WHY is homosexuality a sin?

[spiderweb]

It is kind of like eating food to get the good taste, but then vomiting it out so that it never accomplishes the purpose of eating food which would be sinful as well. The act of vomiting frustrates the primary purpose of eating which promotes the life of the body.

Homosexual sex is impossible to accomplish the primary purpose of the sexual act. By it’s nature, it frustrates what sex is for. Even if heterosexual couples are unable to conceive children, they are not performing an act which by it’s nature makes it impossible. It is only impossible for other reasons (age, fertility, virility, etc), but the act itself does not make it impossible in heterosexual couples as it does in homosexual couples.

 

[heidi_storage]

What did I remove, exactly?
Also, we DO omit Bible words when it suits us. It is convenient to ignore how it is ungodly to eat seafood for it is an abomination (Leviticus, 11:10-12) or dress with clothes of two different fabrics (Leviticus, 19:19), especially if it is wool and linen (Deuteronomy, 22:11).
What about St. Paul (yeah, the same St Paul people use to quote about homosexuality) and his nonchalant dismissal of slavery as something not only normal, but that should not be subverted (Ephesians 6:5 , Colossians 3:22), or his sexism (1 Corintians 14:34)? (That is, of course, without counting the equally divinely inspired verse about slavery in Exodus 21:21)

The list goes on - so please, remember we all like to ignore certain things of the Bible.

Ah. Bit of a Gish gallop, there. Ceremonial laws regarding separation and cleanliness are superseded by Christ’s bridging the gap between man and God. Paul never promoted slavery, but told Christians to live faithful Godly lives in whatever condition they found themselves, though he did encourage striving to be free. Also, he isn’t sexist.

Look, if you want to dismiss the Bible, of course you can; it isn’t Christian to do so, though, let alone Catholic.

 

[Goldenhope]

Any sexual activity outside the confines of a sacramental marriage is a sin. There is no such thing as a sacramental homosexual marriage.

You can say “how sad” all you want, but you aren’t expressing a moral position or ethical truth. You are expressing your personal preference. Placing one’s personal preference above the will of God as explained by his holy Church is also a sin.

My “personal preference” is merely common sense - to break down marriage’ holiness only on procreation, leaving out the love, the trust, the experiences, the responsibilities, be it heterosexual or not, is simply awful. It reduces us to mere animals - it takes out everything that makes us humans. (FYI, funnily enough, same sex attraction is common among animals. Yet they’re unable to sin, for they have no real knowledge of good and evil…)
And about the will of God bit…I deem God to be a being of infinite wosdom, love and intelligence. And if I, a lowly human, am able to cohexist peacefully with homosexuals and not see this trait of them as anything horrible…pheraps He can too, don’t you think?

 

[Goldenhope]

Ah. Bit of a Gish gallop, there. Ceremonial laws regarding separation and cleanliness are superseded by Christ’s bridging the gap between man and God. Paul never promoted slavery, but told Christians to live faithful Godly lives in whatever condition they found themselves, though he did encourage striving to be free. Also, he isn’t sexist.

Look, if you want to dismiss the Bible, of course you can; it isn’t Christian to do so, though, let alone Catholic.

If Jesus truly did supersede the Law, why did He not supersede the parts about homosexuality as well?
Also, I am not dismissing the Bible: I am simply showing you that quite a number of its “divinely inspired” parts are actually not so divinely inspired - otherwise, why would He need to send us the Son to subvert them in the first place? He does not change His mind…
And as such, if this bits are not so quite inerrant, pheraps the bit about homosexuality is not so divinely inspired as well?

 

[Jeanne_S]

No, we were not made in the image of Christ, our souls were made in the image of God. Christ is God made man - not the other way around: men were not made in the image of Christ, Christ choose to appear in the image of man.
Christ true nature is divine - and therefore does not possess a physical body: the Word made Himself Flesh - it was not flesh already, and probably stopped being flesh once He returned to Heaven.

