Homosexuality and the Church

[FerventGodSeeker]

The "on-topic" relationship to this thread is that the church has no standing in law. Sin has no standing in law. And morality is not unique to the church.

The authority in this country is not the church or any of it's and other sects or cults.

Now doesn't THAT have bearing on the thread?

Not particularly, as again, the title of the thread is "Homosexuality and the Church". We've been disucssing as you know, the Scriptural, Christian reasons to oppose or not oppose homosexuality. What is or is not law has not been a major source of discussion, if hardly at all. We're not talking about what or should not be US law, but what is acceptable Scripturally and in the Church.

FerventGodSeeker
​

 

[pdoel]

This question might present a problem for a Christian who was ok with pre-marital sex or divorce, but I for one support neither, and therefore I don't think I am "ignoring" any sin. I am confused, however, how you could accuse those against homosexuality of ignoring sin and not taking action on one hand, and yet on the other hand complaining when we do take actions and claiming we shouldn't judge? What would like us to do?

Ahhh. See, your post proves my point. What have you done to put a stop to pre-marital sex or divorce? Have you worked with your Church to deny the marriage between a couple where either partner had been married/divorced? Have you ever sent letters to your government officials begging them to outlaw divorce? Even if you are against such actions, by doing nothing, you are allowing them to continue. Using the excuse, "What would you like us to do" isn't going to fly. It didn't work for those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it won't work for you.

As for your comment about me complaining of those who talk against homosexuality, but also complaining about those who don't take action against divorce. I'm simply pointing out some hypocracy. People love to use the Bible when it fits their needs. However, they are just as willing to ignore it when it does not. The comparison between homosexuality and divorce is a perfect example. People are very outspoken against homosexuality. They feel that the Bible tells us it is wrong. They feel God will condemn them if they accept it or allow something such as gay marriage to come to be, and will recite the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as their proof. However, the same people sit idly by and do absolutely nothing to put an end to many other sins such as pre-marital sex or divorce. People pick and chose what they want to believe in the Bible.

I find that incredibly hypocrital. It's very much that "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that really irks me.

 

[evearael]

Show me ANY verse in the bible where CONSENTUAL homosexual sex is illustrated... Every time it is referenced it is referring to homosexual RAPE, so that naturally begs the question as to whether the original prohibition refers to homosexual RAPE.

 

[standing_alone]

Pedofilia is not always rape, I hope you know. Consensual sex between adults and minors does happen. As for incest between two adults, the comparison is even more obvious, as that is, just like homosexuality, a case of two consenting people in a sexual relationship.

Way to walk around my question asking how homosexuality is similar to child rape.

More often than not, pedofilia is not consentual between the pedofile and the child. And also, yes, there is consentual sex between adults and minors - but usually those minors are sexually mature - say a twenty year-old having sex with a seventeen year-old consentually. I'm not aware of any instances where a twenty year-old man and seven year-old child had consentual sex.

Also, incest also is not always consentual. Incest can be a result of sexual abuse (child rape, pedofilia, ect.)

I feel comfortable saying that in the vast majority of cases, homosexual sex is between consenting adults.

 

[evearael]

Pedofilia is not always rape, I hope you know. Consensual sex between adults and minors does happen.

I sincerely pray you refer to a 17 year old and an 19 year old.

 

[Mister_T]

Ahhh. See, your post proves my point. What have you done to put a stop to pre-marital sex or divorce? Have you worked with your Church to deny the marriage between a couple where either partner had been married/divorced? Have you ever sent letters to your government officials begging them to outlaw divorce? Even if you are against such actions, by doing nothing, you are allowing them to continue. Using the excuse, "What would you like us to do" isn't going to fly. It didn't work for those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it won't work for you.

As for your comment about me complaining of those who talk against homosexuality, but also complaining about those who don't take action against divorce. I'm simply pointing out some hypocracy. People love to use the Bible when it fits their needs. However, they are just as willing to ignore it when it does not. The comparison between homosexuality and divorce is a perfect example. People are very outspoken against homosexuality. They feel that the Bible tells us it is wrong. They feel God will condemn them if they accept it or allow something such as gay marriage to come to be, and will recite the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as their proof. However, the same people sit idly by and do absolutely nothing to put an end to many other sins such as pre-marital sex or divorce. People pick and chose what they want to believe in the Bible.

I find that incredibly hypocrital. It's very much that "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that really irks me.

