Question About Homosexuality

[OraProMe]

"It is a very diffcult world for young ones to grow up in."

Soooooooooo ironic.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='23 October 2009 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1256305117' post='1990218']
"It is a very diffcult world for young ones to grow up in."

Soooooooooo ironic.
[/quote]
I'm finding it very difficult.

[alleros]

Ironic? Not sure what you mean.

[quote name='OraProMe' date='23 October 2009 - 08:38 AM' timestamp='1256305117' post='1990218']
"It is a very diffcult world for young ones to grow up in."

Soooooooooo ironic.
[/quote]

[Varg]

[quote name='alleros' date='23 October 2009 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1256303068' post='1990205']
[indent]
I have lost count of the times accused of "homophobia" for knowing that it is wrong and repulsive.
[/quote]Nick Griffin much?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='21 October 2009 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1256149469' post='1989088']
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?
[/quote]
Not really sure why you say the [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp"]quotes from the early Church Fathers listed on catholic.com[/url] are "a stretch at best." They show pretty clearly that homosexual activity was condemned in the early Church.
And of course, there are those inconvenient biblical passages which your liberal friend tries to weasel around.

Rather, it is your liberal friend's assertions that are a stretch, to put it mildly, and are simply assertions with absolutely no evidence to back them up.

If St. Paul in Romans was intending to condemn only temple prostitution or idolatry, why didn't he just say so (especially as, to my knowledge, most pagan temple prostitutes were women, rather than men), rather than specifically condemning same-sex activity as he does?
[b]"For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 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]
Note that female-on-female sex is also specifically condemned, so this doesn't only refer to pederasty or male prostitution.

The reason is that homosexuality violates the proper purpose of human sexuality as dictated by nature ("changed the natural use into that use which is against nature)." This, of course, is what the Catholic Church has always taught. (In fact, the Church has traditionally listed sodomy among the "Sins That Cry Out to God for Vengence.) Doesn't sound like the primary point there is idolatry or economic exploitation or anything else. Couldn't get much more clear cut without getting pornographic.
The context of Romans 1, of course, is that once abandoning God, and losing His grace, people were abandoned to a number of sins and perversions, including homosexuality. For all his talk of putting things in context, your liberal pal seems to lack the most basic of reading comprehension skills.
His quibbling over the word for "contrary to nature" is likewise pointless, as St. Paul in Romans is obviously condemning homosexual activity as a bad thing ("that which is filthy"), not praising it as a miracle of God!

The Church has always consistently taught that homosexual activity is gravely sinful, and all references to it have been to condemn it as such. In fact, this predates Christianity, as the Jews regarded homosexuality as an abomination punishable by death, and Christ never overturned this moral teaching.
If present-day liberal "exegetes" want to claim that the Church has been wrong on this all these centuries, and that homosexuality was accepted in the early Church, the burden of proof should be on them to prove that it was. But, of course, they have no shred of real evidence. They are simply trying to project 21st-century standards of political correctness back to biblical times.
But, as usual, the facts are not politically correct.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='20 October 2009 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1256094927' post='1988786']
I am not disagreeing with your anglo-Catholic friend
[/quote]
You are, however, disagreeing with the Bible and 2000 years of Church teaching.

[quote name='OraProMe' date='20 October 2009 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1256095562' post='1988794']
I'm not going to mention what the Church teaches because I know as well as you do what the Catechism says, but:



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.
[/quote]
Do you really, honestly think human nature has changed so radically in 2000 years? Really, in terms of human nature and relationships, there is nothing new under the sun.
And the Bible doesn't specifically mention "polygamous" homosexuals, either, so your point is mute.
The Church's objections to homosexuality were never based on whether it was monogamous, anyway. That is a modern "liberal" spin.

Do you think monogamous homosexuality was invented in recent years?
For one who repeatedly argues that homosexuality is such an intrinsic and natural part of the human condition, invoking Darwin and such to justify it, this seems an odd position to take.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Socrates

[N/A Gone]

Socrates, which of the quotes did you think were convincing? The first two on that page prove my point: The DIDACHE passage doesn't mention homosexuality.

And the JUSTIN MARTYR passage says: "may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy;"

This supports my reading that Paul is talking about prostitution or rape.

I don't see homosexuality mentioned anywhere in the Clement of Alexandria passage, only being effeminate, which surely you wouldn't call a sin. And the debauching of boys, which is clearly talking about pedophilia.

Tertullian doesn't mention it either.

Really that link is ridiculously terrible. I'm not going to continue replying to it.

