Why Gay?

[Durendin]

Before I ask this question, please understand I’m sincerely interested in this and not just looking to start a fight!

First up, my position. I’m a single, heterosexual male with no position at all on gay people. Frankly, I consider what someone does in their bedroom to be up to them and who they’re with. If that offends God, then to Him they answer, so I’m not carrying any baggage here for either side. (Although some would consider that to be a pro-gay position!)

Right, on with the question. Leviticus being a good starting place for a list of what is considered sinful, why is it that some hell-worthy trespasses are now acceptable every day occurances (I was going to do a list, but I’d be surprised if it was really required) and yet homosexuality is still held in the contempt it receives?

Is this not simple picking and choosing?

 

[mercygate]

Before I ask this question, please understand I’m sincerely interested in this and not just looking to start a fight!

First up, my position. I’m a single, heterosexual male with no position at all on gay people. Frankly, I consider what someone does in their bedroom to be up to them and who they’re with. If that offends God, then to Him they answer, so I’m not carrying any baggage here for either side. (Although some would consider that to be a pro-gay position!)

Right, on with the question. Leviticus being a good starting place for a list of what is considered sinful, why is it that some hell-worthy trespasses are now acceptable every day occurances (I was going to do a list, but I’d be surprised if it was really required) and yet homosexuality is still held in the contempt it receives?

Is this not simple picking and choosing?

I’m not going to subscribe to this thread, so don’t look for further direct answers from me, but you will find that the prohibitions in Leviticus are not the only source of the Christian/Jewish position on this.

It begins in the natural moral law. Are you at all familiar with that? It is the reason that Christians may appear to “pick and choose” about the observance of certain commandmants. Those commandments that (in Paul’s words) “are written on the face of creation” – are immutable. Contraception comes under that as does abortion, masturbation, pornography, divorce, adultery, murder, theft, . . . . Hebrew ceremonial laws are not morally binding.

 

[Durendin]

I suggested that Leviticus was a good starting place, not the be all and end all of it and I’m not asking about the finer points of Hebrew cerimonial law or “Natural Moral Law” which I feel is highly relative at best due to the very term used. What’s moral might not be natural, what’s natural may not be lawful,and what’s lawful may not be moral.

Suggesting that I go study up on Natural Moral Law is ducking a fairly straight question and “what’s written on the face of creation” is certainly different for each who beholds.

Forgetting the shirts of mixed fibre, anyone else got two cents?

 

[Karin]

Can I say that I have no issues with homosexuals…it is the homosexual acts that i have issues with and what the Church has issues with…
**CCC#2396 **Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices

***CCC#*2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[ricko]

To begin with God considered the sin of homosexuality to be great enough to destroy two cities.

One big problem with the sin of homosexuality is they won’t leave it in the bedroom but flaunt it in the face of everyone including God.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Before I ask this question, please understand I’m sincerely interested in this and not just looking to start a fight!

First up, my position. I’m a single, heterosexual male with no position at all on gay people. Frankly, I consider what someone does in their bedroom to be up to them and who they’re with. If that offends God, then to Him they answer, so I’m not carrying any baggage here for either side. (Although some would consider that to be a pro-gay position!)

Right, on with the question. Leviticus being a good starting place for a list of what is considered sinful, why is it that some hell-worthy trespasses are now acceptable every day occurances (I was going to do a list, but I’d be surprised if it was really required) and yet homosexuality is still held in the contempt it receives?

Is this not simple picking and choosing?

Basically the book of liviticus is a rulebook for the levite priests on how to stay holy, perform sacrifices, atone for sins, perform rituals. So you’ll have to provide a list. I believe the dietary restrictions were necessary to maintain the priestly holiness. Most of this stuff is no longer necessary because of Jesus’ sacrifice. His sacrifice however did not remove the sinfullness of any sins i.e. homosexual acts. It looks like you have a nasty case of moral relativism, you should get that looked at.

 

[Durendin]

It looks like you have a nasty case of moral relativism, you should get that looked at.

Moral relativism? You might call it that, but until you let me into your bedroom to ensure that you and your wife are copulating according to Gods law, what right have I or you to interfere in what goes on in someone elses bedroom?

