G
goofyjim
Guest
Uh, it is historically known that in ancient Rome and Greece the men who were married had a young lad on the side. It was just commonly accepted.
- Status
G
goofyjim
Guest
Homosexuality is only sinful when acted upon.
J
Jimbo2
Guest
*I can tell you the history of this if you would like.
Homosexual sex was a pagan practice that they took part in quite a bit. The jewish people resented the pagans and noted any pagan practice as cultic and immoral. So the jewish people felt that homosexuality was sinful because the pagans indulged in homosexual sex. The jews also wanted to be distinguished and stand out as “Gods people” this also contributed to it. Catholicism and all Christian religions are largely based on Jewish ethics since they sort of decend from Judaism (Jesus the Christian messiah is even jewish) So Catholics have adopted this same homophobia.*
Yeah, except that Jews didn’t always resent the pagans, but in fact intermarried with them en masse from time to time…but the Jewish religion remained steadfast in its prohibition.
Your post presumes that all religious principles are simply the enshrinement of prejudices. This is a possibility, and for certain I’d agree with you in the case of, say, Muslim sexism or Mormon racism. However, I don’t see any reason to agree with you in this case.
Homosexual sex was a pagan practice that they took part in quite a bit. The jewish people resented the pagans and noted any pagan practice as cultic and immoral. So the jewish people felt that homosexuality was sinful because the pagans indulged in homosexual sex. The jews also wanted to be distinguished and stand out as “Gods people” this also contributed to it. Catholicism and all Christian religions are largely based on Jewish ethics since they sort of decend from Judaism (Jesus the Christian messiah is even jewish) So Catholics have adopted this same homophobia.*
Yeah, except that Jews didn’t always resent the pagans, but in fact intermarried with them en masse from time to time…but the Jewish religion remained steadfast in its prohibition.
Your post presumes that all religious principles are simply the enshrinement of prejudices. This is a possibility, and for certain I’d agree with you in the case of, say, Muslim sexism or Mormon racism. However, I don’t see any reason to agree with you in this case.
B
buffalo
Guest
Homosexuality is a violation of natural law. It goes way back before then.
R
RhyannaRose
Guest
Everyone has made great points, so I would only like to add one thought to this thread. Everything God tell us not to do is for a reason, He knows what is best for us and wants to protect us from harm. Homosexual behaviour and the homosexual lifestyle are very damaging to a person, not only spiritually, but physically, mentally and emotionally. He’s not trying to spoil our fun, but as all parents He has to set rules and boundries for our own good.
S
supplex
Guest
As I understand the catechism, homosexuality is not sinful, but the homosexual act is sinful. It sounds like splitting hairs, but apparently necessary. I believe because we have some bishops and cardinals who openly support the ‘gay lifestyle’, that this issue has become so confusing. A friend of mine (a priest) discussed this with me just tonite and we finally agreed to disagree because we have some bishops who support the gay lifestyle and others who don’t - whatever happened to the Truth?
R
Riley259
Guest
Having some trouble bringing up the link. I would have to disagree under some circumstances with Question #2. It is permissable for a heterosexual married couple to have oral sex as foreplay just so long as they have sexual intercourse to complete the lovemaking.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
I was talking about oral sex by itself. Sorry for not clarifying.
P
Palladio
Guest
Quite a potted history: the Romans roundly condemned homosexuality in their history and in their philosophy: read Cicero and Seneca, for starters.
The Church does not fear homosexuals, it counsels them.
I read where one theory for homosexuality in males holds that it is a failure during pregnancy of a hormone needed from the mother to the unborn child.
There is a difference between accepting and tolerating something, and between hating the sin and loving the sinner.
The passages condemning homosexuality in the NT are easy to find: look at any Bible on line with a search function.
W
Wolseley
Guest
Truth went out the window when we stopped worshipping the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and instead started worshipping Tolerance, Diversity, and Multiculturalism.As I understand the catechism, homosexuality is not sinful, but the homosexual act is sinful. It sounds like splitting hairs, but apparently necessary. I believe because we have some bishops and cardinals who openly support the ‘gay lifestyle’, that this issue has become so confusing. A friend of mine (a priest) discussed this with me just tonite and we finally agreed to disagree because we have some bishops who support the gay lifestyle and others who don’t - whatever happened to the Truth?
All bow down, and worshop the Great God, Political Correctness!
E
Excelency
Guest
Man was created in the Image of God. Homosexuality humiliates the image of God. Homosexuality is a direct insult to the image of Christ whose body we Catholics recieve in the form of the Holy Eucharist.
A
AndyF
Guest
lizzielou:
Excerpt from a poster at:
catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17073
where you will find a lively discussion on the subject.
Thanks goes out to Bruce who said it better than I could.
“…On the other hand, there is
being gay. The distinction is very important. Notice the verb: in the first case, you have something, a tendency. It does not define who you are. It may have an enormous impact on your life, and make many things very difficult for you, but it does not define you. In the second case, …”
AndyF
.
