Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
Yes but it is only the Church definition that matters even if that is a different definition from dictionaries.
Click to expand...
Engaging meaningfully with others is what matters, thus better to use unambiguous language where possible.
 
Edward_H said:
I never used the word most…you did. I said many.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I get the idea that you think that most Christian guys with SSA pretty quickly start doing things to put them in significant near occasion of sin. That’s a false impression.

Pornography, of course, is a ubiquitous issue for a great majority of men in our culture. That problem needs to be addressed, with urgency.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
I’ve never seen a decent arguement for why acting on SSA is unique in sins

The apparent lack of alternatives - due to a lack of OSA (for other than bisexuals) must be a relevant factor.
Click to expand...
Lack of alternatives? I don’t follow at all sorry…
 
Andy_82 said:
But, to consider it to be the sinful relationship we have in the past, is to be in itself, disordered as it degrades a person for their natural and non-harming self. The Catechism, isn’t set in stone as has changed several times in the past. Most recently in the early 90’s to reflect the age in which the church exists. This may well be the next part to be modified.
Click to expand...
It is wild speculation to think that what has consistently been declared sinful - sexual acts between persons of the same sex - will in time be declared good.

The mere “relationship” between two persons who love each other is not sinful.
 
stupidisasstupiddoes said:
Lack of alternatives? I don’t follow at all sorry…
Click to expand...
The person struggling with SSA faces only same sex options for intimate relations. People long for intimate relations. Must of us can can find them with the opposite sex thus have an avenue to meet a strong desire licitly.

The complete absence of (identifiable) licit alternatives to satisfy the underlying desire is a distinguishing factor.
 
Last edited:
Well, you can “get” any idea you want, but it may or may not correspond to the truth of what I think.

Bathhouses and rest areas along interstates and the bathrooms of airports would seem to argue against your point for “many” such inclined people.
 
That’s just the thing, it hasn’t always been. The Archbishop of Tours in France had his lover Jean installed as the Bishop of Orleans and neither Pope Urban or Paschal II took any steps against either man for it in the eleventh century and both the Bishops of Dol and Dol en Bretagne were very much openly involved in gay relationships around the same time. If for any reason that the term ‘homosexual’ hadn’t entered our vocabulary and such relations weren’t considered sexual by the standards of the day and was merely considered an oddity. Sodomy wasn’t even used to describe the practice until the 1600’s with the printing of the King James Bible and sudden realization of protestant inquisitors that they could use it as an accusation to carry out their atrocities. It hasn’t always been considered sinful. King Richard II’s lover, Robert De Vere was even introduced to him by Archbishop William Courtenay in the 1380’s as he was his cousin and felt their relationship would curry him favor with the king.
 
Andy_82 said:
The church herself has only had access to research on this topic for a few years and needs time to digest it. But, as the Pontiff himself has indicated, it has made a mistake:
Click to expand...
The mistake has been in failing these persons. Nowhere is it suggested the sexual acts have been erroneously called immoral.
 
Edward_H said:
Bathhouses and rest areas along interstates and the bathrooms of airports would seem to argue against your point for “many” such inclined people.
Click to expand...
Nah, I just think that these things support the theory that far more than 3% of the male population are same-sex attracted.
 
Rau, what else would the mistake be? Failing these persons? That failure has been to subjugate them due to a natural condition that isn’t sinful beyond an arcane context.
 
Alcohol.
Neglect/abandonment from one’s spouse.
Bad formation (equivocal knowledge about the act, given today’s lowered culture).

Anything that clouds the intellect (“oh, it’s not a sin anymore…”) or weakens the will.
 
Rau said:
What are the mitigating circumstances for the adulterer?

Falling in love with the other woman? Of course it is pointless to attempt to quantify the degree by which culpability is diminished (if at all) - that is entirely for God to decide.
Click to expand...
It’s impossible to fall in love with someone unless you spend a lot of time with them. There’s no such thing as love at first sight, just lust at first sight. Remove yourself from the situation and it won’t happen.
 
I mean you seem to be implying that gays are somehow more rampant than their straight counterparts when we’ve just gone through a round of serial celebrity rapists. How is that any better?
 
I’ve never seen a man and woman come out of a restroom at Laguardia.
 
Edward_H said:
I don’t agree that people with SS “didn’t choose it”.
Click to expand...
Choosing requires an act of the will. How does One choose what One finds attractive? One may choose to have more chocolate because you like it. But where does the “like” come from? A choice? Hardly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top