Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cookie-san
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy_82 said:
And the reason for that is,the church’s denial of homosexuality as a natural condition.
Click to expand...
The Church has no position on the cause of same sex attractions and science scarcely understands it either.
 
Well I am not in an argument. So no loss there.

You might be in one, good luck arguing against nature. You have the stiff head winds of reality. Male and females have natural complementarity across their entire being.
 
Andy_82 said:
If you properly read the article you would note that it declared an obvious change in his thinking from when he said that about the catechism in 2013 to when he said gays are owed an apology last year.
Click to expand...
If you can point to any statement in that article or elsewhere by the Pope that suggests the church has been wrong to declare same sex sexual acts sinful, please point it out clearly. Otherwise, you have nothing to contribute on this point.
Andy_82 said:
And it has been amended before and will be again. It’s not set in stone. It’s on paper.
Click to expand...
Big deal. It’s the specifics that are at issue.
 
Considering he said that the church has failed gays and that he supports civil unions between same sex couples I fail to understand your logic there. There is no need to be exacting on the issue as the man himself has effectively declared the church’s stance incorrect.
 
Andy_82 said:
I fail to understand your logic there.
Click to expand...
The logic is plain. Neither the Church nor Pope has made the slightest hint that same sex sexual acts may soon no longer be deemed sinful.

The Pope’s words were “let’s call them civil unions”. They are a fact and should be named appropriately. I think you’ll find the Pope continues to regard mutual madturbation as sinful.
 
Last edited:
He’s endorsing same sax civil unions while apologizing to them for the church’s past conduct. How is that not an endorsement of their being declassified as sinful? That’s like saying you hate dogs while owning one.
 
I’m not sure I am in much of a discussion. Too many (in their mind) clever inserts of small points from the lobbyists, none take hold.

Same sex behavior is a sin.
Same sex attraction can’t be natural. Why would God “naturally” dispose someone to something naturally disordered.

I think more study will benefit both the homos and the heteros and the confused/trans/whatevers…but we need to study all forms of sexual expression as part of a fabric, and not be strong armed by the homosexual lobby to treat homosexuality as one unique thing different from bisexuality, masturbation, and other variations of sexual expression.

It’s the politicization of the matter that has led to the heat.
 
Last edited:
He said he supports them as a matter of law and how do you equate onanism with homosexuality? That again doesn’t make sense.
 
Andy_82 said:
He’s endorsing same sax civil unions
Click to expand...
“Let’s call them civil unions”.

The conduct he is apoligising for is not the declaration of what is sinful. He also called on Christians to apologize to the poor. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
How is it not? That’s what the whole debate around civil unions per the church hinges upon: whether it’s a sinful act or not. By endorsing same sex civil unions he’s, by effect, endorsing homosexuality as not being a sin.
 
Andy_82 said:
How is it not? That’s what the whole debate around civil unions per the church hinges upon: whether it’s a sinful act or not. By endorsing same sex civil unions he’s, by effect, endorsing homosexuality as not being a sin.
Click to expand...
Poppycock. I await his encyclical stating that same sex sexual acts are good. And declaring sex outside marriage is fine. And that sexual acts need not be unitive and procreative…,. It’s an important issue for many people, no? He will act quickly and pen a letter to State it clearly.
 
Last edited:
No, marriage is the contractual relationship between man and woman to cohabitate for the purposes of producing offspring and rearing them and there’s little point to being in a sterile, sex free relationship with another person if you’re supposedly romantically inclined to one another. What you’re suggesting isn’t a relationship that would necessitate a civil union. That’s just being roommates.
 
He doesn’t need to if he’s already talking about it. An encyclical would involve a matter of church activity. Which, doesn’t include civil unions as they are a matter of civil law. That he endorses them as a matter of opinion means it has his approval.
 
Andy_82 said:
What you’re suggesting isn’t a relationship that would necessitate a civil union. That’s just being roommates.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Civil unions are legal machinery. Roommates with a legal tie impacting mutual care, inheritance asset sharing, tax and the like. And if they choose engage sexually, that could have happened (and did) with or without the union.
 
Last edited:
It’s impossible for two of the same sex to be married, to have a conjugal union.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top