Why Gay?

[fix]

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 think a good part of the reason has to do with conscience formation. In recent history we can see a good portion of the population understood how serious sin was. The example used in this thread is pregnancy outside marriage. Well, fornication used to be understood as a serious transgression. What changed?

Many things including the availablity of contraception, the sexual revolution, influence of mass media, and the acceptence of moral relativism.

Now, we ask today why are things like homosexual acts viewed by some as terribly sinful when so much is no longer viewed with the same intensity? I would say dulled conscience. The question should not be why is this subset of immoral actions so reviled by so many, but why have so many allowed themselves to really suffocate their consciences so that they no longer are scandalized and horrified by grave sins?

 

[francisca]

What’s moral might not be natural, what’s natural may not be lawful,and what’s lawful may not be moral.

You are right about the above.

But so long one circling about what is natural-moral-lawful, one cannot find the abslolute truth. For natural-moral-lawful things comes from what is spiritual. The position of our sexual behavior are only 3 :

1 natural
2 spiritual
3 unnatural and unspiritual

The first one is good naturally, the second one is perfect (better than natural), the third one is not good (disordered).

If we want to know what is “natural” about our sexual behavior, we can study mamals sexual behavior as minimal comparison. If these animals does not do it, then we can be sure such is not “natural” for human to do it.

Now if something is not natural, then we can start to see if it is spiritual. What I mean by spiritual is something that comes from our faith in absolute good ness (God). If one does not have such believe, he may stay natural man, or he may fall into lower than that. So the third position is basically the lack of the first and the second. In other words, “unnatural and unspiritual” is actually natural and/ or spiritual problem.

The teaching of masculine and feminine intimacy is deep in Christianity. It is about love that produces new people. God’s love for us is masculine, and our love for him is feminine. It is manifested in individual male and female too. They become one flesh, and new life is born.

It’s as obvious as daylight for me to see that homosexuallity is “confused love” (if we can call it love). Love has to have the aspect of serving God’s will. The absence of such aspect will take away love from the picture because God is love.

Homosexuallity first of all is unnatural. Is it spiritual? neither. There isn’t any room for same gender intimacy in christianity teaching. Just as any form of disordered conditiion, we feel deep compassion for those unfortunate people, but we do not say “you are fine” to those who are not well. Thus we tell them the truth: homosexualiity is a lie. Lie spread like desease unless treated.

To treat homosexuals is to tell them the truth.

When we are young and inexperienced, we are confused about love and sex. This is an open field for the evil one to work on when it has opportunity to do so. The evil one loves to confused us about sex to confuse us about love (because God is love, therefore God’s enemy always try to confuse us in this area). Homosexuallity may range from as simple as confused teenage, to having bad sexual experience, to having sick and tired with women for having womenized behavior for a while, tired of seeing women in porn sites, or to become a prey of other homosexual, to twisted believes mind and/ or having bad values and/ or broken home thus broken example of love, to have been surrounded by sinful world somehow inherit homosexual tendency since birth. God can break all of these causes. To know God is to know the truth, and the truth will set one free from sinful behavior according to God’s will.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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, Do you really subscribe to that statement? Aren’t most murders done in private? Are you not concerned with them if they don’t directly affect you? What about theft? O.K. if done in private?

Of course, if you feel the need to condemn homosexuals Are the people being condemned or the behavior? I thought it was the behavior? Are you unable to make that distinction? People suffering from same sex attraction deserve our love and compassion but that does not equate to telling them that homosexual behavior is o.k. It does mean not stoning them, it does mean not denying them work or a place to live–but it in no way means telling them its o.k. behavior. If my child came home and told me they found this great new drug called meth and it made them feel sooooo goood I certainly would not say well as long as you do it in private and it makes you happy go ahead–no my love for them would necessitate my telling them about its dangers. (that I obviously don’t) let rip to your hearts content, but I fail to see how you’re going to stop it. So since we can’t stop murder, rape, theft and a host of other crimes–do we stop telling people these things are wrong? Your point is? Let me re-phrase that, I know how some would chose to stop it How is that?, 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.

No ones comming after anyone. Preaching against a behavior is not comming for you.

Peace

 

[distracted]

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?