This is the point he is arguing, [quote]the official Roman Catholic stance is based on what seems to be misunderstandings of scripture and tradition and a misunderstanding of current scientific and psychological findings. Also a misunderstanding of what a gay and lesbian person actually is.[/quote]

Those quotes do not change that. (Once again, I am agreeing with you on this teaching--I am playing Devil's advocate and testing this)

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Socrates' date='23 October 2009 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1256346069' post='1990429']

Do you think monogamous homosexuality was invented in recent years?
For one who repeatedly argues that homosexuality is such an intrinsic and natural part of the human condition, invoking Darwin and such to justify it, this seems an odd position to take.
[/quote]

No it's not. Polygamy/monogamy are cultural concepts, one is no more tied to the evolution of sexual desire than the other. Besides it's made clear in the bible that Sodom hosted orgies. This also fits in with Ancient Roman culture. I believe that they had parties named after Bacchus, the God of wine, which were basically massive orgies.

Edited October 24, 2009 by OraProMe

[Hassan]

[quote name='Socrates' date='23 October 2009 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1256345519' post='1990426']
In fact, this predates Christianity, as the Jews regarded homosexuality as an abomination punishable by death, and Christ never overturned this moral teaching.[/quote]

So Christianity agrees that it is/can be moral to stone another human being for lying with another member of the same sex?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='23 October 2009 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1256356384' post='1990522']
Socrates, which of the quotes did you think were convincing? The first two on that page prove my point: The DIDACHE passage doesn't mention homosexuality.

And the JUSTIN MARTYR passage says: "may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy;"

This supports my reading that Paul is talking about prostitution or rape.

I don't see homosexuality mentioned anywhere in the Clement of Alexandria passage, only being effeminate, which surely you wouldn't call a sin. And the debauching of boys, which is clearly talking about pedophilia.

Tertullian doesn't mention it either.

Really that link is ridiculously terrible. I'm not going to continue replying to it.[/quote]
[quote]Basil the Great

"He who is guilty of [b]unseemliness with males[/b] will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers" (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).

John Chrysostom
"All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases" (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, [b]and the union of women with women and men with men[/b], he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]" (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
[/quote]
These passages clearly refer to same-sex carnal activity.

Also, the word "effeminate" is an old term for homosexual, and this term is also used by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:10: "Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: [b]Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind[/b] nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God."

This was a delicate way of saying neither those on the "active" nor "passive" end of homosexuality. Some more recent translations just say "homosexuals."

And it seems you have simply ignored the rest of my post on Romans 1.


[quote]This is the point he is arguing,

Those quotes do not change that. (Once again, I am agreeing with you on this teaching--I am playing Devil's advocate and testing this)
[/quote]
Again, there is nothing in the text to indicate he is only referring to prostitution or idolatry, etc. These are baseless claims, which neither you nor your liberal pal has provided anything solid to back it.
And it's clear that it is same-sex activity that is condemned in Romans 1. You still haven't explained exactly why you think I (and the Church) are wrong about what that passage says.

If you claim to agree with the Church on her teaching on homosexual activity, what makes you think St. Paul was talking about something entirely different, or that he was misinterpreted by the Church for all these centuries??

Since the Church condemns all sexual behavior outside marriage (including fornication and adultery), why do you think there would be an exception for homosexual activity, "monogamous" or no?

If you want detailed information on why homosexual sodomy is considered particularly grievous and perverted by the Church, I recommend reading St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' date='24 October 2009 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1256359335' post='1990555']
So Christianity agrees that it is/can be moral to stone another human being for lying with another member of the same sex?
[/quote]
The Old Law of strict justice was superseded by the New Law of repentance and forgiveness.

See John 8 about the woman caught in adultery. Christ forgives the woman about to be stoned, and tells her "Go, and now [b]sin no more[/b]."

Christ would likely have the same to say to the repentant homosexual.

While we no longer stone sinners, the morality of adultery (nor homosexuality) does NOT change.

[alleros]

Thank you for this.

Interesting thought re "repentant" though? re John * I mean.



[quote name='Socrates' date='27 October 2009 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1256696027' post='1992495']
The Old Law of strict justice was superseded by the New Law of repentance and forgiveness.

See John 8 about the woman caught in adultery. Christ forgives the woman about to be stoned, and tells her "Go, and now [b]sin no more[/b]."

Christ would likely have the same to say to the repentant homosexual.

While we no longer stone sinners, the morality of adultery (nor homosexuality) does NOT change.
[/quote]