Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Valke2]

That’s the thrust of it that I’ve been able to discern. It’s amazing. Progressives call moral teaching into question by trying to devolve the morality into simple accordance of either “if you can, you should” or “the animals do it.” Never mind that animals also engage in cannibalism, pedocide (such as when lions or seals will kill cubs when taking over a pride). They say that we’re too enlightened to do this, but should still be free to do anything. But when we ask them to explain themselves, they say it’s too complicated.

To the extent you are referring to my posts, you are, of course, incorrect. THat I said something can be found in nature is not the same thing as saying everything in nature is permissible. It is just an argument against calling it “unnatural.”

It’s amazing. fundamentalists call moral teaching into question by saying, if it’s written, then it must be right. Never mind that people have argued that, because it is written in their scripture, one should be killed for commiting adultry, having a child out of wedlock, gathering wood on Shabbos… etc. They say that if it is in their holy book, it must be followed no matter what. Never mind the questions of interpertation, different times, differences in understanding the words, etc. But when we ask them to explain, they answer with words that are too simple.

 

[gardenswithkids]

And what “proof” might this be? A book? A book written by man over a thousand years ago? A book that has been mistranslated and alterd?

Thats some mighty fine proof you have there.

If you bothered reading any of your thread, you’d see plenty of discussion about why society and the state has a vested interest in regulating marriage because marriage relates to the pro-creation of children. Few relied exclusively on the Bible to make this point. You aren’t very open minded about the subject of marriage at all. Open your mind and read your thread.

 

[setter]

We go where we please, sir. This is a Catholic forum. **If you wanted affirmation of a peverse world-view, then you should’ve thought better than to seek it here. **If you want to start a heated debate, don’t get angry when you get it. As for picking and choosing what I want, believe nothing could be further from the truth. Life would be easier if I didn’t have to follow all the rules. Not better, but certainly easier. But on this and most every other issue, Rome has spoken and the debate is ended. I hear and obey.

What “perverse world-view” are you referring to?

*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source *
perverse * /pərˈvɜrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[per-vurs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation *

defn; *–adjective * ~

1. willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.
2. characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.
3. wayward or cantankerous.
4. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.
5. turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.

 

[nydas]

If you bothered reading any of your thread, you’d see plenty of discussion about why society and the state has a vested interest in regulating marriage because marriage relates to the pro-creation of children. Few relied exclusively on the Bible to make this point. You aren’t very open minded about the subject of marriage at all. Open your mind and read your thread.

I started the thread. So i think i have been reading. And no i have not seen any “proof”. No one has provided any proof that gay marriage will have a negative impact on society. And trust me. I am VERY open minded. I use to be like most of you here. Against gay marriage. But i have open my mind.

 

[Valke2]

What “perverse world-view” are you referring to?

That wasn’t my quote.

 

[setter]

That wasn’t my quote.

Suggestion to add quotes next time to offset from your own personal comments.

 

[Valke2]

Suggestion to add quotes next time to offset from your own personal comments.

you must have read my post while I was editing it. I removed that poster’s paragraph from my reply. Thanks.

 

[RyanL]

…But i have open my mind.

Be careful that your mind isn’t so open that your brain falls out. As Chesterton said, the purpose of opening your mind is like opening your mouth – to shut it again on something solid.

Having an open mind, are you open to the idea that homosexual acts and homosexual marriage are completely and in all respects inherently immoral? If not, I wouldn’t really call it “open”…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[gardenswithkids]

I started the thread. So i think i have been reading. And no i have not seen any “proof”. No one has provided any proof that gay marriage will have a negative impact on society.

Yes, you started the thread, and you wrote this in your opening post:

…The only solution is to get government out of the marriage business. It has no business getting involved in the first place…

You advocated getting the government completely out of the marriage business. Ultimately that’s what this is about–the destruction of marriage and family. And* that* is why it’s wrong.

 

[RyanL]

And what “proof” might this be? A book? A book written by man over a thousand years ago? A book that has been mistranslated and alterd?

