Homosexuality

[EnemyPartyII]

is that there is a concerted effort to change the landscape of the nuclear family in America,

nonsense.

Homosexual people have NO problem with people who want to live in nuclear families living in nuclear families. None at all, zero, zip, zilch.

The whole "the evil homosexual conspirators are coming to get you" is scare mongering of the worst ilk.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

2) There are plenty of old and new testament verses that identify the homosexual act as sinful.

Aside from the Levitical laws? no there arent.

 

[Gusoceros]

nonsense.

Homosexual people have NO problem with people who want to live in nuclear families living in nuclear families. None at all, zero, zip, zilch.

The whole "the evil homosexual conspirators are coming to get you" is scare mongering of the worst ilk.

It doesnt take many to drive an agenda- it takes a few to lead it, and then after that, it is just a matter of getting agreement on key points. This shows it is happening, and gaining ground.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

• A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE
  By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:
  
  · Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[53]
  
  · Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile speaks approvingly of those who advocate replacing monogamy with sexually "open" relationships:
  
  For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[54]
  · The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[55]
  
  Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:
  
  In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[56]

G

 

[Gusoceros]

Aside from the Levitical laws? no there arent.

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

 

[StTherese]

i meant down here on earth.
because i have a right to. and i can't stand watching people condemen something or someone that they have no right to if they've never gone through it themselves. how about living up to that tilte you have there about not judgin people?

it's not that they say it. it's how they say it and the condemnation that tends to go along with it.

I never condemned anyone or judged anyone for that matter...only stating that homosexual acts are sinful. (which is what this thread is about) I never said it was a sin to have the inclination to be homosexual. But, as is revealed to us through the Church...


2357 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 acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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 complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You should also read this:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
​

12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.
It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."
It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

18. The Lord Jesus promised, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord.


Also this:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything.

OK, let me break it down for you...

Leviticus says homosexuality is abomination. It also says women wearing men's clothes is abomination and shellfish, and 4 footed birds are an abomination. So either, homosexuality is no longer a sin under Levitical law, OR people should get just as worked up about women wearing jeans as they do about men sleeping with men

Paul CAN be interpreted as speaking against homosexuality, depending on the translation you use.

However, Paul ALSO says it is better for people not to get married too, so if yer married, and citing Paul at me as an argument against homosexuality, well, sorry, but here comes the hypocracy train again...

Not to mention, of course, that Paul was writing AFTER Jesus' time, could not referdirectly to Jesus for clarification, and explicitely states that while he believes he is correct in his writings, it is ONLY his opinion, so to imbue Paul's writings with Deistic infallibility has always, to me at least, rather resembled idolatry. But tangent's aside, Paul doesn't have the authority to declare things a sin that aren't previously sinful in the Bible, so, that leaves you with Leviticus, which you yourself said we don't have to folow anymore.

So, the upshot is, homosexuality isn't sinful.

 

[angelmom01]

Marriage is not JUST for procreation or Paul wouldn’t have said:

1Co 7:2-7 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

He also said it was not a commandment, but said “by permission”, as Paul himself was not married (in the flesh).

The marriage relationship, as Paul pointed out, was a union created and blessed by God to show the relationship between CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

It is through this PHYSICAL relationship that we can see the SPIRITUAL message that was intended. Do all have to be married to see it? Do all have to be heterosexual to see it?

WE are all joined together in ONE BODY through ONE SPIRIT, becoming THE BRIDE (wife) of Christ (bridegroom/husband). That means that even MEN are considered “wives” and “the woman” (spiritually speaking) TO GOD.

It is all about the relationship between GOD and MAN(KIND). Not our physical relationships with one another (though these SPIRITUAL truths can be seen in the PHYSICAL shadows/types).

So even if homosexuality is a sin (to me there are issues concerning some of the Greek words that are translated as “homosexual” or the like) it is no different from ANY other sin. ALL who sin (even the fearful and ALL LIARS) will have THEIR PART in the lake of fire.