Excerpt from a poster at:
catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17073
where you will find a lively discussion on the subject.
Thanks goes out to Bruce who said it better than I could.
“…On the other hand, there is
being gay. The distinction is very important. Notice the verb: in the first case, you have something, a tendency. It does not define who you are. It may have an enormous impact on your life, and make many things very difficult for you, but it does not define you. In the second case, …”
AndyF
.
H
Hlafdige
Guest
Just like God gave humans free will, He built into nature itself a certain evolutionary freedom to seek (and miss) its own course. Although the Bible makes a connection between human sin and the brokenness of the natural world (Romans 8:18-22), we are warned (John 9:1-4) against drawing simplistic conclusions as to how this works. Fact is, some people are saddled through no fault of their own with a disproportionate share of our common poverty – “poverty” in the sense that bare survival (including moral survival = avoidance of mortal sin, social survival = e.g. navigating everyday life as a disabled person, or whatever) costs them nearly everything they‘ve got.How can we tell them that they should never have sex for the rest of their lives? How can we tell them that God made them “disordered”? How do we explain that a good God would even do that?
(…) They deserve happiness and love too, and I feel like I have no business launching into a debate about how awful and sinful they are
Imagine, for example, life with an autistic spectrum disorder. Even the more mildly afflicted and best equipped to compensate the disability describe it as like being “a war pilot with no radar, never knowing when a missile is coming” or “an anthropologist on Mars”. Sensory overload, physical problems like chronic insomnia, impaired communication resulting in much rejection and humiliation – surely in this context charity, meeting others as far as possible on their own ground, is as steep a challenge as chastity is for a celibate person, homosexual or not. Think what the virtue of patience costs the sick, the poor, those burdened with family problems, many of whom must cope alone. “We” don‘t demand these sacrifices of people, but God asks them – stoops, as St. Therese would say, to beg them of us.
The culture of death that says to the poor and infirm: “Deal with it, you‘re nothing to us, our sponsors‘ advertising isn‘t targeted to your demographic” says the opposite to homosexuals. The real injustice they face is the unremitting cultural pressure to join the ranks of those who say, in effect, “The world made a whore of me, now I‘m going to make a brothel of it” (words of a character in Friedrich Duerrenmatt‘s play “The Visit”).
R
Romans12
Guest
Definatley some truth in this reply… very interesting debate here.
D
defenderoftruth
Guest
ok here they are from the Old testament: (taken from the douay rheims)
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.
Ok so quoting the above will generally get you a “well do you eat shrimp?” or “do you wear two different fibers in your clothing” this is the typical homosexual response to try to make the above verses null and void-but interestingly enough God seperated the moral law from the ceremonial law-which was done away with. We can eat shrimp but we still aren’t allowed to commit adultery etc. Also the top verse specifically is smack dab inbetween sacrificing your child to an idol and committing beastiality. Two of which just like homosexuality we are STILL not suppose to do. That usually explains it.
The New Testament says:
Jesus said:
Mark 10:6-8 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
That may be about divorce but what is important he reiterated FROM THE BEGINNING that God made Adam and Eve for straight marriage NOT “gay marriage”.
Here’s from Paul (I find in conversations with them they don’t much like Paul “he just a man, he’s not Jesus” is the typical response.
Romans 1:26-27 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Pretty cut and dried black and white huh?
**1Co 6:9-10 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God. **
Unless you use a more modern translation that says “homosexual” you are going to have to explain to the homosexual that “liers with mankind” the greek word is Arsenkoites. Arsen means men and koites is intercourse. The effeminate speaks for itself.
AND you may get a homosexual that wants to argue that Sodom wasn’t destroyed for homosexuality just “inhospitality” (I’ve talked them alot about this stuff) but…
Jude 7 As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
The other flesh wasn’t that it was angelic but because it wasn’t the natural opposite sex flesh…
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.
Ok so quoting the above will generally get you a “well do you eat shrimp?” or “do you wear two different fibers in your clothing” this is the typical homosexual response to try to make the above verses null and void-but interestingly enough God seperated the moral law from the ceremonial law-which was done away with. We can eat shrimp but we still aren’t allowed to commit adultery etc. Also the top verse specifically is smack dab inbetween sacrificing your child to an idol and committing beastiality. Two of which just like homosexuality we are STILL not suppose to do. That usually explains it.
The New Testament says:
Jesus said:
Mark 10:6-8 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
That may be about divorce but what is important he reiterated FROM THE BEGINNING that God made Adam and Eve for straight marriage NOT “gay marriage”.
Here’s from Paul (I find in conversations with them they don’t much like Paul “he just a man, he’s not Jesus” is the typical response.
Romans 1:26-27 For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Pretty cut and dried black and white huh?
**1Co 6:9-10 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God. **
Unless you use a more modern translation that says “homosexual” you are going to have to explain to the homosexual that “liers with mankind” the greek word is Arsenkoites. Arsen means men and koites is intercourse. The effeminate speaks for itself.
