Why doesn't God heal homosexuals?

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, you certainly aren’t. So, what does it matter? You need to posit a reasoned argument. Not just merely a fervent one and you haven’t done that here. You’re just saying that gay sex is bad because God says it is. Never mind it’s never actually addressed in the bible beyond a very limited understanding of the text.

You know very well that you are repeating arguments you heard elsewhere, and that you have not carefully considered the arguments of scholars who disagree with you. I am no longer interested in rebutting your claims. I pray that you live a long and rewarding life rich in the virtue of humility.

 

[Andy_82]

I’m talking about why the church is in a process of examining its position on gays in general and it is doing so given that we now have a greatly different concept of love and sexuality today than we did in the time of Christ and before. Marriages are no longer arranged for business and gays no longer have sex to worship at a pagan altar.

 

[Andy_82]

Isn’t that we are all doing here? Also, many scholars today agree that the text isn’t directly applicable to this issue today. To suggest otherwise is to believe we should also stop eating shell fish.

 

[Andy_82]

You haven’t really rebutted. Just protested.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I’m talking about why the church is in a process of examining its position on gays in general and it is doing so given that we now have a greatly different concept of love and sexuality today than we did in the time of Christ and before. Marriages are no longer arranged for business and gays no longer have sex to worship at a pagan altar.

Marriage has always been and always will be, only, between a man and a woman. Christ only spoke of one marriage. I must go. It’s midnight, goodbye Andy, I pray you see the light

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Isn’t that we are all doing here?

Not those of us who read ancient Greek, no. 1 Cor 6:9. And no, it does not in any way seem to be a reference to Leviticus.

 

[Andy_82]

Because in his time that’s all it was as it wasn’t a matter of love. But, business and procreation for the purposes of maintaining the family legacy and wealth. Today we do it for a very different purpose.

 

[Andy_82]

The purpose of his coining of the word arsenokotai indicates that as you should know, that word did not exist in Greek until he made it up by joining two others together and it does tie into Leviticus as he is speaking of the same purpose it implies: temple sex.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The purpose of his coining of the word arsenokotai indicates that as you should know, that word did not exist in Greek until he made it up by joining two others together and it does tie into Leviticus as he is speaking of the same purpose it implies: temple sex.

Did he lack a word for “temple sex”? Could he not have joined THOSE words together? Instead he joined “man” and “lie down” together. That seems like a rather circuitous way to talk about temple sex, to me, but what do I know?

Night, Andy! All the best.

 

[Andy_82]

Arseno means of men. Kotai means mat or bedding. Tie the two together and you get men of a bed or mat. The implication, if not the exact meaning is men who share a bed. You don’t actually read Greek, do you?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“keitai” means to lie. It is a verb, not a noun. Arsenokoitai is a participle, a combination of a noun with a verb. It means the “liers down with men”. (The word that means “mat or bedding” is derived from the verb).

But no, I have no facility whatsoever with Greek. I just go on forums and pretend I know things I don’t. You should try it sometime.



I really need to sleep.

 

[Andy_82]

He spoke of women who lay together for a similar reason: there was no word for lesbian sex either.

 

[Rau]

Joe, you’re not the church. The church teaches that it’s for procreation and bonding.

It teaches that the unitive and procreative meanings may not be separated. It does not teach you can pick one. They are always torn assunder in same sex activities.

 

[Andy_82]

Per the USCCB’s site letter on the Unitive and Procreative Nature of Intercourse:

"The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses
themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage
cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the
goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman
thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. (CCC, #2363) "

“Never is it permitted to separate these different aspects {unitive and procreative} to the point of excluding positively either the intention of procreation or the conjugal relation.”

So, am I to believe that the church’s own teachings on enjoying sex by way of a “conjugal union” doesn’t apply to a barren couple? That makes no sense in the same way it makes no sense to bar a homosexual couple from it for that reason alone. When the catechism speaks of never separating the two aspects of married life it means that if one cannot satisfy one or the other that the marriage is still valid. This is why the pope speaks in favor of Civil Unions: he recognizes the issue as being that part of being married is enjoying a healthy sex life. However, if such cannot be so due to there simply being no ability to conjugate due to one being gay there is no purpose for the other. His stance on Civil Unions finds that middle ground given our modern understanding of sex.

 

[Rau]

So, am I to believe that the church’s own teachings on enjoying sex by way of a “conjugal union” doesn’t apply to a barren couple?

No, not at all. Ferility does not determine whether the act is procreative as the church uses that term. What is required is that the sexual act be “ordered” to procreation.

When the catechism speaks of never separating the two aspects of married life it means that if one cannot satisfy one or the other that the marriage is still valid.

What is to be satisfied is a union of particular characteristics. Two men cannot achieve that. Man and woman, including a sterile man and a menopausal woman can.

You are pretending to understand what you do not understand.

This is why the pope speaks in favor of Civil Unions: he recognizes the issue as being that part of being married is enjoying a healthy sex life. However, if such cannot be so due to there simply being no ability to conjugate due to one being gay there is no purpose for the other. His stance on Civil Unions finds that middle ground given our modern understanding of sex.

That is unintelligible.

 

[Andy_82]

If infertility is known how is it ordered to procreation? It can’t be. We need to remember that while the church herself is perfect in her divinity, the men that run it often aren’t and make mistakes. As they have here.

 

[Rau]

If infertility is known how is it ordered to procreation? It can’t be. We need to remember that while the church herself is perfect in her divinity, the men that run it often aren’t and make mistakes. As they have here.

If a sterile man has natural sexual relations with his post-menopausal wife, without a condom or contraceptive, then that is a procreative act. Their natural capacities have no bearing on that. Their act is “ordered” toward procreation (regardless of natural fertility). Sorry, if this is new to you. But that is the meaning.

 

[Maximilian75]

Considering that sex is integral to the makeup of the human family (for the most part) and the family is the building block of society as we know it today… if we begin to mess up sex, so goes the family, society, and the world.

 

[Andy_82]

But, that’s the thing, don’t you see how silly a logic that is? It makes no sense. If the wife is barren and the husband’s just going away at it the very definition of a procreative act ceases to exist. The clergy that cobbled that notion together missed the mark.

 

[Rau]

But, that’s the thing, don’t you see how silly a logic that is? It makes no sense. If the wife is barren and the husband’s just going away at it the very definition of a procreative act ceases to exist. The clergy that cobbled that notion together missed the mark.

Sorry, you don’t get to define the meaning of the Church’s statement. Language is endlessly ambiguous. The act is required to be ordered in a particular way; that’s all.