But that’s beside the point. I get more of what Ricko is saying rather than your attempt to paint me one way for asking a question you don’t like. We don’t stone people for blasphemy or working a Sunday or condone slavery, but homosexuality? Frankly, I’ve got some rocks handy and a free weekend not to mention some jobs needing done.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Moral relativism? You might call it that, but until you let me into your bedroom to ensure that you and your wife are copulating according to Gods law, what right have I or you to interfere in what goes on in someone elses bedroom?

Well, I have a vested interest in what society does or does not condemn. What one generation tolerates the next will embrace. I have kids, homosexuality and it’s agenda has pervaded all levels of society. It has become normalized and the normalization of a spiritual cancer ain’t cool bub. I’m not saying that there should be camera’s in everyone’s bedroom nor did I imply that, but homosexuality is objectively evil whether you see it or not.

But that’s beside the point. I get more of what Ricko is saying rather than your attempt to paint me one way for asking a question you don’t like. We don’t stone people for blasphemy or working a Sunday or condone slavery, but homosexuality? Frankly, I’ve got some rocks handy and a free weekend not to mention some jobs needing done.

You have become somewhat incoherent here, I havn’t painted you any particular way. I have never stoned anyone and your question didn’t phase me in the least. I answered it; Jesus eliminated most of the things required in leviticus with his sacrifice, he did not render any sinful acts unsinful so homosexual acts being sinful in the first place remain sinful. You stated:

Suggesting that I go study up on Natural Moral Law is ducking a fairly straight question and “what’s written on the face of creation” is certainly different for each who beholds.

This reasoning = moral relativism. If you don’t see that then Go study up on natural law and moral relativism. I also asked for that list you don’t think we need.

 

[Durendin]

You have become somewhat incoherent here, I havn’t painted you any particular way. I have never stoned anyone and your question didn’t phase me in the least.

I was asking from a neutral point of view based on what the Bible has by way of laws and what is obeyed today and what is not.

As for the “stoning” part, that brings us along to this:

This reasoning = moral relativism. If you don’t see that then Go study up on natural law and moral relativism. I also asked for that list you don’t think we need.

When I mentioned the stoning of Adulterers, Blasphemers, workers on the Sabbath and owning slaves, that was but four things permissable but now currently rejected by modern thinking, (which is why I mentioned them).

These were lawful acts at one point and people rejected them being made unlawful to begin with, (the abolition of the slave trade wasn’t universally popular?) Is that not comparable to now in regards to the acceptability of homosexuals?

 

[rpp]

I was asking from a **neutral **point of view based on what the Bible has by way of laws and what is obeyed today and what is not.

I am sorry, but neutrality is an evil myth. Johnny Catholic was right, your posts seem to come from a basis in relativistic morality. Your response to him that you would reject relativism if you became a voyuer in his bedroom, is without merit.

Here is why.

(17)4 Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me.

(18) If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. (19) If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life.

(20) If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him. (21) When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life. (Ezekiel 3:17-21)

In addition to the Old Testasment references regarding sodomy and homosexuality, take a look at the New Testament?

(9) Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. I Cor 6:9-10)

 

[Durendin]

I am sorry, but neutrality is an evil myth. Johnny Catholic was right, your posts seem to come from a basis in relativistic morality.

Without deviating from the point, if there’s no such thing as neutrality, then how is a fair trial ever possible? How can a discussion ever happen over such things if you’re always defacto wrong by a “neutral” position?

Where does condemnation of homosexuality lead to? What penalties would you impose to stop it? Can it be stopped?

 

[Durendin]

Also, what exactly does “condemnation” of homosexuality mean? I’m not comfortable with the idea of going up to people and telling them what they do in private is wrong.

How do I know what they’re doing in bed for a start? Unless I witness it first hand am I not pre-judging? Without firm evidence, am I not bearing false witness?

Anyway, these questions were never the purpose of this thread.

 

[rpp]

Also, what exactly does “condemnation” of homosexuality mean? I’m not comfortable with the idea of going up to people and telling them what they do in private is wrong.

How do I know what they’re doing in bed for a start? Unless I witness it first hand am I not pre-judging? Without firm evidence, am I not bearing false witness?