Thats some mighty fine proof you have there.

Actually, there are many manuscripts in original languages dating from very early times. This is better archeological evidence, in fact, than most (if not all) other ancient writings.

There are also even earlier quotations from *original *manuscripts which are identical to the surviving manuscripts.

Translation is largely done from these surviving manuscripts, and has been done in numerous and independent occasions.

Quite frankly, it’s rather unscientific and closed-minded of you to simply claim in a just-so manner that these manuscripts have been “mistranslated and altered”. Especially so when you present no evidence to support your claim. Here’s a link to help you get started.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[wabrams]

They don’t? That’s weird; a woman I knew married a gay man–he cheated on her, divorced her and later died of AIDS, but I’m quite sure he married her. Oh, you don’t mean homosexuals can’t marry, you mean they can’t marry anyone whom they wish. Well, heterosexuals do not have the right to marry anyone they wish either.

First, both must be willing to marry the other person. Some want to marry but can’t since the other person refuses. Those wishing to marry must not already be married to others. They can’t be close family mambers. They must meet age requirement.

Beyond the legal requirements, there are moral requirements to maintain the dignity of the human person. Marriage is life long, therefore the Church does not recognize re-marriage if the first spouse is alive. And as already mentioned numerous times on this thread that marriages must be open to the transmission of life. Marriage is a life-giving, live-long covenant between a man and woman that forms the society by way of the family. Anything less than that is an offense to our human dignity.

My aquaintence and her homosexual husband whom I mentioned earlier, well they had a child together, so I’m quite sure they were really married. Too bad he didn’t honor the commitment he made to her; he might still be alive today if he had. Too bad more heterosexuals don’t honor and uphold marriage too. I suspect that many reading this thread come from or know families torn apart by divorce or whose parents never married in the first place. Such inappropriate use of sexuality and marriage robs children of the stable home that they deserve.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[fix]

And what “proof” might this be? A book? A book written by man over a thousand years ago? A book that has been mistranslated and alterd?

Thats some mighty fine proof you have there.

It has been shown over and over again in these threads. Natural moral law, with the help of right reason, show us that disordered actions are wrong.

Your “proof” amounts to moral relativism, which leads to rigid intolerance, physicalism and nihilism.

 

[nydas]

To the literal interpreters who excuse hate and narrow-mindedness as part of the Book’s message I say this - if you think that a narrow reading of the testaments is what Jesus wanted, then you have lost your way. His overall message was always one of love and forgiveness. He extended that message to the Romans who occupied his homeland and to the whores who occupied the beds of his fundamentalist religious rulers of the time.

Even if you can select a single quote that says he wants to eat homosexuals evil hearts or deny women the right to an abortion, you clearly have missed the point of all the parables. I am not religious, but I can see the positive benefits to living in many of the ways that Jesus offered to his followers. He might have promised them the eternal gift of heaven for following, but he intended people to be kind to other people, even when they were short-sighted and selfish and hateful.

 

[fix]

To the literal interpreters who excuse hate and narrow-mindedness as part of the Book’s message I say this - if you think that a narrow reading of the testaments is what Jesus wanted, then you have lost your way. His overall message was always one of love and forgiveness. He extended that message to the Romans who occupied his homeland and to the whores who occupied the beds of his fundamentalist religious rulers of the time.

Even if you can select a single quote that says he wants to eat homosexuals evil hearts or deny women the right to an abortion, you clearly have missed the point of all the parables. I am not religious, but I can see the positive benefits to living in many of the ways that Jesus offered to his followers. He might have promised them the eternal gift of heaven for following, but he intended people to be kind to other people, even when they were short-sighted and selfish and hateful.

Can you not see that your position makes you the ultimate inventer of right and wrong? You claim to interpret what the book says, but your touchstone for that interpretation is not an absolute one.

 

[nydas]

Can you not see that your position makes you the ultimate inventer of right and wrong? You claim to interpret what the book says, but your touchstone for that interpretation is not an absolute one.

