Why would God care who we have sex with?

[Janet1983]

Where’s the lie?

I now ask of you;

Which is a better family in which to raise children;

A) A heterosexual married Christian couple, who are both terrible alcoholics, domestic abuse abounds, they ignore their children and are neglectful of their childrens emotional needs.

or

B) Two stable same sex partners who are Athiests, who adopt a child and provide for a consistently stable, loving, safe and secure home.

By your definition of family, apparently, the latter choice isn’t even a family?

I’m really not sure why you place so much emphasis ( seemingly the only emphasis) on the definition of a family being based upon the gender and sexual preferences of the parents?

I suspect the children would have a better sense of whether or not they’re being raised in a stable, safe and loving family, rather than strangers peering in from a distance and declaring their home family free…all and only because of their parents choice of sexual activity.

The first one is a case for child protection services and the second one is not a family.
The fact that it can be worse does not make a bad situation a good one.
Taking that one to the extreme makes it clear: That’s just like a rapist saying “Hey, at least I’m not a murderer.”
Both cases are not good environments for a child to grow up in and if we can prevent the latter case we should, as much as we should stop the child abuse in the former.

 

[Zatzat]

The first one is a case for child protection services and the second one is not a family.
The fact that it can be worse does not make a bad situation a good one.
Taking that one to the extreme makes it clear: That’s just like a rapist saying “Hey, at least I’m not a murderer.”
Both cases are not good environments for a child to grow up in and if we can prevent the latter case we should, as much as we should stop the child abuse in the former.

Hmmmm…then do tell, what do you call a home environment, where children are being raised by same sex parents in ‘a consistently stable, loving, safe and secure home’?

I’ve notice that you’re quite firm that a family must consist of a man and woman.

Does a family stop existing once a mother or father dies or leaves the home?

Are mothers who are raising their children alone, are they a family?

 

[Syntax]

I’ve heard this question, phrased in different ways, but basically coming down to the same thing:

Why would God Almighty who is so far beyond our comprehension, so powerful and almighty, care about our personal sex lives and who we have sex with?

Using that as a basis, they will begin asking other questions or phrasing comments about it.

On that same line of reasoning, why would God care about anything that we do? Your thinking that it is problematic that God cares about X, but not about Y, just presupposes that there is nothing about X which could go wrong. After all, human beings are so messed up in every other area of their lives, why would they not also be incredibly messed up with respect to their sex lives too? In fact, if there is anything wrong with human beings at all, our sex-lives would be one of the first places to look since how we choose to give our sexual identities expression is such a fundamental piece in the human predicament and tragedy of life.

 

[PaulinVA]

Where’s the lie?

Again, it is biologically impossible for a child to have two mommies and no daddy. It has never happened and can’t happen.

Can two women, through artificial means, end up with a baby? Sure. But that baby had a mother and a father. To deny that fact is a lie. To purposely create the situation is to deny the child his or her father.

The rest of your post doesn’t respond to my post at all. Janet responded well to your post.

 

[da_nolo]

If you ever meet such a child, I do hope that you keep your feelings to yourself.

( I though Catholics believed that all babies were precious and good?)

Artificial insemination isn’t a lie…unless of course, you lie about it.

I also thought that God was responsible for the birth of every human being that has ever lived and will ever live.

Surely if God didn’t want a lesbian couple to carry a child in one of their wombs…surely God wouldn’t bless their womb with a child?

Or does God have nothing to do with the creation of life in the womb?

On another note, if a heterosexual, Catholic and married couple have a child through artificial insemination and the husband isn’t the father…does your question still apply;

" How can it be good for a child to be born to a lie"?

We are all made the same, regardless…and treated the same, regardless. It is already understood that we not only should control our sexual behavior, but never involve ourselves with the same gender/sex…why? because the focus is not about love or, family, etc.

 

[da_nolo]

How could lust have come into existence, without having been created?
I also completely disagree with your definition of lust, one I must point out, does not fall in line with any description found in the dictionary.

the word lust is just a word, nothing else. it carries an array of definitions and translations that many place opinion on, however this does not reject the factual act. the act it self is a distortion of Love (indifference).

 

[da_nolo]

Hmmmm…then do tell, what do you call a home environment, where children are being raised by same sex parents in ‘a consistently stable, loving, safe and secure home’?

I’ve notice that you’re quite firm that a family must consist of a man and woman.

Does a family stop existing once a mother or father dies or leaves the home?