 

[distracted]

distracted:
maybe someone already said this, but homosexuality is a particularly grievous sin. Recall Sodom & Gomorrhea (spelling??). Also, see (i think) the first (or second) chapter of Romans.
This sin is a terrible perversion of one’s sexuality… goes totally against nature…
I’m running out of time, but am wondering why, if you’re not gay, do you ask about it?

 

[Riley259]

It seems that in any period of time there are “sins” that are given the distinction of being “the bad ones”. Then there are the ones that are are so widespread that we can pretty much ignore them; they are the “not so bad sins”.

In my grandparents day the worst thing that one could possibly do was to get pregnant outside of marriage. (for the women only; it wasn’t considered all that bad for the guy.) Grandma talked about how the young women were shunned (They had to get up in the church service and make an apology to the entire congregation, this was in the Lutheran church.) and were forever thought of as immoral women.

The Biblical position is that all people have sinned. God tells us that breaking one point of the law breaks the whole law. Not a one of us is good on our own; it is only by God’s grace shown to us through Christ’s death on the cross that we have forgiveness and the certainty of eternal life. When Jesus tells the crowd that those who are without sin can cast the first stone, he makes the point that all are in need of forgiveness.

Those of us who are gay somehow are reviled as the most vile sinners. When people find out one is gay, it is amazing how quickly one gets treated as a pariah, like it is a contagious disease. I think it is a lot because there are so few of us (3% - 10% of the population by most estimates) that we get targeted.

Also I think the Christian fundamentalists who are so in charge of the religious media in the United States have made us a handy target group. It is a badge of how holy and right they are if they stand up very strongly against something. Interesting how with their multi-millions they don’t ever mention the idolatry of materialism and greed.

Also at fault are the homosexual activists who promote all manner of immorality and give the rest of us a bad name.

Even if one thinks that homosexuality is a sin (which I don’t, I don’t see any clear Biblical points aginst it. But that is a little outside the topic of this thread), I don’t think it justifies discrimination against a minority group. If it is a sin, then it is one sin among many. It is not worse than the other sins we commit every day. It still requires God’s grace and forgiveness.

I must give us Catholics credit, however. I have found the Catholic church much less focused on condemnation and more focused on love than much of protestantism. Much of conservative protestantism is willing to throw us out. To them we deserve hell and they are glad to send us there.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Having the homosexual inclination isn’t sinful but engaging in homosexual acts is - that’s the distinction.

 

[Durendin]

I’m running out of time, but am wondering why, if you’re not gay, do you ask about it?

Two reasons.

First up, one of my closest friends is gay. I knew this about fifteen years ago but it was only in the last couple of years that he “came out” so to speak. I’ve recently rekindled my interest in going back to church and I’m concerned that he might think I’m putting on a red armband and jackboots.

I was never very big on the judgement of others, but some people (no-names mentioned but you’ll spot them quick) are quite keen on the idea that a lack of condemnation is tantamount to condoning it. I’m seeking a moderate stance without chucking rocks.

 

[Mirdath]

I was never very big on the judgement of others, but some people (no-names mentioned but you’ll spot them quick) are quite keen on the idea that a lack of condemnation is tantamount to condoning it. I’m seeking a moderate stance without chucking rocks.

Then stay right where you are, you’ve got it already You’re under no obligation to enforce Church teaching on non-Catholics. As you said earlier, what other people do in bed is their business – if your friend starts to get worried about your revivified religious beliefs, just tell him that and move on. It’d be kinda weird to have a long, in-depth discussion of his sex life anyway, wouldn’t it?

 

[Other_Eric]

Two reasons.

First up, one of my closest friends is gay. I knew this about fifteen years ago but it was only in the last couple of years that he “came out” so to speak. I’ve recently rekindled my interest in going back to church and I’m concerned that he might think I’m putting on a red armband and jackboots.

I was never very big on the judgement of others, but some people (no-names mentioned but you’ll spot them quick) are quite keen on the idea that a lack of condemnation is tantamount to condoning it. I’m seeking a moderate stance without chucking rocks.

In the first place, let’s try to address the sinful nature of homosexual activity in itself, without reference to the ceremonial or moral prohibitions in Leviticus. Let’s attempt to do this without reference to Scripture at all.