EXACTLY!

The Bible is open to interpretation, and everyone interprets it differently, so to deny anyone rights because of something it says is absurd. Especially considering there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the situation will result in a negative impact on society.

 

[setter]

EXACTLY!

The Bible is open to interpretation, and everyone interprets it differently, so to deny anyone rights because of something it says is absurd. Especially considering there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the situation will result in a negative impact on society.

The bible is open to interpretation, but not all interpretation is equally valid. Only the Church has the authority to properly interpret scripture:

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (CCC)

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78 (CCC)

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80 (CCC)

**113 **2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81). (CCC)

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. (CCC)

 

[Georgess]

Homosexual attitudes destroy the fatherly dignity, that is the birthright of every male ; just like young boys are warned to treat girls with respect - " they are to be someone’s wife and mother one day ", boys and men too - the God ordained identity -real or potential , spirtual or natural , is of fatherhoood .

 

[blessedtoo]

To the literal interpreters who excuse hate and narrow-mindedness as part of the Book’s message I say this - if you think that a narrow reading of the testaments is what Jesus wanted, then you have lost your way.

Nydas, 2,000 years of theology and scholarly examinations of scripture would hardly qualify as narrow readings. I suspect that the enormity of the body of critical literature, alot of which is outside the Church’s purview would prove to you that the NT and the words of Christ have been examined and re-examined more that any other document or doctrine in history. Again, hardly a narrow reading. Check who has lost their way.

His overall message was always one of love and forgiveness. He extended that message to the Romans who occupied his homeland and to the whores who occupied the beds of his fundamentalist religious rulers of the time.

This is a common argument made by the “feel-good” spiritualists that is easily debunked. If you knew anything about Christ, you would know that he was quite firm and unrelenting in his mission. Yes, He is love and He is forgiveness. But His love demands something of us and His forgiveness requires acceptance. He forgave and told the forgiven to sin no more. And no matter how you slice and dice it, and I know you have tried, homosexual acts are a sin and those who continue in their sin do not wish to receive forgiveness.

Even if you can select a single quote that says he wants to eat homosexuals evil hearts or deny women the right to an abortion, you clearly have missed the point of all the parables. I am not religious, but I can see the positive benefits to living in many of the ways that Jesus offered to his followers. He might have promised them the eternal gift of heaven for following, but he intended people to be kind to other people, even when they were short-sighted and selfish and hateful

Again, there are ample quotes regarding homosexuality and of course, abortion so I won’t rehash those. Anyone can lift a parable out of context of the entire NT and make it sound like a children’s story. Without context, you could lift anything that appeals to you from the Bible but what would be the point? Positive benefits? Do you think that is why we are Catholic? I can tell you that for the most part, living a Catholic faith life does not provide the kind of benefits that are esteemed in our culture. On the contrary, when one lives and breathes their faith, often they are ostracized from family and friends. The benefit we seek is not wordly. So we don’t look to Christ for self-help guidelines on how to live a happier life. We look to Christ for an example on how to be perfect.

I know you are very young and I understand your naivete but let me suggest that you think before you speak or write. You spit out rhetoric that really has no foundation. I suggest you do a bit of honest research on some of the topics with which you struggle. God bless.

 

[fix]

EXACTLY!

The Bible is open to interpretation, and everyone interprets it differently, so to deny anyone rights because of something it says is absurd. Especially considering there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the situation will result in a negative impact on society.

Yes, private interpretation of the bible is a form of moral relativism as you are doing right here.

 

[Dale_M]

The only solution is to get government out of the marriage business. It has no business getting involved in the first place. Marriage is typically a religious ceremony, and the civil aspects of marriage is nothing more than civil contracts that the government can later enforce

I think a solid case can be made for this argument - giving a license of civil union to everyone and letting those couples decide if they want to go to their church or temple and upgrade to marriage. But as you have seen, its not going to gain much traction in a Catholic forum.