Question About Homosexuality

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='20 October 2009 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1256080970' post='1988669']
With the current Anglican/Catholic news I have been having a discussion with a Liberal Anglo-Catholic friend of mine. One of the issues of separation we came on was full acceptance of LGBT people. That gay and lesbian monogamous relationships are not sinful.

Here is more of what he wrote in defense of this idea.




The exegesis is interesting here. What say you?
[/quote]
I would not dignify such propagandistic tripe with the term "exegesis."

[quote]24 Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 [b]For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.[/b] 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.[/quote](Romans 1:24-36)

Romans 1 makes it quite clear that the issue is specifically unnatural lust of both men for men and women for women, and the committing of homosexual acts.
There is nothing there (or in the other passages) about temple prostitution, economic exploitation, child abuse, etc., etc.
Nor is this passage solely about idolatry, as a number of other sins are mentioned: envy, murder, contention, fornication, etc.

Nowhere is any exception made for "monogamous relationships."

It's also unlikely, as is also claimed, that people in biblical times were unaware of of "loving" homosexual "relationships." The same sexual sins existed in biblical times as exist now, and have existed through history. What was wrong and sinful then is wrong and sinful now: homosexual sins, fornication, adultery, etc. And using the justification that homosexual sodomy is "pleasurable" is nonsense - more of the old "if it feels good, do it" croutons. Fornication and adultery may be pleasurable, but they are condemned as sinful in the Bible also.

These pro-gay "interpretations" are present-day inventions made with the specific purpose of trying to justify homosexual behavior. Seems they will try to find every sort of way to twist the text to claim that the Bible does not say what it clearly says regarding this sin.

You should also note that the Church has [i]always[/i] interpreted these passages as being against homosexuality, from the early Fathers onward, and has always taught that homosexual activity is a grievous sin.
It would be the height of absurdity to think that the Church has consistently misinterpreted these passages of Scripture, and has been wrong in her teaching on this matter for two millenia, until finally, in the 21st century, people finally got it right. Such interpretations were not made until a couple decades ago, when the push for acceptance of homosexuality began.

These "interpretations" are not even convincing from an unbiased stand-point, but are desperate attempts to twist the text to be politically-correct and justify perverted behavior.
Moral truth is not politically-correct, and does not "change with the times."

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='20 October 2009 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1256082897' post='1988694']

And the argument could be made that they mean taking advantage of young boys, not two adults. Which would mean Paul and others are speaking against the sexual abuse of young men, not the consensual adult homosexuality.
[/quote]

I am not disagreeing with your anglo-Catholic friend

[OraProMe]

I'm not going to mention what the Church teaches because I know as well as you do what the Catechism says, but:

[quote name='Socrates' date='20 October 2009 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1256088695' post='1988742']
It's also unlikely, as is also claimed, that people in biblical times were unaware of of "loving" homosexual "relationships." [/quote]

What makes you say that? How many loving and monogamous homosexual relationships do you think there were 2000 years (and further back in the OT) ago? Infact you said yourself that the bible doesn't mention monogomous homosexuals. That could be because the author made no distinction or, looking at all texts from the period, because the author didn't know about them.

Edited October 21, 2009 by OraProMe

[philothea]

AFAIK, homosexuality was considered no big deal in either Rome or Greece until Christianity became the dominant religion. (Okay, there was some social stigma based on a person's, ah, "position" in the relationship, but it was an issue of status rather than morals.)

Since early Christians wiped out societal acceptance of all homosexual behavior -- and no one denies this -- clearly they believed it was wrong. While we might not have a lot of corroborating translations of certain specific words in New Testament letters, there is no reason to think that Christianity has ever historically accepted homosexual relations.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='philothea' date='20 October 2009 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1256100651' post='1988869']
Since early Christians wiped out societal acceptance of all homosexual behavior -- and no one denies this -- clearly they believed it was wrong. While we might not have a lot of corroborating translations of certain specific words in New Testament letters, there is no reason to think that Christianity has ever historically accepted homosexual relations.
[/quote]
That's a good point. I was explaining to my apologetics class that the church doesn't make formal pronouncements on issues until there is a disagreement or some kind of heresy. When studying the history of an issue, we often have to look at the actions of the church rather than the documents.

[N/A Gone]

Socrates. Could you provide proof of the early church claiming homosexual actions are a sin? The quotes from scripturecatholic.com and catholic.com are a stretch at best. I know what the Church teaches--but why? Where does it start?

[Veritas]

+

Let's not forget natural law in all of this either. Heck, have you read Theology of the Body? Pick it up. Give a copy to your friend. Study it together. The obvious need for 2 different sexes in a romantic relationship because so obvious on so many levels.

Blessings,
Julie

p.s. There's no such thing as a "'holy' living of the homosexual lifestyle". That phrase should make everyone feel revulsion.

[StColette]

Ask your friend to site these "scholars" that he speaks of. Personally, I haven't been able to find a single scholar (Catholic, non-Catholic, even a few atheists lol) that support his theories or exegesis, which quite frankly aren't very well written or explained. For one thing giving the exact verse or chapter in question would be helpful!!! For example, saying 1 Cor. doesn't tell me which of 16 chapters that this verse in question is in.

[CatherineM]

I thought the LGBT crowd taught that it was accepted in Ancient Greece and Rome, wrongly stamped out by Christianity, and they are now attempting to right that wrong. Saying that it was accepted by the church for centuries, and only recently outlawed, is a new one to me. Maybe I'm reading the quotes wrong. I've been talking to bureaucrats all morning, and my brains are a bit fried.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philothea' date='21 October 2009 - 01:50 AM' timestamp='1256100651' post='1988869']
AFAIK, homosexuality was considered no big deal in either Rome or Greece until Christianity became the dominant religion. (Okay, there was some social stigma based on a person's, ah, "position" in the relationship, but it was an issue of status rather than morals.)

Since early Christians wiped out societal acceptance of all homosexual behavior -- and no one denies this -- clearly they believed it was wrong. While we might not have a lot of corroborating translations of certain specific words in New Testament letters, there is no reason to think that Christianity has ever historically accepted homosexual relations.
[/quote]
what is your proof that Rome or Greece considered it no big deal?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='21 October 2009 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1256157411' post='1989139']
what is your proof that Rome or Greece considered it no big deal?
[/quote]

While some people may have considered it wrong (e.g. Roman Christians and Jews), it was pretty widespread in the classical world.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Veritas]

+

I found this to be an excellent article. The author is a fantastic Catholic psychotherapist, who also was part of the Ave Maria Singles 'Road to Cana' DVD series.

Pax!

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=279
'

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='21 October 2009 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1256157517' post='1989141']
While some people may have considered it wrong (e.g. Roman Christians and Jews), it was pretty widespread in the classical world.
[/quote]
Sin was pretty well spread in the classical world as well, it doesn't mean it was accepted.

[StColette]

I find it a bogus argument that because Scripture doesn't mention "monogamous" homosexual relationship then that means it's okay. Scripture doesn't specifically say non-monogamous homosexual relationships either. It just references homosexual relationships as being contrary to natural law. An adulterous relationship between a man and a woman might be monogamous but that doesn't mean it's not contrary to God's law. Just because Scripture doesn't specifically say "monogamous adulterous relationships are wrong" it doesn't mean that they are okay, adultery is still wrong!

[Varg]

technically, wearing clothes is "contrary to natural law"