I echo Pensmama are you here for answers to your question,or is you intention to set all of us straight re our Cathlic faith?

 

[dnu]

I can’t help but think we’re being trolled here.

 

[MT1926]

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”?

First off same sex attraction is not a sin. The sin is acting on those sexual tendencies. It is pretty much at the same level of sin as a unmarried man and woman acting on their urges.

As for the “It’s in the Bible”, it is but I’m not going to go their for 2 reasons. First, since the invention of sola scriptura we have so many self interpretations of scripture out there that you would only be able to use scripture with someone that agrees with your interpretation. Second, we live in a secular society and all don’t really accept the Word of God.

Also, God and Christians do not regard love as an abomination, they regard sex outside of marriage to be a sin. We are all called to love one another.

So let’s talk about natural law. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

From the natural law we can reason that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. You might ask how can we reason this. Well you asked?

Also, how is it disrespectful to use our sexual organs to have sex?

Well sexual organs have a purpose and to put it bluntly are only meant to be used one way. Therefore, to use your married partners sexual organ in a manner it was not intended to be used would be disrespectful. Would it be disrespectful for me to use your iPad as a hammer?

You said.

So you’re saying that marriage only aim is procreation - everything else is irrelevant. How sad.

That is not the point that the other poster was getting at. The point of procreation is that it shows us, by natural law, what the true purpose of the sexual act is meant for. Every time a married couple has sex does not have to end in procreation. However, the fact that sex between a man and woman has been shown throughout history to be vital to the propagation of the species proves to us, through the natural law, that sex is meant for a man and a woman.

Just to finish up with a few fun facts.

There are about 27 different types of sexual transmitted diseases.
There are more than 20 million new cases reported every year in the US.
More than half are among the ages of 15 to 24.
50,000 Americans become infected with HIV every year.
15,529 people with AIDS dies in 2010.

Now if you think those facts are impressive I got one fact that would blow your mind.

If sexual activity would be exclusive between one man and one woman, married in a loving relationship. All of the above diseases would be unheard of within one to 2 generations.

If that’s not enough proof for you I don’t know what else will help you see the truth.

God Bless

 

[Goldenhope]

My question about God not changing His mind was rethorical.
Also, while I had never considered this “slow learning” idea, I find it interesting - which begs the question: you said they were not ready for the “turn the other cheek” and as such He gave the people an easier - yet brutal - law of “an eye for an eye”. What if we are simply not judged ready to understand and accept same-sex relationships as “not sinful” and we’re being told this while we “grow”?

 

[EasterJoy]

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”?

Are you saying the Church is misquoting or misinterpreting Holy Scriptures? Really?

There is nothing wrong with two men or two women loving each other. What is wrong is conflating healthy human affection and lust.

Mutual erotic stimulation, human friendship and Christian charity are not one inseparable thing. Human sexuality can manifest itself in many ways that are inherently disordered. It happens in nature, it doesn’t mean the people are bad people, but not everything that nice people do for what they want to be nice reasons are virtuous things.

So what if a married homosexual couple engages in sex as a way for expressing their love to each other?
Married couples do have sex, but they don’t always mean to procreate through it

They must, at the very least, be open to the possibility of procreation.

Two persons of the same sex cannot marry. Not “may not.” CAN not. You can define civil unions in any language you like, but that doesn’t change the obvious difference between a homosexual and heterosexual relationship.

No heterosexual relations, no continuation of the race. Period. That is a REALLY big difference, and it does put heterosexual relationships on an entirely different footing within the society in which they occur.

 

[Goldenhope]

First off same sex attraction is not a sin. The sin is acting on those sexual tendencies. It is pretty much at the same level of sin as a unmarried man and woman acting on their urges.

As for the “It’s in the Bible”, it is but I’m not going to go their for 2 reasons. First, since the invention of sola scriptura we have so many self interpretations of scripture out there that you would only be able to use scripture with someone that agrees with your interpretation. Second, we live in a secular society and all don’t really accept the Word of God.

