Why would God care who we have sex with?

[Zatzat]

Zatzat, I must have misunderstood you. I apologize.

Solid of you.

 

[Zatzat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC, 2396
Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC, 2360
Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament

I don’t see anything about heterosexual, Catholic married spouses who engage in fellatio as foreplay as being sinful.

Please try again, educate me. A direct source indicating that fellatio is a sinful act.

 

[Zatzat]

There is only one God.

Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, Bal, Osiris, Zeus?

 

[Podo2005]

Could an omnipotent God have created a universe in which lust and fornication didn’t exist?

I’m sure there are trillions of things that God could have given humans the power to do, but God chose not to will those things into existence.

God chose that man wouldn’t have the ability to breath under water, or to be able to fly or to be able to shape shift, or see through objects or trillions of other things…

I just wonder why God didn’t choose to create a universe devoid of lust and fornication.

Could a totally omnipotent God create a world of souls who have free will to fornicate & lust and at the same time withhold free will from them so that they won’t fornicate & lust? Thats a contradiction…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Zatzat

*Please try again, educate me. A direct source indicating that fellatio is a sinful act. *

As part of a homosexual relationship, it certainly is. Look under “homosexuality” in the CCC index. Fellatio is a disordered substitute for sex with a woman. In the case of two women, it is a disordered substitute for sex with a man. Between husband and wife, it would not be a substitute for sex. And if in marriage it is chronically used as such, it would be a disordered use of the sexual organs.

Do you really think two people mutually consenting to a sado-masochistic relationship are in a healthy relationship?

 

[davidv]

Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, Bal, Osiris, Zeus?

Which one is the One True God?

 

[Zatzat]

Could a totally omnipotent God create a world of souls who have free will to fornicate & lust and at the same time withhold free will from them so that they won’t fornicate & lust? Thats a contradiction…

Not int a world where God chose to create man to not react physiologically to lustful feelings.

 

[Zatzat]

Do you really think two people mutually consenting to a sado-masochistic relationship are in a healthy relationship?

Probably healthier than most, as they are openly and honestly sharing their deepest desires.

 

[Zatzat]

Which one is the One True God?

Muslims would say Allah.

Ancient Greeks would say Zeus.

Hindus would say Brahmin.

Ancient Egyptians may very well have said Osiris.

Catholics would say the God of Abraham.

 

[davidv]

Muslims would say Allah.

Ancient Greeks would say Zeus.

Hindus would say Brahmin.

Ancient Egyptians may very well have said Osiris.

Catholics would say the God of Abraham.

What say you?

 

[Renko]

What rock did you crawl out from under?

 

[da_nolo]

I never attacked you. I defended myself when the intent of my posts were mis-represented.

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.( I’m directly challenging da_nolo’s claim…this is where you quote mined me.)

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. ( This makes it clear that it is an absurdity to claim a child being raised by homosexuals is at just as much risk of harm as a child who is beaten by heterosexual parents.)

I’m curious to the answer I gave you.

da_nolo:

you restrict the definition of harm to only physical comparison, when the word actually expands further to more than what may be seen. Verbal abuse damages a child’s normal growth and into mental troubles into the future. As a parent, there is a strict importance to maintain child protection from all forms of danger…all forms of harm. This obviously includes sin.

da_nolo:

A person’s constant desire to eat is an addiction, like any addiction weakens the ability to resent and reject things that are not needed. This stretches into more actions than just eating…like a curse it will spread to other activities that we face throughout the day. This is unarguably true with any addiction. This is also unarguably true for any age as well! so for that parent who raises their child in a manner that allows their gluttony for food exceed necessity, than that parent is putting their child into harm.

you see…above I quoted myself. these quotes I chose on purpose to explain that being harmed can be done in more ways than one, more than just physical. verbal abuse is just as harmful as physical, and yet carries no obvious (physical marks). a child being raised by a parent who allows that child to feed into obesity (in other words, take part in gluttony = sin), than that parent is placing that child in a dangerous position and therefore failing to keep that child out of harm. to present a child with the attitude that it is okay to take part in gluttony is harmful to that child, just as it is with lust. so if anything your question should not be, “how is it harmful to raise a child under two lesbians” (which have declared sin), but ask, “why does homosexuality qualify as sin”. You see this makes sense to us who understand that it is sinful to act in such a way and harmful to present sin as ‘okay’ to a child. if you still don’t understand how raising a child by/around sin is harmful…say so.

 

[da_nolo]

Nor is morality determined by which particular God a group of people happen to worship.

