Homosexuality and the Church

[standing_alone]

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.

The same thing can be said about heterosexual sex and any sex. And they aren't that similar when one is consent between an adult and a child and the other is between consenting adults. Sure, all sex is similar that it is sex, but the party's involved are different. I am apprehensive about sexual relations between an adult and a child that isn't mature enough to make the best decisions.

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.

As can be said about heterosexuality.

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?

If I wasn't so p***** off right now because I'm tired of refuting these arguments in every single debate regarding homosexuality, I would go through your argument to show how ridiculous it is. To sum it up - heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage would be between to consenting adults. Polygamous marriage would not be. And if homosexual marriage is going to cause all these problems - why should we even allow heterosexual marriage - I mean, since the heterosexuals are allowed to marry, the homosexuals want to be able to marry - so really, heterosexual marriage is causing everyone to want to change the "definition of marriage."

 

[Feathers in Hair]

*holds up a sign saying 'detour'*

Hey, guys! I know that this is a frustrating topic (for all groups) and would hate to see it weighing people down. Please know that we've got the discussion area and many others that aren't focused on this subject. I know I'm not even in the heart of the debate, and I could see how it would be upsetting.

Just wanted to give an 'official' cooling off time so that people could regroup!

 

[Pah]

Trumped how?

American law is a higher authority than any church law.

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.

Well, do join my debate. I would welcome your engagement.

We know that God does not speak with one voice. He has separate words for Jew and Muslim and Christian. Whithin Christianity, God speaks to hundreds of denominations and branches within them. If God spoke with one voice there would be no Christian opposing you. It seems there is more disagreeing than in concert.

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

John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe - read it. Note the references. Read the appendices which have the service and prayers for the blessing of marriage to same-sexed couples some in both the original language and translated to English. Read the list of 62 documents and their location that containing the ceremonies. It is easy to correct your ignorance.​

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

The same thing can be said about heterosexual sex and any sex. And they aren't that similar when one is consent between an adult and a child and the other is between consenting adults. Sure, all sex is similar that it is sex, but the party's involved are different. I am apprehensive about sexual relations between an adult and a child that isn't mature enough to make the best decisions.

When is a child mature enough to make sexual decisions, out of curiosity?

As can be said about heterosexuality.

Of couse..which is why the arguments are invalid because they don't prove anything...whether or not you are born with some attraction one way or the other doesn't validate that attraction.

If I wasn't so p***** off right now because I'm tired of refuting these arguments in every single debate regarding homosexuality, I would go through your argument to show how ridiculous it is. To sum it up - heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage would be between to consenting adults. Polygamous marriage would not be.

And why can marraige only be between two consenting adults? Why can't it be three, four, or five? If you say, "Because the definition of marriage is a union between two people", then I would simply respond, no, the definition of marraige is a union between one man and one woman...yet you wish to change the man/woman part to accomodate homosexuals, so why not change the number of individuals to accomodate polygamists? There's no reason to do one without the other.

And if homosexual marriage is going to cause all these problems - why should we even allow heterosexual marriage - I mean, since the heterosexuals are allowed to marry, the homosexuals want to be able to marry - so really, heterosexual marriage is causing everyone to want to change the "definition of marriage."

Yeah, and laws against illegal drugs make druggies to want to change laws prohibiting their drug of choice....but does that mean that the drug-free people who want the prohibition of drugs are causing all the problems? That's a ridiculous argument.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[standing_alone]

FerventGodSeeker,

It's been nice debating, but I since your arguments just get more ridiculous everytime (such as now bringing druggies in as a terrible comparison) and this debate is just very taxing on me, I'm done.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FerventGodSeeker,

It's been nice debating, but I since your arguments just get more ridiculous everytime (such as now bringing druggies in as a terrible comparison) and this debate is just very taxing on me, I'm done.

I was reduced to bringing up an analogy as unique as drug use once you actually began questioning the validity of heterosexual marriage in your unfortunate attempt to validate homosexual marriages. I respect your decision to bow out. It's been fun. God bless.
​

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I thought it was a perfectly valid point, myself, and am saddened that you fail to see it.

 

[Quiddity]

Why does this always have to happen with this topic......

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

American law is a higher authority than any church law.

Do you mean in America, or just in general?

Well, do join my debate. I would welcome your engagement.

I'm actually finishing up another debate at the moment. However, to be honest, it's not something I care to debate much more. Commenting on this single thread has been draining enough.

We know that God does not speak with one voice.

Says who?

He has separate words for Jew and Muslim and Christian.

No He doesn't. Different religions, different Gods.

Whithin Christianity, God speaks to hundreds of denominations and branches within them. If God spoke with one voice there would be no Christian opposing you. It seems there is more disagreeing than in concert

.

In Christianity today, you are sadly correct. There are literally hundreds of different denomnations all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and yet all teaching different things. This is one reason I am Catholic: the divine authority and delcarations of the Catholic Church have the power to unite Christians in doctrine and truth. There are no denominations in Catholicism, it is God's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe - read it. Note the references. Read the appendices which have the service and prayers for the blessing of marriage to same-sexed couples some in both the original language and translated to English. Read the list of 62 documents and their location that containing the ceremonies. It is easy to correct your ignorance

I'll have to look into it more, I've never heard of the book so I can't comment. However, it does strike me as odd that the Catholic Church would one moment support homosexuality, and then the next suddenly shift and oppose it as the Church does now. If you're claiming that the Church at one time sanctioned homosexual marraiges, then when did they begin opposing them?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I thought it was a perfectly valid point, myself, and am saddened that you fail to see it.