Anyway, these questions were never the purpose of this thread.

More relativistic hand-wringing.

Someone says they are a practicing homosexual, what more do you want? Pornoigraphic pictures? A public performance? Don’t be be so anti-God.

Most sin is committed in private. That does not mean that it should not be condemned.

All of us have sinned. All of us derserve condemnation. Only those who reject their sin, amend their life and try to live according to God’s Law, as revealed by the Church and with His grace and the Sacraments, can receive God’s mercy.

Those who equivocate, not only put their own soul in peril, but those to whom they convince.

 

[I_A]

Before I ask this question, please understand I’m sincerely interested in this and not just looking to start a fight!

First up, my position. I’m a single, heterosexual male with no position at all on gay people. Frankly, I consider what someone does in their bedroom to be up to them and who they’re with. If that offends God, then to Him they answer, so I’m not carrying any baggage here for either side. (Although some would consider that to be a pro-gay position!)

What goes on in the bedroom brings new life into society. Every bundle of joy in the delivery room, every teenager flipping burgers, every old man on the street corner started out that way. The expression of love is so important precisely because it is the channel God gave us to participate with him to bring forth new life. Homosexual acts say what we do in the bedroom is just for pleasure we want no little child, we want no teenager, we want no old man. God will judge them, for you to judge them harshly would be hypocritical, but there is a big difference from judging somebody and embrasing a deviant lifestyle as a model for soceity.

Right, on with the question. Leviticus being a good starting place for a list of what is considered sinful, why is it that some hell-worthy trespasses are now acceptable every day occurances (I was going to do a list, but I’d be surprised if it was really required) and yet homosexuality is still held in the contempt it receives?

Is this not simple picking and choosing?

Leviticus isn’t a good starting point for what is considered hell-worthy becuase thats not what it was written for. Its like reading the Code of Cannon law for what is sinful and not. Leviticus was written for the Levites, the ones who had a sacred duty of service in the temple. The name itself bears that, Leviticus, Levites.

 

[Durendin]

Why are all awkward questions answered by accusations of “Moral Relativism” rather than any attempt at address?

Moral hand wringing? Other than my heinously evil position of having no opinion, I never professed any support for a pro-gay agenda, I’m really not that interested in what others do in private, I was of the opinion that it was between them and God. Forget my original question, as it’s lost on most here and no-one is going to admit that they simply don‘t know.

Of course, if you feel the need to condemn homosexuals (that I obviously don’t) let rip to your hearts content, but I fail to see how you’re going to stop it. Let me re-phrase that, I know how some would chose to stop it, but I’m not going to wait for everyone else to be rounded up before you come for me with my “evil” neutral position which is defacto against yours.

 

[Valke2]

To begin with God considered the sin of homosexuality to be great enough to destroy two cities.

One big problem with the sin of homosexuality is they won’t leave it in the bedroom but flaunt it in the face of everyone including God.

That’s debateable. It may very well be that the behavior of the inhabitants to strangers was the reason God destroyed S&G, and not for voluntary homosexual acts used to express love between two people in a committed, loving relationship.

 

[thistle]

That’s debateable. It may very well be that the behavior of the inhabitants to strangers was the reason God destroyed S&G, and not for voluntary homosexual acts used to express love between two people in a committed, loving relationship.

God created Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve.
Homosexuality is disordered lust or disordered love and it is clear in Scripture that it is an abomination and affront to God.

 

[Mintaka]

Sometimes these things are very simple.

Do you believe Jesus had the right to tell the woman at the well the truth about her sex life? Did she resent it, or was she glad to be told the truth about herself with kindness?

Do you believe that Jesus has delegated His teaching authority to the Church?

Then why do you have a problem with the Church saying, “It’s good to have sex with your spouse (of the opposite sex) in a way open to life. Every other kind of sex, and sex with anyone else, is wrong”?

The Church doesn’t have any worse problem with homosexuality than it does with adultery, pedophilia, any depersonalizing kind of action (including normal sex with your spouse in any way which disregards your spouse’s personhood), theft, arson, cutting oneself, deliberate spoiling of natural areas, or gluttony. All physical acts which abuse the powers of the body are wrong and displease God.