Also, God and Christians do not regard love as an abomination, they regard sex outside of marriage to be a sin. We are all called to love one another.

So let’s talk about natural law. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

From the natural law we can reason that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. You might ask how can we reason this. Well you asked?

Well sexual organs have a purpose and to put it bluntly are only meant to be used one way. Therefore, to use your married partners sexual organ in a manner it was not intended to be used would be disrespectful. Would it be disrespectful for me to use your iPad as a hammer?

You said.

That is not the point that the other poster was getting at. The point of procreation is that it shows us, by natural law, what the true purpose of the sexual act is meant for. Every time a married couple has sex does not have to end in procreation. However, the fact that sex between a man and woman has been shown throughout history to be vital to the propagation of the species proves to us, through the natural law, that sex is meant for a man and a woman.

Just to finish up with a few fun facts.

There are about 27 different types of sexual transmitted diseases.
There are more than 20 million new cases reported every year in the US.
More than half are among the ages of 15 to 24.
50,000 Americans become infected with HIV every year.
15,529 people with AIDS dies in 2010.

Now if you think those facts are impressive I got one fact that would blow your mind.

If sexual activity would be exclusive between one man and one woman, married in a loving relationship. All of the above diseases would be unheard of within one to 2 generations.

If that’s not enough proof for you I don’t know what else will help you see the truth.

God Bless

Your argument of “natural law” is valid, but what do you define as “innatural” then?
Animals possess same sex attraction.
Mental illnessess and physical dephormities are not natural and, like sexuality, are not our choice, but they’re not considered sinful.

 

[EasterJoy]

If Jesus truly did supersede the Law, why did He not supersede the parts about homosexuality as well?
Also, I am not dismissing the Bible: I am simply showing you that quite a number of its “divinely inspired” parts are actually not so divinely inspired - otherwise, why would He need to send us the Son to subvert them in the first place? He does not change His mind…
And as such, if this bits are not so quite inerrant, pheraps the bit about homosexuality is not so divinely inspired as well?

The devil who came up with such rhetoric isn’t even bothering to be subtle.

This is a voice that bluntly says, “Did God* really* tell you…?” (Gen. 3:1) and “…be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” (Gen. 3:5) This is a voice that resists conforming to the teaching of the Church, but proudly supposes the Church ought to be doing the conforming to the wisdom of this individual.

If you want to learn what the Church teaches, come to learn. If you want to hear some little insights that some others of us might be able to offer from our personal lives, by all means ask. We may not have much, but we’ll offer what we can. It is worth what you pay for it, but it is there if you want it.

If you want to come to subvert and twist and refuse to listen, this is the wrong place for that.

 

[Dorothy]

All I can think of to say is that Our Lord Jesus Christ gives us Himself in the sacraments. Through prayer and the sacraments people are sanctified and can obey the commandments (including magisterial teachings on morals.)

There are people in all kinds of what may seem “unfair” situations that, with the help of the grace of God, come out of their struggles more and more sanctified.

Some examples:

1. A man and woman marry, and one year later the husband comes down with an incurable disease and the wife takes care of him till his death.
2. A woman gives birth to an infant that has several birth defects. She has chosen not to abort this child and gives it the love the infant needs to grow and flourish according to the child’s ability.
3. Someone publicly forgives the murderer of their child.

The list of scenarios can go on and on, of course.

Surrender to the will of the Lord, and various kinds of suffering conforms us to Christ. We are on this planet for a short space of time compared to eternity.

Jesus,…I trust in You!
.

 

[midori]

Also, while I had never considered this “slow learning” idea, I find it interesting - which begs the question: you said they were not ready for the “turn the other cheek” and as such He gave the people an easier - yet brutal - law of “an eye for an eye”.