In any event, on the entire premise, we agree to disagree.

There is nothing I can say that will convince you that two same sex adults engaging in consensual sex is harmless.

Nor can you convince me that consensual sex amongst adults, is the same as having sex with an animal.

is anyone saying sex with animal is same as consensual sex? I really don’t think they are.

there is not a single pinch of scientific nor factual evidence that suggests homosexual activities could be harmless.

there have been mental disorders connected with homosexuality along with other forms of ‘disordered’ sex (i.e. premarital, teen, etc.)

there have been several ‘gods’ to have demanded human sacrifice, as in killing another human in the god’s favor and was found morally acceptable; some cultures were built or developed under violence, some worshiping demons or war gods…so really there is a huge connection between a person’s (culture’s) moral opinion and supernatural relations. after all, our character describes our spirit and our moral compass describes our character…there is a direct link.

 

[da_nolo]

Muslims would say Allah.

Ancient Greeks would say Zeus.

Hindus would say Brahmin.

Ancient Egyptians may very well have said Osiris.

Catholics would say the God of Abraham.

Your confused, Allah is the God of Abraham, as much as Yahweh is as well as Christ. Catholicism is the completion to Judaism in many ways and therefore apart of Judaism. Ancient Greeks would not say a thing as there was not one true ‘god’. even Zeus develops into creation by some other means and they worshiped as well as sought favor from all gods or the one that they themselves liked vs. another. The common claim was that Zeus was king or ruler of the heavens. Ancient Egyptians is another tricky situation as they also have multiple gods. Either way you look at it, and no matter what anyone says or thinks…there is still only ONE TRUE GOD. in this statement we explain that there is only one Divine Being to whom we should develop a relationship with as creator and creation. It is taught as it is explained through Jesus, there is only one Truth. No other existence could ever be real. So regardless to what any other person might say or think, it does not change the fact. For us Catholics, we follow Jesus in saying that Yahweh is the only True God. Another person could think all they want but still can never change it.
Why? it’s not because we are ignorant, but because we understand that there is only one side to truth…never another.

I do not know of any other divine person ever making such a claim, unless I missed that part from history/religion class. have you?

 

[Syntax]

Charlemagne II;6396337:

Do you really think two people mutually consenting to a sado-masochistic relationship are in a healthy relationship?

Probably healthier than most, as they are openly and honestly sharing their deepest desires.

haha! So whenever Koko the Chimpanzee forcefully grips my leg to pleasure herself, and I whip her on the back with a chain because I know Koko likes it, we must be healthier than most Chimpanzee/Human couples because we’re honstly sharing our deepest desires for one another?

…sorry all, I couldn’t resist mocking how absurd this discussion is.

 

[Zatzat]

there have been mental disorders connected with homosexuality along with other forms of ‘disordered’ sex (i.e. premarital, teen, etc.)

There have been mental disorders connected with religiosity as well…ie: scrupulosity, suicide bombing, delusional beliefs, visions of grandeur, schizophrenia etc…

 

[Zatzat]

haha! So whenever Koko the Chimpanzee forcefully grips my leg to pleasure herself, and I whip her on the back with a chain because I know Koko likes it, we must be healthier than most Chimpanzee/Human couples because we’re honstly sharing our deepest desires for one another?

…sorry all, I couldn’t resist mocking how absurd this discussion is.

You’re the one who keeps bringing up bestiality and specifically, Koko the Chimp.

Not I.

 

[Syntax]

You’re the one who keeps bringing up bestiality and specifically, Koko the Chimp.

Not I.

lol…Then tell everyone what’s so morally wrong with it:shrug: I’m just applying **your **own “fairness and consent” principle to all sentient beings who can love and share their feelings with others. Are you now discriminating against Koko too? What gives you the right to legislate against Koko?

Your desperate lack of a moral principle gets you into these absurd results. You obviously never thought this through, did ya

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Zatzat

So by your logic you would say having an abortion is fine because the act is performed by two consenting adults, the woman and the abortionist.

 

[Zatzat]

lol…Then tell everyone what’s so morally wrong with it:shrug: I’m just applying **your **own “fairness and consent” principle to all sentient beings who can love and share their feelings with others. Are you now discriminating against Koko too? What gives you the right to legislate against Koko?

Your desperate lack of a moral principle gets you into these absurd results. You obviously never thought this through, did ya

I’ve told you, several times, animals cannot consent to sex with a human. Human / animal sex is abusive to the animal.

Now, I trust you won’t bring back Koko the Chimp into the conversation.