WHY is homosexuality a sin?

[Sky_River]

My Mom has 3 houses in my name, we aren’t married, I have pow over her when she can no longer make decisions and she is leaving me whats left.

There was no ceremony or officiant involved.

Then why do divorces involve dividing property of the husband and wife?

 

[MT1926]

What about the term legal union is unclear?

I think you are having troubles understanding how this process works.

You asked the question:

Legal union seems nebulous to me. Do you agree?

I responded:

That being said I would need more information before I agree or disagree with you. Why do you feel it is nebulous?

At which point you are suppose to answer the question or at least out of charity give a little more information where you would like this conversation to go.

You don’t respond with a one liner asking me to to give you the answer to the question I asked you.

I’m looking back through your posts and you sure seem to have a big vocabulary with big words. How about doing us all a favor and writing a little more detail in your responses so we can all have a constructive conversation.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

To the worldly, it should be a sin as it opposes the teaching of Darwin as to the survival of the fittest.

 

[edwest2]

To the worldly, it should be a sin as it opposes the teaching of Darwin as to the survival of the fittest.

Darwin doesn’t figure into this at all. Male and female biology does. Male and female sex organs were made to be compatible. That’s how you get the next generation of human beings.

Ed

 

[Rau]

What is wrong with two men/women loving each other?

Nothing is wrong with what you describe.

The objection is to sexual acts between persons of the same sex.

 

[Rau]

No, what’s sad is that for you and others on these forums, what makes a marriage boils down ultimately to what two people do with there sex organs.

Why? Marriage IS entered into with the understanding that it is a sexual relationship. Other relationships exist too, eg friendship, sibling, and so on.

What evidence? Onan’s sin was disobedience, not contraception. And Gods command to Adam and Eve to “fruitful and multiply”, was meant for well, Adam and Eve, not every generation following.

Actually, Onan was punished for “what he DID”, not for failing to obey.

 

[goout]

bible.org/seriespage/13-nature-marriage-union

Why did you post that in response to my post?

 

[MT1926]

Why did you post that in response to my post?

Goout,

I wouldn’t waste your time with sky. He isn’t here to have a constructive dialogue, he just wants to school us with his big words and meaningless one liners.

I already responded to that link he put in his response to you, offering him a friendly invitation to have a normal back and forth dialogue. But he seems to have disappeared.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Everytime I ask this, people say “It’s in the Bible”, without providing context or explanation, and start (mis)quoting verses.
What is wrong with two men/women loving each other? How can God regard love as an (as some Christians say of homosexuals) “abomination”?

There is no scientific evidence of there being anything harmful, physically and/or emotionally about two men or women loving each other. I believe a case can be made though that the best relationships or conditions of a relationship can be found in a heterosexual setting. Reproduction alone testifies to that fact. Beyond arguing for this potential ideal, it all boils down to theology until someone provides evidence for what God would want.

 

[MT1926]

There is no scientific evidence of there being anything harmful, physically and/or emotionally about two men or women loving each other.

You might want to go give the CDC website. I think the existence of STDs proves your statement wrong for physical evidence. They’ve also done plenty of studies that have shown the emotional stress of children brought up in homes without the presence of both a mother and a father having the same effects on children with 2 mothers or 2 fathers also not having that second presence,

 

[Rau]

You might want to go give the CDC website. I think the existence of STDs proves your statement wrong for physical evidence.

We reinforce the popular view that love implies sex when we assume that when a poster speaks of “love”, it means “sexual relationship”. Now I don’t doubt that the poster to whom you are responding did mean that, but we should point out that “love” does not imply or obligate a sexual relationship.

 

[MT1926]

We reinforce the popular view that love implies sex when we assume that when a poster speaks of “love”, it means “sexual relationship”. Now I don’t doubt that the poster to whom you are responding did mean that, but we should point out that “love” does not imply or obligate a sexual relationship.

You are correct I did make that assumption. However, at the same time he did say physically. Plus what would be the point of stating they are homosexual if you weren’t implying a sexual relationship.

 

[Rau]

You are correct I did make that assumption. However, at the same time he did say physically. Plus what would be the point of stating they are homosexual if you weren’t implying a sexual relationship.

I am a heterosexual male and there are women on this earth that I love who are not my wife. Nothing sexual is or need by implied by that statement.

I loved my wife before we married. This statement does not imply a sexual relationship.

Two men can love each other and that may be a wholly good thing. I think that is a reality we need to not lose sight of, despite the popular view that love implies sex.

The other poster should have referred to two men “having a sexual relationship” (given that is what he meant) rather than “two men loving each other”. The latter state of affairs -which can be wholly good - ought not be corrupted as it is when we get into the habit of equating it with the former. That’s the point I’m trying to make. **

 

[MT1926]

I am a heterosexual male and there are women on this earth that I love who are not my wife. Nothing sexual is or need by implied by that statement.

I loved my wife before we married. This statement does not imply a sexual relationship.

Two men can love each other and that may be a wholly good thing. I think that is a reality we need to not lose sight of, despite the popular view that love implies sex.

The other poster should have referred to two men “having a sexual relationship” (given that is what he meant) rather than “two men loving each other”. The latter state of affairs -which can be wholly good - ought not be corrupted as it is when we get into the habit of equating it with the former. That’s the point I’m trying to make. **
No offense taken. I agree with everything you said. Your quote “having a sexual relationship” brought one thought to mind. That’s a statement you rarely read or hear, it’s almost like secular society wants everyone to accept it, but they still don’t want to talk about the actual act itself. So the love part of the relationship is talked about and central but the act itself is never directly mentioned.

 

[prophetofgod]

Very simply put, it’s a misuse of the sexual organs. What were these made for? What is their purpose?

Our bodies were made in God’s image and with them we can be co-creators of new life. That means they are not simply ours to do with whatever we want. We need to respect our bodies. Using a part in a way contrary to its purpose is disrespectful to us and to God.

(This applies to more than just sexuality, by the way.)

'Cuz gay people are gross. Why else would you think I’d make it a sin? Do you really think I’d let a bunch of those weirdos into heaven? Of course not! Let Lucifer take care of 'em.

 

[Vico]

Everytime I ask this, people say “It’s in the Bible”, without providing context or explanation, and start (mis)quoting verses.
What is wrong with two men/women loving each other? How can God regard love as an (as some Christians say of homosexuals) “abomination”?

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II, II,
Question 154. The parts of Lust
Article 11. Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

I answer that, As stated above (Articles 6 and 9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: * First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; * secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways.* First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy”* Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.” * Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.” * Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11

 

[Rau]

…What is wrong with two men/women loving each other? How can God regard love as an (as some Christians say of homosexuals) “abomination”?

“Loving each other”? I think you mean “two men/women have a sexual relationship with each other”.

The love is good - it is not a problem. It’s the misuse of the body that’s a problem. Sexual acts have no place - by their nature - in the relationship of 2 men (or 2 women).

 

[goout]

“Loving each other”? I think you mean “two men/women have a sexual relationship with each other”.

The love is good - it is not a problem. It’s the misuse of the body that’s a problem. Sexual acts have no place - by their nature - in the relationship of 2 men (or 2 women).

Or outside sacramental marriage, or with one’s self, or with inanimate objects, etc…

Someone will object these are not all the *same thing *as two same sex persons expressing sexual love for one another, and you would be right, but the point remains that sex outside sacramental marriage is not fully ordered.

None of those situations are the same thing as the union of man and woman, because that union is unique.