First, we must agree that sexuality has a purpose, that it’s not merely recreational. Second, we must attempt to discover what that purpose is. The most obvious purpose we can imagine for sexuality is procreation. Being that, unlike animals, humans are capable of sexual activity throughout the year, even when infertile, this suggests that there is a second purpose to the act. I will posit that this purpose is the unitive function of the sexual act whereby a couple forms an emotional bond through the sexual act.

We have therefore arrived at a dual purpose to the sexual act, both unitive and procreative. To contradict either of these purposes would violate the purpose of sexuality and would therefore be a misuse of the sexuality that would be sinful. In choosing a partner of the same sex for one’s sexual activity, one chooses to use the sexuality in a manner that can never be procreative. Therefore the homosexual act will always be sinful.

In the second place, let’s try to address this hypothetical “moderate stance” that you are trying to develop. You have a friend who is engaging in an activity that we have decided is sinful, as it is a misuse of the sexual faculty. Since remaining silent would be to assist in the sin of your friend, your Christian obligation would be to admonish him. This is known as a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

 

[Durendin]

It’d be kinda weird to have a long, in-depth discussion of his sex life anyway, wouldn’t it?

Frankly, it’s one of those moments when the quest for knowledge falters. I’m happy to leave said sleeping dog lie!

 

[Durendin]

Well Eric, you certainly provided food for thought, and I’ll give it some chew time, but what sprung out at me first was;

In choosing a partner of the same sex for one’s sexual activity, one chooses to use the sexuality in a manner that can never be procreative. Therefore the homosexual act will always be sinful.

Would it also be sinful to engage in sexual activity with a woman who you knew to be incapable of bearing children or vice versa?

Since remaining silent would be to assist in the sin of your friend, your Christian obligation would be to admonish him. This is known as a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

I’m quite sure he understands my distaste for the subject, but I don’t feel the need to make it a central pillar of my life, never mind raise it at all.

 

[iserve]

The connection between abomination and idolatry is that it volates the first commandment that we should love God with our whole hearts and minds and bodies: ie emotionally, spiritually and physically. What God says is the truth, and ours is not to question it, nor to put God to the public opinion test. If this was the case, humans messed up from the get-go. After all, name a person who could tell us how sinful it is to eat apples! Relativism thus creeps in when humans get together, decide for themselves what is right and then say it’s okay when the sky doesn’t fall. But of course, we know that the result is separation from God who loves us beyond our ability to comprehend, never mind return.
People who want to pretend that they enjoy things and behaviors from outside God’s plan are usually trying to seek validation, and our Church will never offer such a thing. Believers (not those running about with stones, but those standing up for God’s moral compass in His Word) are full to the brim with the righteousness and graces granted to them by their faith, and they are upheld by the statement that : the truth is true whether everyone belives it or no one believes it. Be careful, pilgrim, you are seeking to enter a place where fence-straddling is not an option.

 

[Other_Eric]

Well Eric, you certainly provided food for thought, and I’ll give it some chew time, but what sprung out at me first was;

Would it also be sinful to engage in sexual activity with a woman who you knew to be incapable of bearing children or vice versa?

I’m quite sure he understands my distaste for the subject, but I don’t feel the need to make it a central pillar of my life, never mind raise it at all.

Between a sterile couple and same-sex couple, there is no legitimate comparison. In the first example, the sterility is an aspect of an unfortunate medical problem. In the second case, the sterility arises out of who the people in the couple are.

In the case of a sterile couple, it is true that the sexual act between them may never be procreative. This, however, is a function of some disorder or other medical issue. It is not an aspect of their true identity. We recognize that something is broken, that it is not the way it should be. One can imagine that if the couple could change the infertility, that they would. The sexual act is not sterile by an act of the will, as it would be if the couple was using contraception, but instead by something that is beyond the reasonable control of the couple.

A same-sex couple, on the other hand, renders the sexual act sterile, not by some unfortunate medical issue but by the very fact of who they are. To be a man in a couple composed of two men is not a disorder. There is nothing broken and, from this couple’s point of view, there is no incentive to fix anything, since changing the genders of one member of the couple would be repellant to them. Same-sex couples choose each other in order to fulfill an erotic fetish first, not due to an unfortunate medical disorder.