We CANNOT overcome our sins. ONLY HE CAN.

angelmom

 

[IamAdopted]

God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very act. For it is an abomination in Gods eyes.. Because from the beginning God created them Male and female..This was Gods plan this was His intent..That is why we have the different shaped bodies.. After the fall is when the enemy perverted everything that God had intended.. This was not Gods plan.. This didn't come from God.. Jesus came to bring us back to the Father. Not accept the the perversion. For from the beginning God made them male and female..This is the union that God had created. Men in their fallen nature has perverted this union.. When we come to Christ we are to turn from our sin and turn unto Him..Letting go of our own thoughts of right and wrong and taking on His thoughts of right and wrong.. Making Him Lord...

 

[Nadiine]

Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything.

Paul's MEANDERING RANTS????? Good grief! You sure don't mind his teachings on salvation by GRACE do you?

OK, let me break it down for you...

Let me break it down for YOU:

Leviticus says homosexuality is abomination. It also says women wearing men's clothes is abomination and shellfish, and 4 footed birds are an abomination. So either, homosexuality is no longer a sin under Levitical law, OR people should get just as worked up about women wearing jeans as they do about men sleeping with men

MORAL LAWS from the Torah continue to stand today. The other laws you quote there are from the civil & ceremonial laws of the Torah - there are 3 sections of the law/categories if you will.
Worship/religious/sacrificial, & civil laws (govt. civil society laws) & Moral.
Moral law was law before the OT Torah was written. Murder by Cain was SIN before the law came. So was all the sin of the people of Sodom & Gomorrah & in Noah's days before the flood (God judged them on their immorality).
So those STAND today. So when Paul "rants" against homosexuality, he's REITERATING THE MORAL LAWS of the OT that are still in effect.
As are the lists of other moral laws. But you don't see the Sacrifical laws *incl. Sabbath observance* or any of the CIVIL laws they followed that day (on farming, animal treatment, etc.).

Paul CAN be interpreted as speaking against homosexuality, depending on the translation you use.

He WAS speaking agaisnt homosexality. Romans 1:18-32 cannot be any clearer than it is in its direct definition & detail of a man with man & woman with woman "exchanging the NATURAL function" & use.

Not to mention, of course, that Paul was writing AFTER Jesus' time, could not referdirectly to Jesus for clarification, and explicitely states that while he believes he is correct in his writings, it is ONLY his opinion

JESUS Himself defined lawful marriage in God's eyes:

Mat 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall be one flesh?​

Gen 2:23-24 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. ​

Notice there's NO room given for man and man? Woman with woman? No HE and HE? No She and her?
JESUS defined lawful sexual unions, Paul merely reiterated the standard.
Always remember, HOMOSEXUALITY WAS NOT AN ISSUE OF THEIR DAY in Israel! Homosexuality was NOT a typical lifestyle and it wasn't hotly contested as it is today here.

So, the upshot is, homosexuality isn't sinful.

The upshot is, homosexuality IS SINFUL - it's unlawful union in the eyes of GOD because God made the prototype at the beginning of creation: male and female, (and HE SAYS) FOR that very reason, they are to become one union. Not 2 men, not 2 women.

By the way, maybe you can show me in the Bible where all the many Gay examples of Christians & OT saints that were GAY who led the people??? If it was SO lawful & common, there will SURELY be many Godly gay examples
of elders, shepherds, priests, prophets & teachers in our bible that display God's pleasure with homosexuality.

I'll wait for your verse examples for us.

 

[IamAdopted]

Originally Posted by EnemyPartyII
Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything.

And by who's authority do you believe that He does this? His own or by Gods authority?

 

[UberLutheran]

I never condemned anyone or judged anyone for that matter...only stating that homosexual acts are sinful. (which is what this thread is about) I never said it was a sin to have the inclination to be homosexual. But, as is revealed to us through the Church...

As a practicing Lutheran, why should I care what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

The teachings of the RCC do not apply to Lutherans (or any other non Roman-Catholics).

 

[Celticflower]

Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything.

Funniest thing I've read all day.




