Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Obviously penises were made for vaginas because that is what guarantees the continuation of the species.
I think that is what God had in mind even though some humans had other things in mind.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did God create homosexuality?
- Thread starter Howlstan
- Start date
I think that is what God had in mind even though some humans had other things in mind.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
The Israelites needed to grow fast and quickly.
All the laws were about strength, health, cohesion and security.
The laws required couples to wed, produce offspring and stay together. They even got their first year of marriage free of duties for that very purpose.
Sex outside of marriage could cause sickness, so adultery was outlawed and homosexuality was banned for the same reason and also because gay couples don't get kids.
Today we don't need to so many kids.
Homophobic folks need to get with the times.
All the laws were about strength, health, cohesion and security.
The laws required couples to wed, produce offspring and stay together. They even got their first year of marriage free of duties for that very purpose.
Sex outside of marriage could cause sickness, so adultery was outlawed and homosexuality was banned for the same reason and also because gay couples don't get kids.
Today we don't need to so many kids.
Homophobic folks need to get with the times.
Hah, allegedly six months worth of evidence and you didn't provide a scrap of it in your reply, instead you just contented yourself with a tall claim, which is what I have come to expect from Christians.
In my opinion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Reading comprehension and logical fallacy fail. You refuse to reason rationally so you won't let yourself.see your error.
By the way,this belief of yours,that homosexuality is immoral is evidence against the existence of your god.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh I am judging you. I am not a hypocrite. You did judge homosexuals. You denied it a d then you did so again today. You cannot see how your beliefs fail and deny that you judged others. That is why you fail when you try to analyze others.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then you really should try it on yourself some day. You constantly accuse others of your flaws.Psychoanalysis is what comes naturally to me because psychology was my field.
You may be able to think rationally outside of your faith. But once your religious beliefs are involved you become as bad as any creationist.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You must have taken a biology class or two. Your poor reasoning indicates that you have not. Both penises and vaginas are the product of evolution. They evolved together. And the evolution of each relied upon the evolution of the other. That doesn't mean that they were made for each other.
David Weaver
Member
Maybe I'm "another one" maybe not. We as humans in general want to point our fingers at God and blame him for all the problems in the world while ignoring our own nature and sinful ways without taking any of the credit ourselves
Homosexuality is not an impediment to marriage, either. At least in civilised countries. And usually, in a sterile married couple, only one is sterile. So, according to church logic, if any, it should condemn the fertile one. Is that correct?
Anyway, I have a related question, which is creating quite a fuss here in Central Europe among Catholics. Why does the church forbid blessing to gays, but not to, say, people who use contraception? And why does it refute that simple gesture, while it has no problem to bless weapons? Or war ships?
NB: I am not challenging the morality of the church here. I am aware that the history of the Church, and recent news all over the world, totally discredit the Catholic Church as a model of moral virtue anyway, so there is not much left to attack in that area. What interests me much more is the logical consistency of their position.
Ciao
- viole
David Weaver
Member
First, I never said I was an expert so you can drop that garbage now. 2nd, just because someone says that something is acceptable doesn't mean that it is. I trust scripture to tell me what I need to know about right and wrong
I am not sure where you see a condemnation of sterile folks not being allowed to marry following out from this. Not every time someone has sex does it make a child, as I said to be able to do something and for that act to be productive is two different things. To really go back to the bronze age with a comparison, to be able to plant and for anything to grow out of that action are two different things.
The Church can bless persons which said tendencies but not same-sex unions or marriages, not the union or marriage itself. It affirms this in the CDF thing on the issue recently released:
"Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.
"For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.
"The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God."
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Cut it. You're not part of the conversation and you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I've actually never tied morality to anything outside of hurting others-speech, body, or mind. Anything outside of that the morality is individual. So, I can't say "this type of sex" is morally bad. It may be taboo and make me uncomfortable (say opposite-sex sex for example
I mean many christians may think LGBTQ is focused on their morals but it really goes beyond theological differences.
I wish this applied in christianity to same-sex couples who wish to touch the people they love. I can't imagine many christians who can't do this. Though, my friend (former girlfriend) is heavily christian and believes god knows her heart.
I understand if it were murder but not sex.
Putting god-says-so aside for a minute what's inherently wrong with same-sex sex that causes negative consequences?