You thought it was a perfectly valid point, that in attempting to justify homosexual unions, standing was actually reduced to questioning the validity of heterosexual ones? Heterosexuals are not the ones to blame for homosexuals wanting to change the laws for marraige, just as it is not the fault of those who are drug-free that druggies want to change drug laws.

FerventGodSeeker
​

 

[Quiddity]

John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe - read it. Note the references. Read the appendices which have the service and prayers for the blessing of marriage to same-sexed couples some in both the original language and translated to English. Read the list of 62 documents and their location that containing the ceremonies. It is easy to correct your ignorance.

I want to correct it too.
What specifically is he claiming the Catholic Church taught? What was new? What changed?
Or is this going to be another rabbit trail leading to nothing official?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

You thought it was a perfectly valid point, that in attempting to justify homosexual unions, standing was actually reduced to questioning the validity of heterosexual ones? Heterosexuals are not the ones to blame for homosexuals wanting to change the laws for marraige, just as it is not the fault of those who are drug-free that druggies want to change drug laws.

FerventGodSeeker
​

I thought it was a valid point to question the validity of heterosexual unions when someone else is questioning the validity of homosexual unions. I'm not quite sure where 'blame' comes into it, but if someone were to question whether or not I had the right to marry whom I loved, then I would feel it perfectly acceptable to question whether or not they had a right to marry whom they loved. I also think it's purposelessly inflammatory to compare homosexuality to drug use.

However, this thread was started (as far as I'm reading it) on the basis of whether or not the Christian church should acknowledge people who happen to be homosexual as worthwhile people who are equally worthy of Christ's love. As I am no longer a Christian, I do not feel that anything I have to say about the matter is worthwhile. I do feel, however, that there are people that are discussing this issue in a manner that's reminding me of why I'm no longer a Christian. (Please note that it's the manner, not the words or intent, that are reminding me of this.)

 

[jeffrey]

Well said, Feathers. My wife and I both refuse to be classed as Christians anymore because of the "I'm right, your wrong, I know God, you don't" attitude alot of Christians have. God is logical. The bible is not. Man wrote the bible, not God. Common sense is the least common of the senses.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

While I respect that, Jeffrey, I wasn't meaning to make a judgement call on any group. (Or, if I did, that wasn't my intent.) I think that a certain mentality is the same with some people, no matter what their religion (or if they even have a religion) and wouldn't want to infer that anyone's path might be the cause of that line of thinking.

 

[jeffrey]

There are some Great Christians on this forum. But there are also some very narrow-minded ones also. The churches my wife and I attended where full of love.... All show. Once you say something they disagree with, the love goes and it's time to talk about you behind your back. But this is sort of off topic, so I'll shut up... *End of rant*

 

[Pah]

I want to correct it too.
What specifically is he claiming the Catholic Church taught? What was new? What changed?
Or is this going to be another rabbit trail leading to nothing official?

It is not what was being taught so much as it is what was practised.

While the Church may be considered the hierarchy and organizational structure and their edicts, the Church is primarily the members, in my opinion. When Church members take contraceptives and have abortions, it is not God speaking with one voice. When there is corruption in the clergy, God's voice is rendered into parts. We're not speaking of the "real" voice of God but of what men say is the voice of God. When dogma and creed differ historically and between other denominations, there is no certainty at any time it is the true voice of God.

It is not derogatory when I say the faithful hear differing voices.

As others recognize such things as abortion, (a close family member was refered to an abotionist by our cleric) homosexuality has a place not only in society where it is matter of equailty but within the nave.

 

[Jerrell]

Many times the sick dont seeka doctor. They ignore the Word given by the doctor. and go on their way. That is the problem here today. It is sad these "christians" wont take the Word of God for what it is. You are reprobate, shameful, and are not fit to represent Jesus. You ought to be shame of yourself, doing such thigns and not letting go of it.

 

[Mike182]

Many times the sick dont seeka doctor. They ignore the Word given by the doctor. and go on their way. That is the problem here today. It is sad these "christians" wont take the Word of God for what it is. You are reprobate, shameful, and are not fit to represent Jesus. You ought to be shame of yourself, doing such thigns and not letting go of it.

im sorry, who is this aimed at? not that it matters, i would say that your judgemental attitude is appauling for a christian, but im not gonna say it, because i don't judge.

take care of yourself, and remember, jesus loves you! :hugs:
mike

 

[Mister_T]

Many times the sick dont seeka doctor. They ignore the Word given by the doctor. and go on their way. That is the problem here today. It is sad these "christians" wont take the Word of God for what it is. You are reprobate, shameful, and are not fit to represent Jesus. You ought to be shame of yourself, doing such thigns and not letting go of it.

None of us are fit to represent Jesus. Especially those who practice the art of Pharisee....which you seem to have acquired a black belt in. Shame indeed.

 

[SunMessenger]

[SIZE=+0]Jesus, bringer and uniter of all life we need You. Heal the people Jesus from all disagreement and turmoil cast upon them by the imperfections of the flesh. Jesus ease our souls and touch each and everyone with the power of the Holy Spirit. Please allow for us to see where the haze is thick so that we may not stumble and fall. Love us Jesus despite all our imperfections as I know You do. Give us the wisdom to know the differences and the power of the Holy Spirit to enforce our quiet contentment. Thank You Jesus for I know it is done. Amen... [/SIZE]