forced upon us without our consent or support. The majority of Americans do not support redefining marriage, California is a perfect example of this.

I think it is far more immoral to bring concerns with human rights up to a vote. Homosexual rights are a human rights issue. They lack many of the rights granted to those who are married, like the right to visit their partner in the ICU, which is undeniably cruel. It’s the same with couples who have been together and choose not to get married. Civil unions are lacking, and therein lies the problem for straight and gay couples. Also, as I have stated, all of the church documents on homosexuality do not take into account any of the things I have mentioned in my previous post. There were people who used the bible to justify all sorts of cruelties, such as the subjugation of women and slavery. These things are obviously looked down upon in the church, but they weren’t always. So the church does change on matters of morality.

Also, with California, the vote was 49-51%. That is not a strong majority. Also, a lot of those who support gay marriage are in the younger generation, therefore many of them cannot vote under the law. You underestimate the power of advertising, and the fact that Christians outside the state of California ran misleading adds about homosexual marriage, as well as put a lot of money into those campaigns, feeding fear and prejudice. Looking at it from a psychological standpoint, those adds were blatantly misleading, using thinks like storm clouds and lightning, using buzz words, and a host of other scare tactics. Psychologically, this causes a fear response, and people panicked. The California vote is in no way a good litmus test for judging who in our country wants gay marriage.

 

[jrgiancola]

What is this preoccupation with procreation? God told Adam and Eve to populate the world. They did it. It’s done. If procreation were God’s ultimate and most primary goal, then why is it that thousands, hundreds of thousands of married couples who desperately want children cannot have them? Also, why is our church against taking the husband’s sperm and the wife’s egg, fertilizing them in a test tube, and then implanting their embryo into the mother’s womb? The child is still that of the mother and father. Obviously, God does NOT want everyone to be able to procreate; and neither does our church at this time. I do believe that, in the future, our church will permit test tube fertilization. It’s not cloning; just conception outside of the Fallopian tube.