At least in your distaste for this abnormality, there is a grain of hope for you. Far from making this a central pillar of your life, you should work to see that your friend does not suffer eternal death in the pursuit of his own hedonistic ends. Remaining indifferent while your friend destroys his life does not reflect the love that Christ calls us to have for one another. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your proposed silence on this matter.

 

[Mirdath]

It seems to me that many Catholics have perhaps lost touch with what ‘admonishing the sinner’ truly entails… It is not a task that requires constant vigilance, not a pillar of one’s relationship, not something that should be forced on someone. It is a work of mercy, and, contrary to what Other Eric implies, mercy is not delivered at the end of a 2x4.

I’d imagine Durendin’s friend already knows what the Church teaches about homosexuality to some degree, and has probably had quite enough ‘admonishment’. To lump more of the same on him would not be mercy; it would be sadism, and damaging or even fatal to their friendship.

Jesus sat and ate dinner with tax collectors and prostitutes – the gays and junkies of his day. Did he take them to task over their sins? No, he forgave them and told them simply ‘sin no more’. To beat someone over the head with Church teaching is not only counterproductive, it’s insufferably arrogant – to think that a mere mortal could do what the Christ did not!

 

[fix]

Two reasons.

First up, one of my closest friends is gay. I knew this about fifteen years ago but it was only in the last couple of years that he “came out” so to speak. I’ve recently rekindled my interest in going back to church and I’m concerned that he might think I’m putting on a red armband and jackboots.

I was never very big on the judgement of others, but some people (no-names mentioned but you’ll spot them quick) are quite keen on the idea that a lack of condemnation is tantamount to condoning it. I’m seeking a moderate stance without chucking rocks.

By your criteria would these words be too strident?:

1. In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for* God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. *Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values…

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[distracted]

It seems that in any period of time there are “sins” that are given the distinction of being “the bad ones”. Then there are the ones that are are so widespread that we can pretty much ignore them; they are the “not so bad sins”.

In my grandparents day the worst thing that one could possibly do was to get pregnant outside of marriage. (for the women only; it wasn’t considered all that bad for the guy.) Grandma talked about how the young women were shunned (They had to get up in the church service and make an apology to the entire congregation, this was in the Lutheran church.) and were forever thought of as immoral women.

The Biblical position is that all people have sinned. God tells us that breaking one point of the law breaks the whole law. Not a one of us is good on our own; it is only by God’s grace shown to us through Christ’s death on the cross that we have forgiveness and the certainty of eternal life. When Jesus tells the crowd that those who are without sin can cast the first stone, he makes the point that all are in need of forgiveness.

Those of us who are gay somehow are reviled as the most vile sinners. When people find out one is gay, it is amazing how quickly one gets treated as a pariah, like it is a contagious disease. I think it is a lot because there are so few of us (3% - 10% of the population by most estimates) that we get targeted.

Also I think the Christian fundamentalists who are so in charge of the religious media in the United States have made us a handy target group. It is a badge of how holy and right they are if they stand up very strongly against something. Interesting how with their multi-millions they don’t ever mention the idolatry of materialism and greed.

Also at fault are the homosexual activists who promote all manner of immorality and give the rest of us a bad name.

Even if one thinks that homosexuality is a sin (which I don’t, I don’t see any clear Biblical points aginst it. But that is a little outside the topic of this thread), I don’t think it justifies discrimination against a minority group. If it is a sin, then it is one sin among many. It is not worse than the other sins we commit every day. It still requires God’s grace and forgiveness.

I must give us Catholics credit, however. I have found the Catholic church much less focused on condemnation and more focused on love than much of protestantism. Much of conservative protestantism is willing to throw us out. To them we deserve hell and they are glad to send us there.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

 

[distracted]

It seems that in any period of time there are “sins” that are given the distinction of being “the bad ones”. Then there are the ones that are are so widespread that we can pretty much ignore them; they are the “not so bad sins”.

In my grandparents day the worst thing that one could possibly do was to get pregnant outside of marriage. (for the women only; it wasn’t considered all that bad for the guy.) Grandma talked about how the young women were shunned (They had to get up in the church service and make an apology to the entire congregation, this was in the Lutheran church.) and were forever thought of as immoral women.