But it’s the exact opposite of brutality. You do realize that “an eye for an eye” was so important because it put limits on vengefulness and retaliation? If I’m the head honcho in my area, and someone puts out my son’s eye, I can’t go burn his barn and enslave his family because they wronged me and mine.

You do remember the story of the Rape of Dinah, right? Shechem said, “Yo, Dad, get me Dinah for my wife.” And he raped her. And his Dad said, “My boy wants to marry your daughter. And if you let them marry, we’ll let y’all live here peacefully, like citizens, instead of being furreners.” And her brothers and father said, “Um, okay. But first you and all your males need to be circumcised, like us.” And then, three days later when everyone was still sore and in pain, two of her brothers went through and slaughtered all the men in the city, looted it, seized the livestock, and captured all the women and children. Because no one treats their sister like that, y’know.

So, basically, “an eye for an eye” stops all that escalation. “Turn the other cheek” is even more humble and charitable, because it goes beyond the mere declining of retaliation, to forgiveness and love of those who may have wronged you.

 

[heidi_storage]

If Jesus truly did supersede the Law, why did He not supersede the parts about homosexuality as well?
Also, I am not dismissing the Bible: I am simply showing you that quite a number of its “divinely inspired” parts are actually not so divinely inspired - otherwise, why would He need to send us the Son to subvert them in the first place? He does not change His mind…
And as such, if this bits are not so quite inerrant, pheraps the bit about homosexuality is not so divinely inspired as well?

Uh…because there’s nothing ceremonial about prohibitions against immoral sex, which are found throughout Old and New Testaments. Jesus didn’t “subvert” anything–he fulfilled it. If the Bible isn’t divinely inspired, it’s worthless except as a cultural artifact with some nice phrases, which is how you seem to regard it.

 

[AiyanaS]

And, I would ask you a question - if a couple is not open to procreation, then why get married at all?

Probably because the couple loves one another and wants to spend the rest of there life together, companionship, they want someone to share the ups and downs of life with. Not everyone can have a baby and not everyone has the genetics that make procreation an intelligent decision.
God can intend a couple, who have a bad genetic match to marry but never intend for them to procreate children naturally. Other options are available, like adoption or PGD-IVF. Its the couple’s choice to follow there conscience and do what they feel is best. No one is mandated to have babies and the way you break down marriage into nothing more than sex and babies, as if nothing else matters… Just sad. The reproductive organs only serve the purpose of having a baby sometimes only once or twice in a persons life, unless your very Catholic or Quiverfull, in that case 6 - 15+. Plus, the reproductive system can result in the creation of individuals with some nasty diseases, who suffer greatly, when the wrong genetic combination is made. Common sense would say its best to avoid passing on terrible diseases when the risks are known, like: EB “butterfly syndrome”, Tay Sachs, SCID, Krabbes, HD, HSCR, CF, Sickle Cell, MS, etc…

 

[pensmama87]

Your argument of “natural law” is valid, but what do you define as “innatural” then?
Animals possess same sex attraction.
Mental illnessess and physical dephormities are not natural and, like sexuality, are not our choice, but they’re not considered sinful.

But people with mental illness don’t get a free pass to do whatever they feel like, just because their illness may make them more inclined to do something wrong.

We all have inclinations to do some things that are wrong. That’s the way it is in a fallen world. My temptations may not be yours, or they might vary in severity.

But all of us are called to avoid sin and be holy.

(name removed by moderator) also addressed your erroneous point about animals and same-sex behavior earlier in the thread.

 

[LittleFlower378]

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”?

