your opinions on gays

[Bennie_P]

Thank you for bring the bigger issue into light. Gay people are going to hell, unless they are celibate, right?

“Gay” people can be celebate, as well as non-"gay " people, and still go to hell, if they are unrepentative for a whole slew of mortal sins. Sexual sin isn’t the only thing you need to turn away from to avoid the pains of hell.

**And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. **Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death (hell): and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. Romans 1:28 - 32

That is just the short list. Being gay isn’t that special, “straight” people have a lot of sins to overcome too. To think one’s cross is too much to 'bear" is like saying God’s Grace isn’t powerful enough to help one through it.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Wrong. Both are equally sinful.

No. Heterosexual fornication is a serious sin but at least it does not violate the human anatomy God gave us.

Homosexual fornication however has two sinful parts. The fornication itself, and the unnatural abuse of the human body that goes with it.

Thus homosexual fornication is even more sinful than heterosexual fornication.

 

[agangbern]

The sex of a person is purely biological. With some exceptions, a person is clearly female or male. The exceptions are those with mixed up chromosomes and ambiguous or partial genitalia.

The sexual orientation has to do with the attraction to others. The categories are generally considered heterosexual (attracted to opposite sex), homosexual (attracted to the same sex) and bisexual (attracted to both). As a couple of people have mentioned, it are not necessarily hard/fast categories. It may be a spectrum, whereby from an attraction standpoint a bisexual person would be in the middle with varying strengths of attraction on both ends. However, I wouldn’t consider it a bell curve, because the vast majority of people are heterosexual.

We don’t know the cause of homosexual tendencies. The cause is irrellevant to the teaching of the Church. Sin occurs when the tendencies are acted upon.

Suppose a boy has inclinations to dress like a girl; walk like a girl; eat like a girl; etc., but he has no sexual desire for the same sex, can we still classify him as homosexually oriented?

 

[daeve]

Thank you for bring the bigger issue into light. Gay people are going to hell, unless they are celibate, right?

Actually, that wasn’t my quote.

And my point is that anyone who isn’t celibate or chaste within marriage is going to hell.

And you know what? It’s gonna be crowded.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Suppose a boy has inclinations to dress like a girl; walk like a girl; eat like a girl; etc., but he has no sexual desire for the same sex, can we still classify him as homosexually oriented?

Metrosexual I’d say

 

[Exalt]

Well, your question is worded a little backwards in light of Church teaching. Unrepented mortal sin bars all of us from heaven regardless of sexual orientation. The Church has only ever definitively declared who is, in fact, in heaven. She doesn’t speculate on who, personally, may be in hell.

I agree, it is worded backwards.

I can speculate, but why has the Church not declared, specifically, who is in Hell?

 

[daeve]

Suppose a boy has inclinations to dress like a girl; walk like a girl; eat like a girl; etc., but he has no sexual desire for the same sex, can we still classify him as homosexually oriented?

No, that’s not homosexual. He may just have some effeminate mannerisms, or may like to wear women’s clothes, and that is unfortunate in that it’s going to cause him unhappiness, but it’s not a sin.

 

[agangbern]

When I spoke of finding people attractive it was finding them NOT sexually attractive, merely attractive in general. There is a difference. I can identify certain people as attractive in general, without ever having been sexually attracted to members of my own sex. People with SSA also find some people just plain attractive without a sexual attraction. That was not my point.

I see. In other words, SSA, although there are instances that they just find a same sex plain attractive, always they have sexual desire for a same sex. Is this correct?

 

[goofyjim]

No. Heterosexual fornication is a serious sin but at least it does not violate the human anatomy God gave us.

Homosexual fornication however has two sinful parts. The fornication itself, and the unnatural abuse of the human body that goes with it.

Thus homosexual fornication is even more sinful than heterosexual fornication.

Both are mortal sins. There is no delineation of severity of mortal sin. It either is or isn’t. Both can also be repented of or not repented of and if not repented of you will still go to hell, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual fornication.

