Your message to homosexuals about their prospects for love and companionship

[MacQ]

Obviously a gross distortion of what the Pope said.

Well, if he had mentioned sexual activity, maybe.
But I still fail to see the gross distortion.
People have love and companionship that has nothing to do with sex.

 

[Tigg]

Well, if he had mentioned sexual activity, maybe.
But I still fail to see the gross distortion.
People have love and companionship that has nothing to do with sex.

As Francis said who am I to judge who another person chooses to be with, and hopefully fall in love with.

That is what was said. You don’t think falling in love with the same gender is not going to be a near occasion of mortal sin and, at the very least, temptation?

 

[on_the_hill]

Why is it, that whenever these threads come up here at CAF, that the same forum members seem to always defend this behavior in a covert sort of way , particularly with regards to lesbian sex? And it always appears to be suggested that this is somehow more safe or less dangerous than heterosexual sex. My question to you would be, do you ever once stop thinking like the world, and consider the tremendous danger that this behavior is to your soul? The spiritual carnage always seems to be pushed to the back burner on here. Sign of the times I guess.

Peace, Mark

I don’t recall lesbianism being discussed prior to this thread.

To clarify, I’m not making an argument about the medical safety of lesbian sex. The resources that were cited as evidence that lesbian sex is medically unsafe failed to prove it. Further, that particular line of posts was not about spiritual or soul danger, but was particularly about the *medical *dangers. While obesity is a health risk, it is a health risk for all people, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Being a lesbian doesn’t make a woman fat, and being fat doesn’t make a woman a lesbian. Those are physical health conditions independent of spiritual health.

 

[MacQ]

That is what was said. You don’t think falling in love with the same gender is not going to be a near occasion of mortal sin and, at the very least, temptation?

You’d have to ask the person who said whether he was referring to sex.
I don’t automatically assume that.
Who am I do assume?

 

[MacQ]

I don’t recall lesbianism being discussed prior to this thread.

To clarify, I’m not making an argument about the medical safety of lesbian sex. The resources that were cited as evidence that lesbian sex is medically unsafe failed to prove it. Further, that particular line of posts was not about spiritual or soul danger, but was particularly about the *medical *dangers. While obesity is a health risk, it is a health risk for all people, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Being a lesbian doesn’t make a woman fat, and being fat doesn’t make a woman a lesbian. Those are physical health conditions independent of spiritual health.

I agree. The people trying to make a case against lesbianism on the grounds of medical risks are on very thin ice indeed. To point that out is not defending lesbianism, covertly or otherwise. It’s simply pointing out a fallacious argument.

 

[Tigg]

You’d have to ask the person who said whether he was referring to sex.
I don’t automatically assume that.
Who am I do assume?

But you defended the poster’s statement so I was asking you for your own opinion of what “falling in love” with the same gender meant.

 

[estesbob]

Well, if he had mentioned sexual activity, maybe.
But I still fail to see the gross distortion.
People have love and companionship that has nothing to do with sex.

Where in the quote does the pope address: who another person chooses to be with, and hopefully fall in love with.

 

[MacQ]

But you defended the poster’s statement so I was asking you for your own opinion of what “falling in love” with the same gender meant.

I said the poster didn’t mention sex. So ask him what he meant by falling in love.
I’ve heard people tell us we need to fall in love with Jesus.
But if you want to niggle on wording, ask the source.

 

[MacQ]

Where in the quote does the pope address: who another person chooses to be with, and hopefully fall in love with.

I never said he did.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Isn’t it amazing that the human person, so weak and helpless without the grace of God, is yet so strong in idolizing the self? **That homosexual *behavior *** can mask its motivation so successfully that “love” becomes a distortion of the very nature of God!

What does that even mean?

Why is it, that whenever these threads come up here at CAF, that the same forum members seem to always defend this behavior in a covert sort of way , particularly with regards to lesbian sex? And it always appears to be suggested that this is somehow more safe or less dangerous than heterosexual sex. My question to you would be, do you ever once stop thinking like the world, and consider the tremendous danger that this behavior is to your soul? The spiritual carnage always seems to be pushed to the back burner on here. Sign of the times I guess.

Peace, Mark

I don’t see anyone suggesting that lesbian sex is not sinful.

Lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex ceteris paribus.

Not everything that is sinful has consequences in the material world, but it does always have consequences.

I would like to note about my previous post that “temporal” was being used specifically to refer to the material world.

That is what was said. You don’t think falling in love with the same gender is not going to be a near occasion of mortal sin and, at the very least, temptation?

It isn’t necessarily a near occasion of sin.

 

[Tigg]

What does that even mean?

That homosexual *behavior *can mask its motivation so successfully that “love” becomes a distortion of the very nature of God!

You’ve never heard that God is love? He is the epitome and source, and having made us, He has determined the natural law. By behavior in the post above I am, of course, referring to sex. I’m merely saying it is a distortion of authentic love for two people of the same gender to have sex and call it “love.” Now, I’ll admit I’m mightily confused about what others define as love. Maybe you can answer the question in the previous post.

 

[MacQ]

You’ve never heard that God is love? He is the epitome and source, and having made us, He has determined the natural law. By behavior in the post above I am, of course, referring to sex. I’m merely saying it is a distortion of authentic love for two people of the same gender to have sex and call it “love.” Now, I’ll admit I’m mightily confused about what others define as love. Maybe you can answer the question in the previous post.