The Biblical position is that all people have sinned. God tells us that breaking one point of the law breaks the whole law. Not a one of us is good on our own; it is only by God’s grace shown to us through Christ’s death on the cross that we have forgiveness and the certainty of eternal life. When Jesus tells the crowd that those who are without sin can cast the first stone, he makes the point that all are in need of forgiveness.

Those of us who are gay somehow are reviled as the most vile sinners. When people find out one is gay, it is amazing how quickly one gets treated as a pariah, like it is a contagious disease. I think it is a lot because there are so few of us (3% - 10% of the population by most estimates) that we get targeted.

Also I think the Christian fundamentalists who are so in charge of the religious media in the United States have made us a handy target group. It is a badge of how holy and right they are if they stand up very strongly against something. Interesting how with their multi-millions they don’t ever mention the idolatry of materialism and greed.

Also at fault are the homosexual activists who promote all manner of immorality and give the rest of us a bad name.

Even if one thinks that homosexuality is a sin (which I don’t, I don’t see any clear Biblical points aginst it. But that is a little outside the topic of this thread), I don’t think it justifies discrimination against a minority group. If it is a sin, then it is one sin among many. It is not worse than the other sins we commit every day. It still requires God’s grace and forgiveness.

I must give us Catholics credit, however. I have found the Catholic church much less focused on condemnation and more focused on love than much of protestantism. Much of conservative protestantism is willing to throw us out. To them we deserve hell and they are glad to send us there.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

 

[distracted]

distracted:
Sodom & Gomorrhea (i know i’m not spelling that correctly) were destroyed because of homosexuality (&/or sexual immorality in general). Also, see the first (and/or second) chapter of Romans. These scriptures r clear about how true Christianity views this sin.
As one poster said, it is not homosexuals who are condemned by the Church (or the scriptures), it is their actions that are.
Frankly, i don’t even like the idea of a man calling himself homosexual just because he has some attraction 2 the opposite sex… God doesn’t make anyone a homosexual. He particularly doesn’t make people something they cannot help but be,then tell them that if they DON"T help it somehow, they are doomed to eternal damnation… I just don’t think its THAT hard to give up such an attraction. When i was very young, i felt a certain “attraction” for the opposite sex. It vanished… I’m not altogether sure why… But whatever… Now the thought of being sexually with the same sex is totally repugnant to me…
Anyway, God bless you in your walk with Jesus…

 

[goofyjim]

Sodom & Gomorrhea (i know i’m not spelling that correctly) were destroyed because of homosexuality (&/or sexual immorality in general). Also, see the first (and/or second) chapter of Romans. These scriptures r clear about how true Christianity views this sin.
As one poster said, it is not homosexuals who are condemned by the Church (or the scriptures), it is their actions that are.
Frankly, i don’t even like the idea of a man calling himself homosexual just because he has some attraction 2 the opposite sex… God doesn’t make anyone a homosexual. He particularly doesn’t make people something they cannot help but be,then tell them that if they DON"T help it somehow, they are doomed to eternal damnation… I just don’t think its THAT hard to give up such an attraction. When i was very young, i felt a certain “attraction” for the opposite sex. It vanished… I’m not altogether sure why… But whatever… Now the thought of being sexually with the same sex is totally repugnant to me…
Anyway, God bless you in your walk with Jesus…

The jury is still out whether or not there is a biological cause for same sex attraction. If one wants to call himself homosexual based on these attractions I see no reason why God would send him to hell.

 

[Valke2]

Sodom & Gomorrhea (i know i’m not spelling that correctly) were destroyed because of homosexuality (&/or sexual immorality in general). Also, see the first (and/or second) chapter of Romans. These scriptures r clear about how true Christianity views this sin.
As one poster said, it is not homosexuals who are condemned by the Church (or the scriptures), it is their actions that are.
Frankly, i don’t even like the idea of a man calling himself homosexual just because he has some attraction 2 the opposite sex… God doesn’t make anyone a homosexual. He particularly doesn’t make people something they cannot help but be,then tell them that if they DON"T help it somehow, they are doomed to eternal damnation… I just don’t think its THAT hard to give up such an attraction. When i was very young, i felt a certain “attraction” for the opposite sex. It vanished… I’m not altogether sure why… But whatever… Now the thought of being sexually with the same sex is totally repugnant to me…
Anyway, God bless you in your walk with Jesus…

They were destroyed because of callousness and abuse to strangers.