Also the most inflammatory.

 

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by EnemyPartyII
Ah. Paul's meandering rants against, well, everything.

Funniest thing I've read all day.


Also the most inflammatory.

& Probly one of the most telling

 

[Polycarp1]

God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very act. For it is an abomination in Gods eyes.. Because from the beginning God created them Male and female..This was Gods plan this was His intent..That is why we have the different shaped bodies.. After the fall is when the enemy perverted everything that God had intended.. This was not Gods plan.. This didn't come from God.. Jesus came to bring us back to the Father. Not accept the the perversion. For from the beginning God made them male and female..This is the union that God had created. Men in their fallen nature has perverted this union.. When we come to Christ we are to turn from our sin and turn unto Him..Letting go of our own thoughts of right and wrong and taking on His thoughts of right and wrong.. Making Him Lord...

I've never understood why supposedly "Bible-believing" Christians insist on perpetuating this anti-Scriptural bit of teaching. The "sin of Sodom" for which it was destroyed is identified clearly in the Bible (Ezekiel 16:49, among other places) and it is not homosexuality.

Further, the Family Research Council stands convicted of bearing false witness against its fellow man in any number of issues -- see about half the "gay threads" on CF for examples. I would take their word on something to about the extent I'd believe something Osama bin Laden said.

 

[Nadiine]

I've never understood why supposedly "Bible-believing" Christians insist on perpetuating this anti-Scriptural bit of teaching. The "sin of Sodom" for which it was destroyed is identified clearly in the Bible (Ezekiel 16:49, among other places) and it is not homosexuality.

1st off, why equate "supposedly Christian" with people who attach homosexuliaty w/ Sodom?
Does that somehow cause their Christianity to be in some doubt?? Interestingly, liberals get ANGRY at us for saying the same of liberals on the opposite side of the coin.
Interesting comment.

Anyways, please go back & read the account of Sodom & Gom. in Genesis 13. You should take notice that the ONLY SIN it's exposing (purposely) IS homosexuality & how collectively brazen they are in their evil... to go to a man's house & beat on the door; threatening the man that he has to hand over his male guests (angels - unbeknownst to them) so they can have sex with them!!

That CANNOT be ignored even when taking Ezekiel 16 into consideration. Why are you ruling OUT homsexulality when the original account in Genesis is specifically exposing THIS SIN?
That's the bigger mistake imo.

Let's not IGNORE Genesis 13 which purposely & specifically points to this sin for a reason.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very act

Um, wrong. But hey, feel free to try to prove me mistaken.

And by who's authority do you believe that He does this? His own or by Gods authority?

Well his own, obviously. How could he possibly be writing with God's authority AFTER the time of prophets and AFTER the time of Christ's incarnation?

Especially since he actually states that the opinions are expressed are his own.

 

[intricatic]

Well his own, obviously. How could he possibly be writing with God's authority AFTER the time of prophets and AFTER the time of Christ's incarnation?

I would assume with the same authority as the apostles spoke with after the resurrection.

But tell me, where does it say the time of the prophets ended? Was Christ the final arbiter of God's authority on Earth?

 

[Myriah]

Um, wrong. But hey, feel free to try to prove me mistaken.

Well his own, obviously. How could he possibly be writing with God's authority AFTER the time of prophets and AFTER the time of Christ's incarnation?

Especially since he actually states that the opinions are expressed are his own.

Just wanted to correct a couple of things about Paul and his writings.

First of all, read Romans 14, and then tell me Paul disapproves of everything. And, I think that is a ridiculous statement. Care to debate Paul sometimes EnemyPartyII?

And secondly, Paul only says "he writes this" in one or two minor places. When Paul writes that, that does not mean all his epistles. No, when Paul writes that it's in regards to a few sentences only. Please re-read the epistles before slandering Paul.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Paul's MEANDERING RANTS????? Good grief! You sure don't mind his teachings on salvation by GRACE do you?

Paul is interesting as a comentator. Some of his writings have merit, sure. But to assume that they are somehow inerrent is unsupported. Paul was human, with human biases and prejudices. To accept his writings without question is flawed.

