Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PumpkinBunny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How is it ordered towards life if they can’t fulfill half of it’s purpose? They can unify, but can’t procreate.
Ordered for. I didn’t say capable.

The relationship is ordered toward life because the only thing that is lacking is the capacity. If that factor changed and the capacity was there, then life would be possible.

The relationship between homosexuals lacks capacity and order toward life. There is no factor that can change that would allow a homosexual couple to bring forth life.

A sterile couple is the exception rather than the rule. A homosexual couple is just the rule and that never changes.
 
But there would be no possibility of life in a sterile couple.
I remember reading a debate about this once. If a heterosexual couple is infertile, they are still heterosexuals, and still “open to life” because if they were not infertile, they would be able to conceive. The infertility was not their choice; that’s just how it is for them. This is a big difference from homosexual couples, who are closed to life period, infertile or not, because their sexual union is disordered.

To put it bluntly, you need a guy and a girl to make a kid. That’s the proper order of things. Homosexuals will never be able to produce a child. Infertile heterosexual couples are properly ordered. Regardless of wether or not they are able to conceive a child, they’re open to life because they have both parts of the equation, so to speak.

(See Midnight Sun’s post earlier.)
 
Ordered for. I didn’t say capable.

The relationship is ordered toward life because the only thing that is lacking is the capacity. If that factor changed and the capacity was there, then life would be possible.

The relationship between homosexuals lacks capacity and order toward life. There is no factor that can change that would allow a homosexual couple to bring forth life.

A sterile couple is the exception rather than the rule. A homosexual couple is just the rule and that never changes.
But the end results for a homosexual couple and a sterile couple are the same. Why do they get a pass?
 
But the end results for a homosexual couple and a sterile couple are the same. Why do they get a pass?
No they are not. Read my post.

PumpkinBunny, how old are you? Have you ever heard your parents say “because I said so!” Have they ever said that because they are exasperated at a constant stream of “why … why … why???” questions? Would it help if I said “because God said so!” because that is the real answer here. God ordained it that way so we believe and we accept His Truth.
 
A sterile couple may have relations (assuming they did not render themselves sterile) because they are open to the possibility of life. God can work miracles. He has done so on record (think of Sarah and Abraham in scripture). If a couple is BY NATURE sterile (as in the case of two men or two women) God would have to contravene natural law in order to bring forth life. We are not to put God to the test.
 
But the end results for a homosexual couple and a sterile couple are the same. Why do they get a pass?
It’s not the same. Again, the heterosexual sterile married couple’s relationship is still unitive.

A homosexual union is closed to life and will forever be.

The proper order for nutrition is eating food. If I’m sick and vomit food, my relationship with food is still ordered and intended for nourishment, even if I’m currently unable to digest it.

If I consume cardboard pieces, whether I’m sick or healthy, those cardboard pieces will never provide nourishment, ever. Those cardboard pieces are therefore not intended to be used as nourishment and will never be nourishing.
 
But why did He make it like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimG
To put it briefly, God created man and woman to be physically, sexually, complementary. They are able to unite physcially in an act of marital intercourse. One can only engage in such unitive and potentially procreative acts with a member of the opposite sex.
You mean, why did He make men and women to be sexually complementary–able to complete each other? Because he thought it would be a good thing to populate the earth and continue humanity. Men and women together can do that, raising familes for the glory of God and destined for Heaven.
 
No they are not. Read my post.

PumpkinBunny, how old are you? Have you ever heard your parents say “because I said so!” Have they ever said that because they are exasperated at a constant stream of “why … why … why???” questions? Would it help if I said “because God said so!” because that is the real answer here. God ordained it that way so we believe and we accept His Truth.
I am old enough to understand what I am asking, if that is what you mean. I wish God would give better explanations for why certain laws are in place. Or make Himself more known, at least, to be sure those laws are actually correct.
 
But there would be no possibility of life in a sterile couple.
That’s not relevant, though. Being open to the possibility of life does not require the possibility of life to exist.

It’s tricky, but it makes sense if you think about it for a minute. 🙂
 
I am old enough to understand what I am asking, if that is what you mean. I wish God would give better explanations for why certain laws are in place. Or make Himself more known, at least, to be sure those laws are actually correct.
God has given plenty of explanation, thousands of years of scholarly research has been compiled into Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. It is all out in the open for you to read. The explanations are voluminous, not always easy to read without commentary, systematic and thorough. For a start, here is a good website, with many links to Church documents about the sacrament of marriage. You will also learn much about human sexuality in these same documents. They apply well to the problem of homosexuality.