Are mothers who are raising their children alone, are they a family?

here’s the trick to your assumptions. stability = usually we would think that a stable family lives within reality, communicates, and has a well balanced relationship between each individual. well to start if you deny God, how could you be within reality? apart of the balanced relationship, there is a mother and father. why? because the relationship between a mother and her children is greatly different than that a father and his children. no matter what an individual tries, the child and their parent will not have the same relationship when the other parent was gone. This difference is biological, social, and even mental. with any one missing, yes there is an unbalance. if a father dies, the relationship between the mother and son will not be the same as it was and no matter what there will be a gap/space to where that father once was. For a child being raised with one parent, there is still that biological, social, and mental space/whole/gap. The communication could very well be there and it is the most loving mother and son relationship in the world, however that boy will develop and the presence of the father will greatly be missed. that’s why there are statistics claiming that a child in a family with two parents present (man and woman), they are more likely to achieve. the percentage for children with one biological parent or guardian(s) have a high percentage in dealing with diversity and other barriers. Now, I would agree that these things should not matter, however the hard fact is that they do for a child being raised.

 

[Janet1983]

Hmmmm…then do tell, what do you call a home environment, where children are being raised by same sex parents in ‘a consistently stable, loving, safe and secure home’?

I’ve notice that you’re quite firm that a family must consist of a man and woman.

Does a family stop existing once a mother or father dies or leaves the home?

Are mothers who are raising their children alone, are they a family?

A family without a mother or without a father is incomplete and therefore suboptimal as well… That’s why I don’t think there should be adoption by singles.
That, by the way, was the reason for my father to find another wife when he was a single parent with my sister and me. He also made sure that she would be knowledgeable of raising kids… He found one with children and they got married. It is always a better option to have a full family, but if a family is torn apart by tragedy it is always better to reconstruct.
I still think that in case of gay couples there is a choice we can make. We can choose to not give a child into a single parent family (via adoption or a surrogate) and we can choose not to give a child into a gay parent family (via adoption or a surrogate).

 

[Zatzat]

if you deny God, how could you be within reality?

If I worshiped Thor, Osiris, Zeus, Horus or anyone of the thousands of Gods that have existed in the minds of men, would you then say that I was within reality?

Quite the contrary, someone who rejects the belief in an invisible supernatural God, I’d suggest that they are closer to living ’ within reality’ than any religious person.

Belief in one supernatural God is a slippery slope. If person A believes in one invisible God, person B believes in a different invisible supernatural God, person C believes in yet another supernatural God and so on…

The common denominator? In the example above, every individual believes that their invisible supernatural God is the only real God.

 

[Zatzat]

We can choose to not give a child into a single parent family (via adoption or a surrogate) and we can choose not to give a child into a gay parent family (via adoption or a surrogate).

Rather than obsessing about the gender of the applicants, we could choose to concern ourselves with placing children in stable, secure, safe, nurturing and loving homes.

 

[da_nolo]

If I worshiped Thor, Osiris, Zeus, Horus or anyone of the thousands of Gods that have existed in the minds of men, would you then say that I was within reality?

Quite the contrary, someone who rejects the belief in an invisible supernatural God, I’d suggest that they are closer to living ’ within reality’ than any religious person.

Belief in one supernatural God is a slippery slope. If person A believes in one invisible God, person B believes in a different invisible supernatural God, person C believes in yet another supernatural God and so on…

The common denominator? In the example above, every individual believes that their invisible supernatural God is the only real God.

That’s why I did not say, “believe”. I stated, deny. if you deny reality than you do not live within it. if you deny the universe, that the world is round, all human blood is red when bled…then how could that individual be living within reality? it is the same with the ONE TRUE GOD. I would also like to point out at this time that the Jewish people did not refer to our Lord as God, but Yahweh. the word itself ‘god’ is an English translation for our understanding. Most words (yes even gibberish as it may have been) used by any human is actually a form of explanation. even the old pegan gods, of whom we use the word itself ‘god’ to describe the relationship between humans and their character as well as their position within the universe. the English definition explains the word itself to be a being or person worshiped, and under that definition if you were to worship such things no there would not be such contradiction. However, if it is to be noticed the word God is not just itself in explaining Yahweh. True it is the understanding that Yahweh is worshiped (as He should be) however it is also understood that it is only Yahweh to be worshiped and Him alone who created all things (Capital ‘G’). So any act in worship and claim to any other person or being due to their part in being the creator would be false and outside the truth, and therefore outside reality. Zues, Horus, and any other are not Gods nor are they God. they may be explained in being gods to early humans during that time, however they still would not be nor could ever be God. So regardless of the many different gods a person or several people may act in worshiping, this does not create another truth or some other reality, while it is still and could only be Yahweh, as He has guided our people in understanding that He is the creator of all beings. Again, no other development or desire for another thought could make that thought true. Even if it is someone acting as if God did not exist, their thought would not be true and therefore not real. We only live within reality and can not change what is not to be changed. That is the Teaching of the Church, as it was the Teaching of Christ, as it is the Teaching of the Lord God.
(apologies for misspelled words, those are the spellings found)

 

[da_nolo]

Rather than obsessing about the gender of the applicants, we could choose to concern ourselves with placing children in stable, secure, safe, nurturing and loving homes.