Our bodies will rot in the grave, but on the last day, God will resurrect them and transform them to new glorious bodies. The more good we do with our bodies, the more glorious they will be; the less, the less glorious. God made us to be embodied souls; what we do with and to our bodies is just as important a part of shaping ourselves for eternity as what we do to our souls.

 

[johnnycatholic]

I was asking from a neutral point of view based on what the Bible has by way of laws and what is obeyed today and what is not.

As for the “stoning” part, that brings us along to this:

When I mentioned the stoning of Adulterers, Blasphemers, workers on the Sabbath and owning slaves, that was but four things permissable but now currently rejected by modern thinking, (which is why I mentioned them).

These were lawful acts at one point and people rejected them being made unlawful to begin with, (the abolition of the slave trade wasn’t universally popular?) Is that not comparable to now in regards to the acceptability of homosexuals?

This seems like it belongs in the scripture forum but here goes. Well it seems to be this way. That Jesus in his coming made some things that were not understood as sinful in the past into sins. But he did not make anything that was sinful not sinful. Which would be wierd. I believe that the reference to slavery is specifically only to the hebrew slavery which was more of an indentured servitude back in those times. The hebrews would not have had a kind view of the type of slavery to which they had been subjected for 400 yrs. Furthermore slavery was and still is in its servile nature viewed as a path to holiness, we are all in a way slaves.
I will reiterate that nothing that was viewed as sinfull (.e. homosexuality) was made ok by Jesus. It would only be comparable if the continuing teaching of the apostles after Jesus had indicated that homo… was now lawful. In the case of stoning the reverse of this was done some thing that was previously ok was now not…let him who has not sinned cast the first stone. Thats the best answer i’ve got to this.

As for this

Without deviating from the point, if there’s no such thing as neutrality, then how is a fair trial ever possible? How can a discussion ever happen over such things if you’re always defacto wrong by a “neutral” position?

Where does condemnation of homosexuality lead to? What penalties would you impose to stop it? Can it be stopped?

Now your in the area of morality. A truely neutral position would be evil in that there would be no trial because you wouldn’t even be able to say anyone did anything wrong.
People have the right to sin and be wrong (certain sins). Seeing as how homosedxuality is an illness it should be treated as such. It can be cured…

 

[Karin]

That’s debateable. It may very well be that the behavior of the inhabitants to strangers was the reason God destroyed S&G, and not for voluntary homosexual acts used to express love between two people in a committed, loving relationship.

Valke2…
Even Judiasm frowns upon homosexuality…

Sexual relations between men are clearly forbidden by the Torah. (Lev. 18:22). Such acts are condemned in the strongest possible terms, as abhorrent. The only other sexual sin that is described in such strong terms is the sin of remarrying a woman you had divorced after she had been married to another man. (See Deut. 24:4). The sin of sexual relations between men is punishable by death (Lev. 20:13), as are the sins of adultery and incest.
It is important to note, however, that it is homosexual acts that are forbidden, not homosexual orientation. Judaism focuses on a person’s actions rather than a person’s desires. A man’s desire to have sex with another man is not a sin, so long as he does not act upon that desire. In fact, it could be said that a man who feels such desires but does not act upon them is worthy of more merit in that regard than a man who does not feel such desires at all, just as one who refrains from pork because it is forbidden deserves more merit than one who refrains from pork because he doesn’t like the taste.
I have seen some modern Orthodox sources suggest that if homosexuality is truly something hardwired in the brain, as most gay activists suggest, then a man who acts upon that desire is not morally responsible for his actions, but I am not sure how wide-spread that opinion is. Essentially, it is equivalent to saying that a kleptomaniac would not be held morally responsible for stealing. Interestingly, female homosexual relations are not forbidden by the Torah. There is very little discussion of female homosexuality in the Talmud. The few sources that mention lesbian relations say that they do not disqualify a woman from certain privileges of the priesthood, because it is “merely licentiousness.” There is a surprising lack of discussion of such issues as whether lesbianism would be grounds for divorcing a woman without her consent or without ketubah. Rambam asserted that lesbian practices are forbidden because it was a “practice of Egypt” and because it constituted rebelliousness.

jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Homosexuality