I know you said it separates them from god but from a non-god view how is it wrong (assuming the intentions are healthy and safe sex between both parties involved)?
When a christian says same-sex sex is wrong to many it translates not just from scripture, but medically, morally (from the couple's point of view), legally, and otherwise. Those reasons that hurt people or take people's rights away rather than theological differences.
That's a pretty harsh way to use same-sex sex and murder together with similar gravity. Can you imagine how a christian gay person feels when he sees homosexual align with murder and rape? No matter how a person interprets it, it's not a good feeling.
Is it only theologically and morally bad based on christian values?
I know there are christians on this board that mistake their christian values with medical facts in regards to sexual orientation, homosexuals, and same-sex sex. I would say the two are completely separate due to culture, language, bias, laws, and people's personal experiences.
I can see those who engage in sexual promiscuity. Though I'm coming from couples who do not.
Yeah that is an unfortunate effect of how that sounds, although it comes from just how expansive Christian morality is, that the Lord Jesus says that we will be judged for even "every idle word" that we speak during life, not to mention every consented-to thought and even minor act, every knowing choice being subject to judgment so that even the Saints can barely stand it. Not sure if better terminology could be used but perhaps that is something which can be worked on so it doesn't translate this way.
As for why it's wrong from a non-God view, I genuinely can not interpret the world that way and do not even know how things would exist let alone have good and evil beyond it. I would say "perhaps an atheist would say it's against nature" but the concept of nature I have comes from medieval times (and before that even) and is bound up with God.
As for it being theologically and morally bad based on values, religion is not separated from the world in my view and is not merely personal. It applies to all and is in all spheres of life with no separation, so a thing being theologically bad would just be universally bad, and whatever is good would be universally so.
David Weaver
Member
Since you're so concerned about my understanding of evidence, why don't you send me the "evidence" you have to support your above claim. Give me a picture of what evidence is. I don't deny that I'm new to this and have only been at it about 6 months. That being said I have only touched on a couple topics thus far and neither involves creation or the exodus. Because I'm new to this I have not built an extensive knowledge base yet. My biggest evidence currently is personal and is only effective in addressing those who knew me before now or those who already believe. Note that I did NOT say my only evidence simply my best currently
David Weaver
Member
How do extra fingers, toes, or nipples equate to homosexuality you're comparing apples to oranges. Homosexuality is not a genetic defect it's a feeling. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't follow this comparison
David Weaver
Member
I never said what my research was on. It doesn't happen to pertain to this thread and I'm not trying to hijack someone else's forum. When I'm done having my work edited for errors and it's ready to share I will start my own thread and allow people to dissect it there
A homosexual union or marriage may be a committed relationship based on love every bit as a heterosexual marriage. When homosexual marriage became legal there were many over fifty who were in a committed relationship, and finally allowed to live their love as others do. You can not accept that because you apparently rely on you're assumption that homosexuality is a choice. I understand, if you give up that stance, you must accept that homosexuals are every bit as much, God's creation as you or I.
As in both orientations there are sexual encounters that have nothing to do with love, simply sex.
Well, consider this case:
1) Alice can have children. She is a healthy young woman perfectly fit to have kids
2) Bob cannot. He knows that he cannot possibly have children. Alice is aware of that.
However, they both marry. Now, from the point of view of God's "design", Alice is engaging in a relationship that will bring no fruits, and she is perfectly aware of that. So, I don't see a big difference with a gay that does the same, at least for what concerns engaging in a relationship known to give no (carbon based) fruits.
So, why doesn't the church condemn Alice, too?
Assuming, of course, that it doesn't condemn her. After seeing the church excommunicate doctors who performed abortion on a 9 year old raped child, the sky is the limit or what the church can do, so to speak.
Ciao
- viole
Because knowledge of this does not change the nature of the act, a defect in being able to produce does not change the moral object. People who are both infertile are able to marry even if they do not know this. But the act is intrinsically different in the other case and has a separate moral object. This is why NFP is allowed but condoms and other contraceptive methods are not, for the act must remain the same even if particular individuals for known or unknown reasons are not able to have the produce of the act. At least in this view, my view, and that it is not condemned explicitly (as in it is explicitly not condemned and is in Canon Law declared, known infertility, to not be an impediment to marriage), this would be the reason.