God did make Himself well-known, perhaps you have heard of a man named Jesus Christ. God came down to Earth to give us a new Covenant and a Church of which Christ is the head. He blessed her and endowed her with the charism of infallibility. The Church cannot err in teachings on faith and morals. She is always correct. This is how we know God’s will, this is His revelation to us.
 
God has given plenty of explanation, thousands of years of scholarly research has been compiled into Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. It is all out in the open for you to read. The explanations are voluminous, not always easy to read without commentary, systematic and thorough.

God did make Himself well-known, perhaps you have heard of a man named Jesus Christ. God came down to Earth to give us a new Covenant and a Church of which Christ is the head. He blessed her and endowed her with the charism of infallibility. The Church cannot err in teachings on faith and morals. This is how we know God’s will, this is His revelation to us.
That still does not explain why it is sinful, other than the fact that He says it is. I do not understand why He would make it a sin. If the only explanation is “because He said so”, that is not a compelling reason
 
That’s not relevant, though. Being open to the possibility of life does not require the possibility of life to exist.

It’s tricky, but it makes sense if you think about it for a minute. 🙂
But the posters claimed it was sinful because it could not be unitive, because there was no possibility of procreation. There is also no possibility of procreation in sterile people, so why can they be unitive?
 
I am old enough to understand what I am asking, if that is what you mean. I wish God would give better explanations for why certain laws are in place. Or make Himself more known, at least, to be sure those laws are actually correct.
He left the Church to do that. His Spirit guides the Church in matters of faith and morals. If the Church says something is infallibly correct in regards to faith and morals, you can bet God also says so too, for He said “Whatever you loose on earth, is loosed in Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven” and “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 👍
 
I am old enough to understand what I am asking, if that is what you mean.
No, I was asking because of the incessant stream of “why… why… why…” questions without really comprehending the information we have already given you, and without any attempt to research for yourself about what has authoritatively been said on the subject in the past thousands of years.

I see you still haven’t read or understood my previous posts. I will not waste a lot of time here trying to make you understand if you are unwilling to read up on it and understand what we have told you already. I encourage you to see my previous post, follow the link, and READ the Church documents that have been provided for your edification. Then if you still have questions when you have read anything, you can come back here and ask. But until then, you will keep going around in rapid circles with everyone and this thread will be just like the one now active in Social Justice. In fact, I encourage you to thoroughly read through that thread as well, because we have explained a lot of the same kind of things and are just repeating it over here.

God didn’t do this just to be mean or paternal, the Church didn’t make arbitrary decisions here. I don’t know if you were raised Christian or if you have read much of the Bible or been exposed to Catholic Truth before, so I don’t really know your perspective on this. What do you believe? What is your understanding of God and the Church?
 
That still does not explain why it is sinful, other than the fact that He says it is. I do not understand why He would make it a sin. If the only explanation is “because He said so”, that is not a compelling reason
It’s sinful because it is a disordered use of the faculties for which they were intended.

Someone already answered this on the previous page.
 
But the posters claimed it was sinful because it could not be unitive, because there was no possibility of procreation. There is also no possibility of procreation in sterile people, so why can they be unitive?
Yea, this is a tough concept that really needs to be explained carefully.

Try to think about the sexual act as being a single link in a chain. If the chain is complete without interruption, then a new life will be created. The other links in the chain would be things like: the fertility of the participants, the sperm successfully fertilizing the egg, etc… The only requirement of the Church is that the chain-link that represents the sexual act does nothing to break the chain. The church doesn’t say anything about the state of any of the other links in the chain. Therefore, as long as the sexual act does nothing to preclude the possibility of new life, that is all that the church requires for a marital union to be possible.

This is why the Church allows infertile couples to marry but impotency is an obstacle to marriage. An infertile couple can still keep their sexual act open to life, whereas an impotent couple cannot. It’s also the reason why contraception is sinful but natural family planning can be permissible. A woman’s natural fertility cycles are unrelated to the sexual act and therefore do not close the act to the possibility of new life.

I hope this helps 🙂 .
 
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THE BLOG - CANTERBURY TALES - BY TAYLOR MARSHALL. IT IS AVAILABLE IN HIS ARCHIVES IN THE MONTH OF APRIL - I HAVE DELETED A SECTION TO MEET THE SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

One afternoon while ministering to the homeless in downtown Fort Worth, Texas, I fell into a conversation with a stranger about religion, which eventually led to the subject of Christ. Without hesitating, he came right out and said, “I’m a gay Christian.” After he admitted to being an active homosexual, he added, “I have studied the whole Bible and nowhere does it teach that homosexuality is a sin.”

I countered his claim, but the conversation became understandably awkward.