 

[agangbern]

No, that’s not homosexual. He may just have some effeminate mannerisms, or may like to wear women’s clothes, and that is unfortunate in that it’s going to cause him unhappiness, but it’s not a sin.

I am certain it is not a sin. So when we speak of homosexual, we are not concerned of effeminate mannerisms but on the presence of sexual desire for the same sex. Why is it that some speak of “homosexual tendencies” in plural sense when as I understand it now there is only one tendency that makes one a homosexual, that is, the tendency of sexual desire toward the same sex?

 

[agangbern]

Both are mortal sins. There is no delineation of severity of mortal sin. It either is or isn’t. Both can also be repented of or not repented of and if not repented of you will still go to hell, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual fornication.

May I be refreshed about sins. What is the difference between venial sin and mortal sin?

 

[goofyjim]

May I be refreshed about sins. What is the difference between venial sin and mortal sin?

You are missing the point. The only two classifications of sins are venial and mortal. Fornication is a mortal sin whether it be homosexual or heterosexual so to say one is worse than the other is just plain stupid theology.

 

[KarenNC]

Suppose a boy has inclinations to dress like a girl; walk like a girl; eat like a girl; etc., but he has no sexual desire for the same sex, can we still classify him as homosexually oriented?

So that would be a boy who likes to wear jeans and tshirts and eats…I don’t know… salad and likes frozen drinks with umbrellas?

Not sure how you quantify “walks like a girl”…

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
Suppose a boy has inclinations to dress like a girl; walk like a girl; eat like a girl; etc., but he has no sexual desire for the same sex, can we still classify him as homosexually oriented?

Metrosexual I’d say

Oh, it’s a new word to me!

 

[agangbern]

So that would be a boy who likes to wear jeans and tshirts and eats…I don’t know… salad and likes frozen drinks with umbrellas?

Not sure how you quantify “walks like a girl”…

At least you got what I meant. Somebody here already answered my question and according to him those tendencies do not qualify the boy to be classified as homosexual. What makes one a homosexual is the presence in him of the desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex.

 

[rlg94086]

Suppose a boy has inclinations to dress like a girl; walk like a girl; eat like a girl; etc., but he has no sexual desire for the same sex, can we still classify him as homosexually oriented?

Nope. He obviously has other issues though.

 

[agangbern]

You are missing the point. The only two classifications of sins are venial and mortal. Fornication is a mortal sin whether it be homosexual or heterosexual so to say one is worse than the other is just plain stupid theology.

I am not concerned of whether one is worse than the other. I just want to know of the categorical difference between venial sin and mortal sin. I already forgot my grade 3 catechism. Could somebody here enlighten me of their basic difference?

 

[goofyjim]

I am not concerned of whether one is worse than the other. I just want to know of the categorical difference between venial sin and mortal sin. I already forgot my grade 3 catechism. Could somebody here enlighten me of their basic difference?

It is sort of like minor and major infractions of God’s law. Mortal sin requires three conditions:

1 Grave matter

2 Full knowledge

3 Full consent

If all three are not present then the sin is only venial, as in if something has become an addiction then number 3 may not be present. One should know though that heterosexual fornication is as serious as homosexual fornication and therefore equally mortal.

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, it’s a new word to me!

It is a useful word. I used to just ask…“is that guy gay or just European?” (My apologies to my European friends, but there are a lot of metrosexuals in Europe. )

Seriously though, not all gay men are a) effiminate or b) stylish.

 

[RomanCrusader]

You are missing the point. The only two classifications of sins are venial and mortal. Fornication is a mortal sin whether it be homosexual or heterosexual so to say one is worse than the other is just plain stupid theology.

Hardly.

Heterosexual sex is the right thing as far as the human anatomy goes (aka Gods design). However, as the place of sex is within marriage it is a sin to have sex outside of the boundary. So yes it is a serious sin, but it does not violate the human body as does homosexual sex.

There is nothing right about homosexual intercourse. It is an abomination and a demonic-like abuse of the human body. As sodomites can never truly love or marry, they will always be fornicating.

Heterosexual fornication is one sin, homosexual fornication is two separate sins. Homosexual sex is mutilating ones body.