AND you may get a homosexual that wants to argue that Sodom wasn’t destroyed for homosexuality just “inhospitality” (I’ve talked them alot about this stuff) but…
Jude 7 As Sodom and Gomorrha and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
The other flesh wasn’t that it was angelic but because it wasn’t the natural opposite sex flesh…
A
alenina
Guest
Wow!!! This is clear as daylight!!!
J
johnnycatholic
Guest
First and foremost, it would take more than the Church “accepting” them to let them live freely. If this were the case, they could just go join another church that does approve of this behavior. There are plenty. If the Catholic Church is so wrong on this issue, how can it be Christ’s one true Church, His spotless bride?
One thing I would like to do is shift the burden of proof: we have Bible passages in Romans, Leviticus, etc. condemning homosexual acts. Where are the passages condoning it? St. Paul writes extensively on how a married man and woman are to give themselves to each other. He writes about how widows and widowers are to remain celibate if they can, but if it will lead them to sin, to remarry. Nowhere does he include how a man is to love a man in their “union”. It’s not in God’s plan for a union to have two heads or two hearts, and how can you deny your headship or heartship without denying the intrinsic dignity of your gender?
Furthermore, we have 5,000 years of human history which treats homosexual acts as either abominations or at least not preferrable (the Greeks still had wives even with their little bathhouse escapades). It is only recently that people have begun to seek acceptance of these acts as natural and good.
Homosexuality is a disorder. I do not define myself by my heterosexuality; it’s just an aspect of me. Most of my gay friends tend to build the rest of their personality stemming from their gayness. It’s disordered to focus that much on sex. When your sexual preference is naturally sterile, there is no emphasis on procreation whatsoever. This naturally limits the unitive emphasis, too, since the ability to create life with your partner adds a depth to your union that can’t be replicated with artificial insemination or adoption. Whereas a heterosexual couple who marries and finds out they can’t have children has (ideally) entered into the union with the intention of at some point creating life together, a homosexual couple enters into their “union” knowing there will never be a little life to permanently bind them together. Their sex is always going to be purely for pleasure. Also, heterosexual couples who adopt can give a child what God intended in his natural plan: a mother and a father. Homosexual couples do not give this to children. Both adoptions are technically unnatural, but one mirrors what God intended and the other does not.
Another thing to point out is that homosexual acts are often physically damaging to those practicing them. I have heard many a story of a trip to the emergency room because of a “romantic escapade” gone awry. Even if you practice carefully with only one partner, it is damaging to your rectum to engage in sodomy. Lesbians often do damage or give infections to each other with the objects they penetrate one another with. This says to me that the emphasis in the majority of homosexual acts is less on unitive love and more on disordered kink in the bedroom.
I am heartbroken when I think of the spiritual, physical, and emotional damage my homosexual friends do to themselves and their partners. I know how natural it is to want to tell people you love what they want to hear; that it’s okay for them to want to love who they want to love. However, we can deduce not only from the Church, but also from logical reasoning and biological facts that it is not good in any way to encourage homosexual relationships. The argument that what two consenting adults do doesn’t hurt anyone doesn’t work when you can point to terrifying statistics of std’s spreading and sphincters being permanently damaged. When you have a culture that tells HIV-positive people that using a condom will protect their partner instead of demanding that they stop having sex, we have let sex become a false God that we need to be actively and lovingly turning people, straight and gay away from.
I know this really doesn’t give the spiritual references that the OP was necessarily looking for, but i do think these intellectual appeals, lovingly delivered, can help you be more assured of God’s truth and hopefully tear some people away from the damaging lies of our age.
N
Newbie2
Guest
That is a very good point, and something that the “homosexual activists” know and exploit very well. When we as Catholics and the Catholic Church (or other Christians, for that matter) reject homosexuality (as a lifestyle, including, of course, such acts), we are branded as rejecting the homosexual person.
While with some individuals, this is unfortunately true, there is no recognition from these groups pushing their agenda that the Church can indeed separate the sin from the sinner.
“God loves everyone” and other such truisms are used to cover the fact that God does NOT love everyone’s sins; this confusion is deliberate and purposeful.
What we need to do is to be very clear about separating the sin and the sinner, unlike others such as those of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, famous for picketing soldiers funerals. If you want to see some warped theology totally lacking in the concepts of forgiveness and redemption of homsexual sin, check them out.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
I take issue with this position just because it completely ignores the coequally important uniative purpose of sex. Using this line of reasoning, if a couple are sterile, they should not have sex, because no life can come of it…if a woman had a hysterectomy no more sex because a life can not come out of it.
Sex was given to us for two coequal purposes…procreative and uniative…a third lesser reason is so we’d call out God’s name when we did it right…(my apologies, I couldn’t resist an easy joke).
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
I think that the above question and answer example that I posted has you a bit confused and you missed the point of what it was meant to emphasize. If you look at each of the questions, there is NO CHANCE that those acts could be procreative. Thereby the acts themselves go against what we know to be one of the two important components of sexual relations.
How does this ignore the “unitive purpose of sex?”
- Status