Since then, I’ve met others who believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts as sinful. In fact, the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality on three separate occasions. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul describes the origin of idolatry and associates it with the origins of homosexuality, among both men and women:

Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct (Rom 1:26-28).

Paul identifies homosexuality with the following terms: unnatural, shameless acts, error, base mind, and improper conduct.

Saint Paul also explains that practicing homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates {malakoi}, nor homosexuals {arsenokoitai}, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).

The words translated as “effeminates” and “homosexuals” are often omitted in modern Bible translations and replaced with the single word “perverts,” even though two separate words appear in the Greek text of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. One might understand why the man I met in Fort Worth believed that “homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible,” since many English versions actually hide the term under pretence of translation. The two Greek words used by Paul in this passage are malakoi and arsenokoitai. The word malakoi is sometimes translated effeminates and the word arsenokoitai is translated as homosexuals.

The Greek word arsenokoitai undoubtedly refers to male homosexuality. The very etymology of the word arsenokoitai reveals this. It is a compound of two words: arsen meaning “male” and koitai meaning “bed,” and specifically “marriage bed.” Thus, arsenokoitai literally means “men in bed together.”

Lest there be any doubt about the identity of arsenokoitai with homosexuals, let us turn to the Greek Septuagint version of Leviticus 20:13, which reads, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.” While the Old Testament death penalty for homosexuality was abolished by Christ, this passage undoubtedly refers to homosexual practice and confirms that Paul’s use of the Greek word arsenokoitai prohibits the same behavior described in Leviticus 20:13—men having relations with men.

The Greek Septuagint renders this passage as: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos. We find within it the same two Greek words that compose the word arsenokoitai, which was used by Paul to condemn homosexuality. I have underlined the words above to make the connection more obvious. Here we see arsonos and koiten together describing homosexual activity in the clear language of Leviticus 20:13. Clearly, Paul’s use of the similar compound word arsenokoitai refers to homosexual men—men in bed with other men.

( SECTION DELETED FOR BREVITY )

The third passage in which Paul condemns homosexuality is found in his First Epistle to Timothy where he identifies homosexuals as lawless and disobedient:

“The law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, fornicators, homosexuals {arsenokoitai}, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim 1:9-10).

Once again, the original Greek word used here by Paul for homosexuals is the same word that he used before: arsenokoitai. Clearly, Saint Paul was opposed to homosexual acts. The Catechism of the Catholic Church conforms to Paul in this regard:

“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.”

Nevertheless, the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes that,

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

Persons with homosexual inclinations are called to chastity - not matrimony. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
 
This is a subject that just goes, around and around and around and around etc etc…
Code:
  it's wrong because God said so !

  if it's what rocks your boat then whatever.....  just let me out at the next stop !
 
No, I was asking because of the incessant stream of “why… why… why…” questions without really comprehending the information we have already given you, and without any attempt to research for yourself about what has authoritatively been said on the subject in the past thousands of years.

I see you still haven’t read or understood my previous posts. I will not waste a lot of time here trying to make you understand if you are unwilling to read up on it and understand what we have told you already. I encourage you to see my previous post, follow the link, and READ the Church documents that have been provided for your edification. Then if you still have questions when you have read anything, you can come back here and ask. But until then, you will keep going around in rapid circles with everyone and this thread will be just like the one now active in Social Justice. In fact, I encourage you to thoroughly read through that thread as well, because we have explained a lot of the same kind of things and are just repeating it over here.

God didn’t do this just to be mean or paternal, the Church didn’t make arbitrary decisions here. I don’t know if you were raised Christian or if you have read much of the Bible or been exposed to Catholic Truth before, so I don’t really know your perspective on this. What do you believe? What is your understanding of God and the Church?
I do not appreciate the insinuation that I did not read or understand what was said. Rather, it was you who did not understand my question. I understand perfectly well that the bible and Church condemn homosexuals. What I don’t understand is the reasoning behind it, unless the only reason is because it can’t lead to procreation.
 
I do not appreciate the insinuation that I did not read or understand what was said. Rather, it was you who did not understand my question. I understand perfectly well that the bible and Church condemn homosexuals. What I don’t understand is the reasoning behind it, unless the only reason is because it can’t lead to procreation.
I am sorry, but you have been answering so quickly that it was unlikely you were reading for comprehension. I apologize for jumping to conclusions about you. Let me ask this: do you suffer from homosexual inclinations yourself? Are you considering becoming Catholic, but this has become a stumbling block to your acceptance of Christ’s Truth? If so, you will likely find much more sympathy than condemnation here. I completely understand if it is a hard teaching or a personally traumatic one for you. I have my own share of them. And I will leave you with a footnote: the Bible and the Church have never condemned homosexuals. Only their behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top