Booya! :clap

 

[SunMessenger]

[SIZE=+0]Would a Mother disown a child because he/she is imperfect in some way. If we easily refer to each other as brothers and sisters, would we disown a sibling because they were imperfect in some way. I should hope not. The Lord is our Father and Loves All His Children. He disowns none. It is the children that stray and must find their way Home. May I be so forward as to ask what defines perfection ? I am sure the definitions will vary. Thats OK . We are suppose to be different from one another. It makes one of us no more or less in the Eyes Of The Father. Sin is not a person. Sin is a term used to define an act which hurts our Lord because we perpetrated it knowing in our heart of hearts it was wrong. It has no level of acceptance measured one against the other. It is our conscience that will open our minds to know if something is wrong. It is our conscience that will guide us to forgiveness of others before our sins could ever be forgiven. What is the greatest atrocity? The Thief or the Murderer ? Is it more sinful to kill many than it is to kill one? Perplexing isnt it ? If you let your conscience be your guide all will be decided easily . It is that conscience that is the nervous system of our soul. As religious people need we label each other as monsters or angels ? It is in the labeling of one another where the sinner derives most sustenance. Thank You ...[/SIZE]

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Ahhh. See, your post proves my point. What have you done to put a stop to pre-marital sex or divorce? Have you worked with your Church to deny the marriage between a couple where either partner had been married/divorced?

I haven't needed to. The Catholic Church has always stood against divorce and re-marriage.

Have you ever sent letters to your government officials begging them to outlaw divorce?

No, although do you really think that sending a letter is going to change any laws? Politicians receive dozens of pieces of mail daily.

Even if you are against such actions, by doing nothing, you are allowing them to continue.

I don't do nothing. I vocalize my opinion, first of all, and secondly, as it is a democratic society, I go to the polls and vote, which includes voting against homosexual unions. I'm sorry that I don't go burn down gay people's houses or beat them to a pulp...I do believe in civility and common decency.

Using the excuse, "What would you like us to do" isn't going to fly. It didn't work for those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it won't work for you.

When I said, "What would you like us to do?" it was not an excuse, it was a question based on the contradiction in your views. When we do nothing, you accuse us, and when we do something and oppose homosexuality, you oppose our actions. So which is it, should we do something or not?

As for your comment about me complaining of those who talk against homosexuality, but also complaining about those who don't take action against divorce. I'm simply pointing out some hypocracy.

The hypocrisy seems to be coming from you, as you oppose us whether we act or not.

People love to use the Bible when it fits their needs. However, they are just as willing to ignore it when it does not.

Precisely why it boggles my mind that so many people, especially Christians, can read the plain verses in the Bible that speak out against homosexuality, and yet ignore them or explain them away.

The comparison between homosexuality and divorce is a perfect example. People are very outspoken against homosexuality. They feel that the Bible tells us it is wrong. They feel God will condemn them if they accept it or allow something such as gay marriage to come to be, and will recite the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as their proof. However, the same people sit idly by and do absolutely nothing to put an end to many other sins such as pre-marital sex or divorce. People pick and chose what they want to believe in the Bible.

Just to clarify, I don't feel God will condemn me for the existence or prevalence of homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah were completely depraved of all morality. While I see America falling into a trend of acceptance of sin and of immorality, I don't think we're totally corrupt. As for pre-marital sex and divorce, as I said, the Catholic Church stands opposed to both of them, and typically excommunicates her members who get divorces. Pre-marital sex is a bit tricky because it can't really be delegated against publicly, as there is no public evidence of it, unless one were to demand a physical examination of all unmarried members, which I think is a little extreme. It is, however, considered a sin.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I sincerely pray you refer to a 17 year old and an 19 year old.

Not always, the age gap can be much wider.

FerventGodSeeker
​

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Way to walk around my question asking how homosexuality is similar to child rape.

I didn't walk around your question at all, I clarified it. I wasn't talking about child rape, I referred to pedofilia, which can be expressed consentually.

More often than not, pedofilia is not consentual between the pedofile and the child. And also, yes, there is consentual sex between adults and minors - but usually those minors are sexually mature - say a twenty year-old having sex with a seventeen year-old consentually. I'm not aware of any instances where a twenty year-old man and seven year-old child had consentual sex.

Even if the majority of cases of pedofilia were not consensual, that still leaves us with the ones that are. Do you oppose those? Remember, these people were born with their attractions, they can't help or change how they feel.

Also, incest also is not always consentual. Incest can be a result of sexual abuse (child rape, pedofilia, ect.)

Can be, but isn't always. I would say that a good number of incest cases between two adults is consensual. While there may have been factors that led up to it (just as there may be external factors that lead to homosexual behavior), the actual acts themselves are consensual.

I feel comfortable saying that in the vast majority of cases, homosexual sex is between consenting adults.

As are the vast majority of cases of polygamy...but you don't support that, do you?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[jeffrey]

The difference being is homosexuality between consenting adults harms no one. Child rape does. Which biblical figure's daughters slept with him to become pregnant? Abraham? On my phone, can't look it up. But that's cool, eh? But marriage between 2 people of the same sex you would try to deny. The odd thing is, the Catholic church I used to attend had no problem with gays marrying.

 

[barnabus]

But why should Christianity condone homosexuality?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

The difference being is homosexuality between consenting adults harms no one. Child rape does.

Incest and polygamy don't hurt anyone else either...do you support them?