Except no one was actually talking about behavior.
The discussion was about love… for some reason. .your responses seemed unwilling to separate the ideas of love and sex.
Surely there are ''authentic" forms of love that do not involve sex.

 

[NotAllHere]

I think there are four Greek words for love,

agape is God’s Love as described in I Cor 13
love between spouses
brotherly love or friendship like David and Jonathon or Jesus and John.
Then eros, lust, sex???

I do not remember exactly, maybe someone can correct any mistakes I stated.

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t think it’s a distortion at all. The poster you replied to was also talking about people (not their activities).

No, he was implying that Pope Francis was saying that we should not condemn the actions of homosexuals who engage in homosexual relationships, as they follow their consciences as and choose who to “be with” and hopefully fall in love with.

I have many friends, both gay and straight, and hope all of them find true love, companionship and happiness. As Francis said who am I to judge who another person chooses to be with, and hopefully fall in love with.

This remark also implies that homosexual and heterosexual relations are equivalent.

The Church has never condemned homosexuals, but it has always condemned homosexual sex. There are a great many chaste homosexuals, the Church has never condemned such people, indeed such people should be applauded for their bravery and faith.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Health risks correlated with lesbians.

Since the increased risk of breast cancer and (most) gynecological cancers is associated with not having children that logic suggests God is also punishing nuns for their unnatural behavior.

You know, Joie, that is such a lame argument…
Just like justifying homosexual behavior as normal because animals “hump” each other.

Same sex sexual relationships violate the natural law. Transgressing against the natural law does not necessarily mean there are temporal consequences and for people to desperately cling to the concept that there must be temporal punishment is a sign of weak faith.

NOW this is a excellent point. And you are right.

Allow me to digress:

One of my old Jesuit Theology Profs told us that one of the greatest challenges to Faith occurred when science explained how volcanoes really worked. Up till then…they were physical proof that hell and the devil really existed.

It is true…any temporal consequences related to transgressions of religious belief are simply coincidental.

That being said, I am sorry you view my points that way. I focused on health issues because I want to keep on the secular non-religious side of this discussion. I want to emphasize the public health risks that homosexual behavior exposes to the whole community. More importantly I think is is vitally important that people who begin to experience homosexual tendencies be well informed of the dangers.

The links I provided were only two of 230,000 produced by a Google search for “homosexual health risks”. Of the many that I reviewed, I found none MINIMIZING the health problems associated with same sex relations of men AND women. **The FACT is that there are health risks for homosexuals and lesbians. **

I am sure there are some hard core gay activist web sites that promote homosexuality by omitting or glossing over this information. They attempt to prove equivalency of homosexuality and normal sexual behavior by emphasizing that heterosexuals face many of the same health risks. This is another lame argument.

I simply cannot understand why supposedly caring and understanding people are not recognizing the health problems faced by gay people. Why cover it up? I believe true compassionate people would want to raise awareness of this problem and work for some solutions. Yet all I see are gay activists and sympathizers working overtime to redefine marriage rather than save the lives of their brothers and sisters.

In keeping with the thread, I still say my message to homosexuals would be to seriously consider the health issues BEFORE entertaining prospects for same sex love and companionship

 

[MacQ]

You know, Joie, that is such a lame argument…
Just like justifying homosexual behavior as normal because animals “hump” each other.

I simply cannot understand why supposedly caring and understanding people are not recognizing the health problems faced by gay people. Why cover it up? I believe true compassionate people would want to raise awareness of this problem and work for some solutions. Yet all I see are gay activists and sympathizers working overtime to redefine marriage rather than save the lives of their brothers and sisters.

In keeping with the thread, I still say my message to homosexuals would be to seriously consider the health issues BEFORE entertaining prospects for same sex love and companionship

I think the lameness of argument is to use “health risks” as a scare tactic to dissuade gays from having sex. As has been aptly pointed out, gay women don’t have those risks, and the risks they do have wouldn’t change if they were celibate.
No cover up. No activism…simply pointing out a flaw in the logic of the argument being used.

 

[MacQ]

No, he was implying that Pope Francis was saying that we should not condemn the actions of homosexuals who engage in homosexual relationships, as they follow their consciences as and choose who to “be with” and hopefully fall in love with.

.

You read it (or read Into it) that way.
I didn’t.

 

[on_the_hill]

**The FACT is that there are health risks for homosexuals and lesbians. **

What health risks are unique to gay men and lesbians?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You’ve never heard that God is love? He is the epitome and source, and having made us, He has determined the natural law. By behavior in the post above I am, of course, referring to sex. I’m merely saying it is a distortion of authentic love for two people of the same gender to have sex and call it “love.” Now, I’ll admit I’m mightily confused about what others define as love. Maybe you can answer the question in the previous post.

I see, so you are using the word “behavior” as a euphemism.

It is a result of heterosexuals conflating sex and love.

I think there are four Greek words for love,

agape is God’s Love as described in I Cor 13
love between spouses
brotherly love or friendship like David and Jonathon or Jesus and John.
Then eros, lust, sex???

I do not remember exactly, maybe someone can correct any mistakes I stated.

Agape, Eros, Philia, Storge

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think the lameness of argument is to use “health risks” as a scare tactic to dissuade gays from having sex. As has been aptly pointed out, gay women don’t have those risks, and the risks they do have wouldn’t change if they were celibate.
No cover up. No activism…simply pointing out a flaw in the logic of the argument being used.

So by your logic…health risks related to gay sex do not exist.

Therefore homosexual activity is perfectly safe and healthy. (???)