We are CHRISTians, not PAULians.

The other laws you quote there are from the civil & ceremonial laws of the Torah - there are 3 sections of the law/categories if you will.

really? well, despite asking about a zillion times, I am yet to have anyone explain to me how anyone knows which laws can be considered cultural and which ones can be considered moral. It really does rather sound like an exercise in excusing the practice of picking and choosing the bits of Leviticus one wishes to obey. For me, I'll take the "all or none" approach... we either enforce Levitical law without exception
(laws written to pertain to a bronze age, semi-nomadic desert culture) OR accept that Levitical law is not relevant across the board in an urbanised Western society, and discard the lot.

Picking and choosing the bits that happen to fall in line with the reader's pre-concieved ideas of morality doesn't quite seem to be in the spirit of the Bible, does it?

He WAS speaking agaisnt homosexality. Romans 1:18-32 cannot be any clearer than it is in its direct definition & detail of a man with man & woman with woman "exchanging the NATURAL function" & use.

Indeed? in which translation?

Notice there's NO room given for man and man? Woman with woman?

There's no "room" in Jesus teaching for internet usage, working single mothers, IVF programs and universal healthcare either. Does that mean he was against them? Should we just abandon any and all practices that Jesus did not explicitly condone "just to be safe"?

Always remember, HOMOSEXUALITY WAS NOT AN ISSUE OF THEIR DAY in Israel!

Gee, could THAT be why Jesus didn't address it specifically? Because the issue simply was never raised in the presence of his biographers?

The upshot is, homosexuality IS SINFUL

Prove it and I'll reform my wicked ways at once. But your proof will have to be internally consistent...

it's unlawful union in the eyes of GOD because God made the prototype at the beginning of creation: male and female, (and HE SAYS) FOR that very reason, they are to become one union. Not 2 men, not 2 women.

Gee, the Bible doesn't say anything like this. I wonder where you get the idea that "He says" anything of the kind?

By the way, maybe you can show me in the Bible where all the many Gay examples of Christians & OT saints that were GAY who led the people???

Um, hate to be pedantic, but there is no such thing as an "OT saint", and whether or not any of the NT authors considered themselves "Christian" rather than "Jewish" is seriously debateable.

Still, semantics aside, Jonathon and David would be one example that springs to mind.

If it was SO lawful & common

Uh, who said it was common?

there will SURELY be many Godly gay examples
of elders, shepherds, priests, prophets & teachers in our bible that display God's pleasure with homosexuality.

your logic is flawed. There aren't many Biblical examples of women teachers or leaders, or black teachers and leaders, or Chinese teachers and leaders... that does not equate to God not approving of them...

However, if you want a really basic fundamental example of God's "pleasure" at homosexuality... look at the sermon on the mount. Lots of homosexual people fall into the categories of the blessed that Christ refers too, and uness he was misquoted, I'm unaware of anything like "Blessed are the cheesmakers, except the homosexual ones."

You seem really hung up on the "marital" aspect of this... look at Adam and Eve... were THEY married in any clearly defined sense of the word, other thgan being partners to each other? So what is different between the relationship between Adam and Eve and any monogomous homosexual couple?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

First of all, read Romans 14, and then tell me Paul disapproves of everything. And, I think that is a ridiculous statement. Care to debate Paul sometimes EnemyPartyII?

Not really. I'm not saying Paul doesn't have value in his writings, I just think they are over emphasised in theology, usually by people looking for loopholes.

And secondly, Paul only says "he writes this" in one or two minor places. When Paul writes that, that does not mean all his epistles. No, when Paul writes that it's in regards to a few sentences only. Please re-read the epistles before slandering Paul.

Sorry you consider it slander, that is NOT my intent. However, I see nothing anywhere that leads us to believe that Paul considered his writings inerent or "God Breathed". Yes, I KNOW that he says "all scriptre is good for teaching" in Timothy, I just qyestion the idea that Paul ever considered his own works as part of scripture?