Gay couple with no sex.

MikeK · Sep 1, 2015

Berean777 said:
You said gay couples. So by that partnership or let us call it sacrilege partnership, by which the verse below applies and therefore sex doesn't become the litmus test to pardon such foley. Rather that love between men and men or women and womenas you define gay couple is a sin on its own without physical action, that is, the very thought is the sin.

What business has a man living with a man if there is no lust involved. Is this love?

No it is attraction therefore lust. There is no business for man to live with another man or women to live with another women as a partnership.

Being affectionate to same sex falls under the definition of lust, no matter how you slice it.

Lust is focussed, intense sexual interest. It is certainly possible to love another human being deeply and wish to live lives together without experiencing lust. Unusual perhaps, but certainly possible.

98cwitr · Sep 1, 2015

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been cleaned. The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

If your post is missing, it is due to a violation of the above rule or because you quoted a post containing this violation.

Again, please be kind to one another, as Christ has called us to do. If you cannot remain on topic, this thread will be closed.

MOD HAT OFF

Wryetui · Sep 1, 2015

In my opinion, a gay couple like this would do for the persons more bad than good. First of all we are talking about two man, libido in man is higher than in woman and them living alone, in the same house, maybe even sleeping together will eventually lead to the inevitable, it is very hard to control the burning when you are so close to the fire. Second of all, it would be bad for their souls, imagine it, they will wish to be united, to be together sexually, they will burn desires for each other and they will get frustrated by finding those desires to be impossible to fulfill, besides that, acording to the RCC they would be doing a mortal sin by wishing it. In my opinion, that gay couple should not live together because it is way too dangerous for themselves.

Marius27 · Sep 1, 2015

Michie said:
I think the whole Jonathan and David, Naomi and Ruth theory is ridiculous really. People look at things with such an overly sexualized view anymore it is hard for them to comprehend a different time and culture. There are some pretty blatant statements in the Bible concerning homosexuality, marriage, etc. You'd think if there were exceptions to homosexuality we would had known that. I think the theory is based on wishful thinking.

The scripture certainly seems to indicate a closer relationship than just friends/family. Jesus likely refers to gays in Matthew 19, so maybe there are exceptions but people's opposition to those who are different blinds them to that possibility.

tulipbee · Sep 1, 2015

I was forced to double check my sources and found myself right from the beginning of this topic. Romans 1 is about idolatry, not homosexuality. Early on, Christians understood that Paul, in Ro-mans 1, was writing about shrine prostitution. For example, the Christian preacher Aristides, within seventy years of the apostle Paul, taught that the issue Paul addressed in Ro-mans 1 was idolatry and sexual worship of false gods. Christian apologist Justin Martyr, made the same point in the second century AD. That view is not gay revisionism.
----------
I'm not gay but must reconsider this subject fairly. This subject is related to pagan rituals. Sources are found here: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html

Sword of the Lord · Sep 1, 2015

Marius27 said:
The scripture certainly seems to indicate a closer relationship than just friends/family. Jesus likely refers to gays in Matthew 19, so maybe there are exceptions but people's opposition to those who are different blinds them to that possibility.

In no way, shape, or form does he refer to gays here. I have no idea where you are getting this horrible idea.

Sword of the Lord · Sep 1, 2015

tulipbee said:
I was forced to double check my sources and found myself right from the beginning of this topic. Romans 1 is about idolatry, not homosexuality. Early on, Christians understood that Paul, in Ro-mans 1, was writing about shrine prostitution. For example, the Christian preacher Aristides, within seventy years of the apostle Paul, taught that the issue Paul addressed in Ro-mans 1 was idolatry and sexual worship of false gods. Christian apologist Justin Martyr, made the same point in the second century AD. That view is not gay revisionism.
----------
I'm not gay but must reconsider this subject fairly without being manipulated by fringe Christians. This subject is related to pagan rituals. Sources are found here: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html

Gay Christian 101. Seems like a good, unbiased source.

Here's a Catholic reading of Romans 1

1:25-28 “[T]hey exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” These verses are for all those “Christians” out there who think homosexual behavior is not sinful or immoral. There is no mention whatsoever of pederasty or rape here, so there is no way to claim that homosexual behavior is not what’s being condemned here. And it seems that STDs were around in ancient times too, for what else could Paul be referring to with “receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error”?

https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/a-catholic-reading-of-the-book-of-romans/

tulipbee · Sep 1, 2015

Mikhael Disciple of Christ said:
Gay Christian 101. Seems like a good, unbiased source.

Here's a Catholic reading of Romans 1

1:25-28 “[T]hey exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” These verses are for all those “Christians” out there who think homosexual behavior is not sinful or immoral. There is no mention whatsoever of pederasty or rape here, so there is no way to claim that homosexual behavior is not what’s being condemned here. And it seems that STDs were around in ancient times too, for what else could Paul be referring to with “receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error”?

https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/a-catholic-reading-of-the-book-of-romans/

Now we have two good, unbiased sources. I'm 50\50 on this like I'm 50\50 on ordaining women pastors. Both arguments are good on both sides and wonder if there's a third option. Maybe when in doubt, don't make a new tradition would be a good start

MikeK · Sep 1, 2015

Wryetui said:
In my opinion, a gay couple like this would do for the persons more bad than good. First of all we are talking about two man, libido in man is higher than in woman and them living alone, in the same house, maybe even sleeping together will eventually lead to the inevitable, it is very hard to control the burning when you are so close to the fire. Second of all, it would be bad for their souls, imagine it, they will wish to be united, to be together sexually, they will burn desires for each other and they will get frustrated by finding those desires to be impossible to fulfill, besides that, acording to the RCC they would be doing a mortal sin by wishing it. In my opinion, that gay couple should not live together because it is way too dangerous for themselves.