That is the point. It is understood that raising a child within sin is not stable, is not secure, is not safe, is not nurturing (well it is, but would be nurturing the wrong characteristics. so if your concerned for the definition of words remove nurturing or explain it to your idea), and it is not loving. you see sin not only is an act against God, but it is an act against self and others. Living in sin develops horrible addictions and practices that impact our mental capabilities as well as physical and spiritual. Many times you can witness the stress on someones spirit through their character, even if they try to hide it. There could even be a chance that one particular part about a person is fine, but another would not. Since we are talking about lust, being so affected and deep into such a horrible sin, this could take persons astray from God, but also other humans. our relationships suffer and that brings you to divorce or even strained relationships with friends and family. I could say this as it is first hand experience. maybe the experience is different for different people, but it is assured that the outcome is still the same and it’s isolation. It also affects others indirectly as those that do go into isolation are lost in different ways. So a same sex couple with a relationship trying to raise a child within a situation that emphasizes on the ‘okay to sin’ is putting that child just as much as harm in development as a heterosexual couple that beats kids. even if you see a more physical warning in the second, does not take away form the first.

 

[mangy_dog]

I’ve heard this question, phrased in different ways, but basically coming down to the same thing:

Why would God Almighty who is so far beyond our comprehension, so powerful and almighty, care about our personal sex lives and who we have sex with?

What’s a good answer to this question?

Using that as a basis, they will begin asking other questions or phrasing comments about it. like “The church is so obsessed with sex. Do they really think God cares about all that?” “Why would God care about what I do with my girlfriend on a Friday night, when there are much bigger things happening in the world, like earthquakes?”

Your responses please.

Because God didn’t invent sex to be used as a contact sport. Or a competition of who gets more or less. Or a Guinness sex record. Or a way to pass the leisure hours.

God not only “cares about all that” but will hold each and everyone of us accountable for our actions, omissions and words.

Minimize that as you will but, God’s moral order and divine justice won’t change just because we opt to be casual about sex.

The Catholic Church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first Pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI … and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

Church teaching is Christ’s teaching.

Sex is not a game or a toy or a passtime or a hobby. It is the union of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony.

Take it or leave it… it will not change God’s moral order and divine justice.

 

[Zatzat]

It is understood that raising a child within sin is not stable, is not secure, is not safe,…

My understanding of Christianity is that all of mankind is stained with the horror of sin…why are some Christians splitting hairs when it comes to one particular kind of sin? ie: homosexual sex.

Homosexual sex is a sin.
Masturbation is a sin.

Would you prevent married heterosexuals who secretly masturbate, from adopting children?

If not, ( they’re both sinful acts) why not?

since we are talking about lust, being so affected and deep into such a horrible sin, this could take persons astray from God,.

Interesting that God chose to create a people who would respond physiologically to lustfull thoughts.

but also other humans. our relationships suffer and that brings you to divorce or even strained relationships with friends and family…

Heterosexuals divorce at close to a 50% divorce rate. I fail to see your point.

So a same sex couple with a relationship trying to raise a child within a situation that emphasizes on the ‘okay to sin’ is putting that child just as much as harm in development as a heterosexual couple that beats kids. .

That’s an outlandish comparison.

Ask a child whose beaten on a regular basis by his heterosexual parents, if he’d happily have been adopted at birth by a homosexual couple who would provide for a stable, loving, nurturing and safe environment.

Now for some strong words;

To suggest that a child being raised by homosexual parents, is in just as much danger of harm as a child who is beaten by heterosexual parents, is to seriously undermine the horrors that children of abuse suffer.

I’ll say it again, you have a strange over emphasis on the importance of sex chromosomes when it comes to child rearing.

You should first focus on love, safety, nurturing and stability.

 

[Zatzat]

Sex is not a game or a toy or a passtime or a hobby. It is the union of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony.

Take it or leave it… it will not change God’s moral order and divine justice.

What say you to the billions upon billions of people who masturbate?

 

[mark_a]

Would you prevent married heterosexuals who secretly masturbate, from adopting children?

That’s why polygraphs were invented by the Catholic Church.

 

[Zatzat]

That’s why polygraphs were invented by the Catholic Church.

Sir James Mackenzie, a Scott, is responsible for the first rudimentary " kind of" polygraph.

William Marston is considered the father of the polygraph.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#History

Please cite your source that the Catholic Church invented the polygraph…or retract your claim.

 

[mark_a]

Sir James Mackenzie, a Scott, is responsible for the first rudimentary " kind of" polygraph.

William Marston is considered the father of the polygraph.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#History

Please cite your source that the Catholic Church invented the polygraph…or retract your claim.

It was a joke. The Catholic Church invents dogmas, not useful devices.

 

[davidv]

What say you to the billions upon billions of people who masturbate?

The same thing that the Church would say.

It is a sin. Repent.

 

[davidv]

It was a joke. The Catholic Church invents dogmas, not useful devices.

Actual the Church does not “invent” dogma. It defines them when necessary.