Which biblical figure's daughters slept with him to become pregnant? Abraham? On my phone, can't look it up. But that's cool, eh? But marriage between 2 people of the same sex you would try to deny. The odd thing is, the Catholic church I used to attend had no problem with gays marrying

It was Lot's daughters who ghot him drunk and slept with him to get pregnant. However, I've never heard a Christian say "that's cool" to that occurrence, nor does the Bible or Church say it...Didn't I just call incest disgusting a few posts ago? The fact that a story is recorded in the Bible does not mean the actions of those people were commanded by God. The Bible is filled with examples of people who did sinful things. So the fact that a story was recorded as a historical event in the Bible does not mean it was acceptable.
Unfortunately, there is a modern liberal strain in Catholicism which may be tolerant of homosexuality in their parishes. However, the offical teaching of the Catholic Church is that homosexuality is a sin, and is not acceptable.

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as a grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2357

 

[Pah]

But why should Christianity condone homosexuality?

Because it has in the past even to the point of having same-sex marriage ceremonies.

 

[Pah]

Not particularly, as again, the title of the thread is "Homosexuality and the Church". We've been disucssing as you know, the Scriptural, Christian reasons to oppose or not oppose homosexuality. What is or is not law has not been a major source of discussion, if hardly at all. We're not talking about what or should not be US law, but what is acceptable Scripturally and in the Church.

FerventGodSeeker
​

You fail to realize that the church is trumped by American law. The subject is not confined to scripture although that is your only argument. It is the total relationship of gayness to the church. You should read about the mediaeval church approach to gay marriage for yet another aspect of the topic.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

You fail to realize that the church is trumped by American law.

Trumped how?

The subject is not confined to scripture although that is your only argument. It is the total relationship of gayness to the church.

I could argue against homosexuality in a number of ways, but confined my arguments to Scripture because that is something that Christianity in general can agree on as a source of authority. There are also biological/medical reasons to oppose it, societal reasons to oppose it, historical reasons to oppose it, and Christian reasons to oppose it in terms of Church teaching and Tradition. However, I really don't feel like writing all that out, so I've simply been commenting on things as they come up.

You should read about the mediaeval church approach to gay marriage for yet another aspect of the topic

The Medieval Church opposed homosexuality, sir...The Catholic Church has opposed it for 2,000 years.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[standing_alone]

Even if the majority of cases of pedofilia were not consensual, that still leaves us with the ones that are. Do you oppose those?

Depends on the age of the younger "partner." Also, there are age of consent laws. A younger person isn't as well fit for making decision as two adults are. The majority of homosexual sex is between consenting adults. Therefore, your comparison of homosexuality to pedofilia is not a good one.

Can be, but isn't always. I would say that a good number of incest cases between two adults is consensual.

Can you prove to me, besides that incest can be consensual, why homosexuality is like incest (without quoting the Bible - I want it in your own words).

As are the vast majority of cases of polygamy...but you don't support that, do you?

Now you're bringing polygamy into this? Now you're really getting ridiculous. We're talking about homosexual sex between two consenting adults, nothing more. Why don't we try to stay on topic and discuss homosexuality only - not trying to appeal to emotions with your nonsense arguments.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Depends on the age of the younger "partner." Also, there are age of consent laws. A younger person isn't as well fit for making decision as two adults are. The majority of homosexual sex is between consenting adults. Therefore, your comparison of homosexuality to pedofilia is not a good one.

Both types of intercourse sometimes are and sometimes are not performed by two consenting people. Thus, they are at least in some ways obviously similar.

Can you prove to me, besides that incest can be consensual, why homosexuality is like incest (without quoting the Bible - I want it in your own words).

As I also said, both are motivated by feelings that may or may not be caused genetically and may or may not be unchangeable. Those who support homosexuality often claim that homosexuals are born as homosexuals based on something in their genetic make-up, and that they cannot change the way they feel. Both arguments could be used to support incestuous atttractions.

Now you're bringing polygamy into this? Now you're really getting ridiculous. We're talking about homosexual sex between two consenting adults, nothing more. Why don't we try to stay on topic and discuss homosexuality only - not trying to appeal to emotions with your nonsense arguments.

Why confine sex or marraige to two people? You're obviously willing to change the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "one man and one man" or "one woman and one woman", so why not "two men and one woman", or "one man and two women"? Again, the rationalities you supply to justify homosexuality can be applied to a number of other sexual/marital perversions. There's no reason to single out homosexuality among such groups (or at least no reason you have yet provided). If those who support homosexuality want to constantly preach about "love" and "tolerance", then let's not be selective: I expect you to support the rights of brothers and sisters to marry each other, as well as the rights of those who happen to love more than one person to marry each other--after all, they can't help how they feel, can they?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Quiddity]

Right on Fervent....:jam:

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Please see the threads involving the seemingly invariable 'homosexual marriage-> polygamy-> pedophila-> bestiality' progression of debate for why it tends to turn threads into a useless flame war.