Natural Law

 

[EasterJoy]

Probably because the couple loves one another and wants to spend the rest of there life together, companionship, they want someone to share the ups and downs of life with. Not everyone can have a baby and not everyone has the genetics that make procreation an intelligent decision.
God can intend a couple, who have a bad genetic match to marry but never intend for them to procreate children naturally. Other options are available, like adoption or PGD-IVF. Its the couple’s choice to follow there conscience and do what they feel is best. No one is mandated to have babies and the way you break down marriage into nothing more than sex and babies, as if nothing else matters… Just sad. The reproductive organs only serve the purpose of having a baby sometimes only once or twice in a persons life, unless your very Catholic or Quiverfull, in that case 6 - 15+. Plus, the reproductive system can result in the creation of individuals with some nasty diseases, who suffer greatly, when the wrong genetic combination is made. Common sense would say its best to avoid passing on terrible diseases when the risks are known, like: EB “butterfly syndrome”, Tay Sachs, SCID, Krabbes, HD, HSCR, CF, Sickle Cell, MS, etc…

Can. 1055 §1.* The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.*

(You do realize that artificial means of achieving pregnancy are not morally permissible, correct?)

What is sad that you can’t imagine human relationships that could sustain you for a lifetime that don’t involve sex.

 

[MT1926]

Your argument of “natural law” is valid,

Thank you

but what do you define as “innatural” then?

I think you mean unnatural. Not real sure where you are going with this. I think you might be confused. Unnatural, is defined as contrary to nature, but this is not the opposite of natural law. Natural law is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. It is not the way things work in nature.

Animals possess same sex attraction.

As I said above animals in nature have nothing to do with natural law.

As Deacon Jeff said “some animals eat their young”.

A good example that I am sure you would agree with that relates to your quote.

I am sure everyone here would agree that it is immoral and against the natural law for a Father to have sexual relations with his 6 year old daughter. However, by your same quote above said immoral reprobate of a father could give the same defense that his male barn cats inbreed with their biological offspring if not left in check.

Mental illnessess and physical dephormities are not natural and, like sexuality, are not our choice, but they’re not considered sinful.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. I think you have been brain washed with societies “not our choice mentality”. Everyone has a choice, you can choose to do what’s morally right or what’s moral wrong. Don’t let anyone ever tell you that you don’t have a choice. As I stated in my previous post same sex attraction is not a sin, it’s what we do with it. I’m not so old I don’t remember my raging hormones when I was a teenager. If it wasn’t for my Catholic moral upbringing I would of slept with any willing woman on the face of the earth. Well that and the fact that it was the 80s and the new kid on the block was AIDS. Lucky for me I had a God given choice. I had the choice to think of my own wants and hormones or to save myself for my wife. I won’t lie to you it was rough, but coming up on 25 years of marriage I can honestly say it was worth it.

God Bless

 

[EasterJoy]

Thank you

I think you mean unnatural. Not real sure where you are going with this. I think you might be confused. Unnatural, is defined as contrary to nature, but this is not the opposite of natural law. Natural law is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. It is not the way things work in nature.

As I said above animals in nature have nothing to do with natural law.

As Deacon Jeff said “some animals eat their young”.

A good example that I am sure you would agree with that relates to your quote.

I am sure everyone here would agree that it is immoral and against the natural law for a Father to have sexual relations with his 6 year old daughter. However, by your same quote above said immoral reprobate of a father could give the same defense that his male barn cats inbreed with their biological offspring if not left in check.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. I think you have been brain washed with societies “not our choice mentality”. Everyone has a choice, you can choose to do what’s morally right or what’s moral wrong. Don’t let anyone ever tell you that you don’t have a choice. As I stated in my previous post same sex attraction is not a sin, it’s what we do with it. I’m not so old I don’t remember my raging hormones when I was a teenager. If it wasn’t for my Catholic moral upbringing I would of slept with any willing woman on the face of the earth. Well that and the fact that it was the 80s and the new kid on the block was AIDS. Lucky for me I had a God given choice. I had the choice to think of my own wants and hormones or to save myself for my wife. I won’t lie to you it was rough, but coming up on 25 years of marriage I can honestly say it was worth it.

God Bless

Yes. Heaven forbid we follow every immoral impulse to which we were more inclined at birth than our peers. It is a struggle, none of us succeed against our worst instincts all of the time, but the alternative is worse.