Wishing that you could fulfill sexual desires but abstaining anyway is not a sin. In fact, I suspect persons who do so, especially when they are in their teens and early 20s when desires are strongest, recieve great graces for their fidelity to the Lord.

Michie · Sep 1, 2015

And lead is not into temptation and deliver us from evil...
-Jesus

Flee from sexual immorality.
-Paul

And many many more about not exposing ourselves to temptation and the appearance of evil.

This has nothing to do with room mates. We are discussing homosexuals that love or are attracted to one another living together.

Wryetui · Sep 1, 2015

MikeK said:
Wishing that you could fulfill sexual desires but abstaining anyway is not a sin. In fact, I suspect persons who do so, especially when they are in their teens and early 20s when desires are strongest, recieve great graces for their fidelity to the Lord.

I see, I thought mortal sin is what you do, even in your heart, that is against God but you still willingly do it. So, getting desires and lusts in your mind isn't sinful?

Michie · Sep 1, 2015

It is. There is a big difference in being in a position of temptation and resisting it. And purposely putting yourself in a position of temptation. We are not called to avoid these situations for nothing.

Our minds are not supposed to be preoccupied with temptation but God.

Purposely exposing oneself to temptation sets a dangerous platform in spiritual life. You can expose yourself to anything as a voyuer or whatever and then say I got graces for not acting on the temptation.

We are not supposed to actively seek out and expose ourselves to temptations.

There is a difference in being tempted and playing Russian roulette with our temptations.

Wryetui said:
I see, I thought mortal sin is what you do, even in your heart, that is against God but you still willingly do it. So, getting desires and lusts in your mind isn't sinful?

MikeK · Sep 1, 2015

Wryetui said:
I see, I thought mortal sin is what you do, even in your heart, that is against God but you still willingly do it. So, getting desires and lusts in your mind isn't sinful?

Listing is sinful. Desire is natural. List is distinct from mere sexual attraction or desire and includes focussed attention on our natural carnal desires and urges to fulfill them.

All of us know, by he time we become adults, which sins tempt us and which do not. Some of us can't avoid stealing so we stay out of shops. Some of us can't keep from fornicating or masturbating so we avoid those temptations.

AHH who-stole-my-name · Sep 1, 2015

MikeK said:
Listing is sinful. Desire is natural. List is distinct from mere sexual attraction or desire and includes focussed attention on our natural carnal desires and urges to fulfill them.

All of us know, by he time we become adults, which sins tempt us and which do not. Some of us can't avoid stealing so we stay out of shops. Some of us can't keep from fornicating or masturbating so we avoid those temptations.

Listing is sinful? lol Don't you just hate the autocorrect?

AHH who-stole-my-name · Sep 1, 2015

Wryetui said:
I see, I thought mortal sin is what you do, even in your heart, that is against God but you still willingly do it. So, getting desires and lusts in your mind isn't sinful?

Yes it's a sin. That's why you don't set yourself up for it.

Michie · Sep 1, 2015

Yes!

AHH who-stole-my-name said:
Listing is sinful? lol Don't you just hate the autocorrect?

MikeK · Sep 1, 2015

Maybe not sinful, but irritating. Nothing a little ballast and some judicious use of the trim tabs can't fix though.

eastcoast_bsc · Sep 1, 2015

This theme of being Gay, celibate but yet having a hot Gay roomate that you realy like had been done to death.
I do feel the deep anguish of those who have come to this point and I can understand the rationalization. I have walked these paths and down those roads.

But I assure you, that it will not be long before your doing the boom boom in the room. We are humans and we are weak. No one can sustain the kind of discipline that would be required, nor should they torture themselves.

Marius27 · Sep 2, 2015

Mikhael Disciple of Christ said:
In no way, shape, or form does he refer to gays here. I have no idea where you are getting this horrible idea.

Study the meaning and history behind Eunuchs in the Roman Empire and you'll see why.

Marius27 · Sep 2, 2015

eastcoast_bsc said:
This theme of being Gay, celibate but yet having a hot Gay roomate that you realy like had been done to death.
I do feel the deep anguish of those who have come to this point and I can understand the rationalization. I have walked these paths and down those roads.

But I assure you, that it will not be long before your doing the boom boom in the room. We are humans and we are weak. No one can sustain the kind of discipline that would be required, nor should they torture themselves.

But gays are torturing themselves without having anyone, so how is that any better?

Gay couple with no sex.

Traditionalist Catholic

Lord forgive me

IC XC NIKA

Newbie

Worker of the Hive

In need of a physician.

In need of a physician.

Worker of the Hive

Traditionalist Catholic

Well-Known Member

IC XC NIKA

Well-Known Member

Traditionalist Catholic

in accordance with Christ

in accordance with Christ

Well-Known Member

Traditionalist Catholic

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads