Catholic church cannot bless same-sex unions

[Unveiled Artist]

How to say: a gay people may "choose" have same-sex sex because he is gay, but a person is not gay because he has same-sex sex.

@ShadowWolf

Relating to the bible.

People are not gay in the bible because they have same-sex sex. The bible has nothing to do with who is gay and who is not. It is strictly about one's sexual promiscuity (the verses we quoted) that turns a person away from god to his flesh. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation and a lot more to do with sexual lust.

The context in all the scriptures you/I posted has nothing to do with gay people and who they are attracted to.

They have to do with sexually promiscuous people (gay/straight/bi) and who they have sex with.

 

[PruePhillip]

Of the ten matters you provide stats about, seven are about sex.

So to clear the matter up, what distinction do you draw between "free love" which this, you say, is not about, and "promiscuity, infidelity" which you say it is about.


Of course it's not my part to give you advice, but if it were, I'd advise you to stop listening to right-wing media. Encouraging exaggerated fear is a manipulative technique that Rupert Murdoch has used to line his pocket while wreaking destruction on the free world's politics. Note the word "exaggerate". I do not say such problems don't exist. I say they're perniciously exaggerated.

Certainly sex is a Big One. But not the only. The Real Issue with sex is
1 - relationships
2 - children.

If everyone is gay (and you are questioned as to why YOU aren't gay also) then
who's having the children in the numbers that we need?
And 75% of African American children come from broken homes. That's a big
thing in terms of crime, education, your own stable relationships and employment.
There are REAL effects of this 'sexual revolution.'

Many of the things that I read in 'right wing media' in the 1960's concerning the
Vietnam War and the counter culture did in fact come true. Our generation simply
redefined morality rather than say it had been trashed.

 

[PruePhillip]

What is better. A broken home or a non-functioning home with one or both spouses feeling trapped.
I know people from 'broken homes' they are happier than when the stayed in a non-loving marriage. Many now have new partners, divorce can be win-win

Sure, accept your point. But during the '70's we saw a new phenomena - divorce from
functioning marriages. Women being told, as my mother would say, "Marry the government"
as she divorced my father. Like many people they could have worked their way through
things - but we take the easy way on everything now, there's no longer much of a supporting
society but plenty of support if you want to get a divorce. And marriage wasn't sacred and
supportive anymore, motherhood wasn't valued as much. Increasingly marriage can bring
reproach.
I don't agree that love will be banned like in Orwell's 1984, but marriage could be in for a
rocky time in the future.

But for irrecoverable marriages, gender dysphoria, gay marriage etc we are 'racing to the
bottom' in saying there is some marginalized group behavior we not just 'tolerate' but
'celebrate.' The margin becomes the center - your problem is now for FOR EVERYONE,
so the 0.1% people having tansgender issues becomes the 99.9% of the population who
must now consider transgender as an issues for themselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a stereotype.

Nope. I'm just not being verbose to create a long winded argument that tries to avoid the point being discussed:
The Bible says to kill homosexuals because they have sex with people who are of the same sex. And it's also not trying to separate our identities and existence as sexual beings to put them in a box in another category. I'll make the exceptions when needed, but overall splitting hairs is only attempting to deny why the Christian world has for so long frowned upon and criminalized homosexual acts.

 

[blü 2]

Certainly sex is a Big One. But not the only. The Real Issue with sex is
1 - relationships
2 - children.

That's to say, in your view it's substantially about sex.

Whereas in my view it's substantially about decency, respect, honesty, kindness, inclusion. That covers sex, but it covers everything else, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The bible says that any person who engages in same-sex sex will be killed.

Read it again. It says that anyone who has sex with a man will be killed.

 

[McBell]

So do you never mix linen and woollen garments?
How about round haircuts Lev 19:27
What about Tim 2:9 - do you ever where gold?
What about working on the Sabbath
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - do you really believe a rapist should marry his victim

I could go on

WTF does any of that have to do with god making a decision and the Pope reiterating said decision?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Read it again. It says that anyone who has sex with a man will be killed.

As I was telling ShadowWolf. This has nothing to do with gay people just a person's actions.

Straight, gay, bisexual, any-person (male in this case) who sleeps with another male is committing a sin. His sexual orientation is irrelevant; therefore, it would be inappropriate to say god kills "gay people" because we do not know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I was telling ShadowWolf. This has nothing to do with gay people just a person's actions.

Straight, gay, bisexual, any-person (male in this case) who sleeps with another male is committing a sin. His sexual orientation is irrelevant; therefore, it would be inappropriate to say god kills "gay people" because we do not know.

I think you missed my point.

The passage in Leviticus doesn't say "another man;" it says "a man."

IOW, read at face value, it condemns anyone who has sex with a man, including women. The idea that women are exempt and that the passage only condemns male same-sex acts takes a few assumptions that aren't actually in the text.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nope. I'm just not being verbose to create a long winded argument that tries to avoid the point being discussed:
The Bible says to kill homosexuals because they have sex with people who are of the same sex. And it's also not trying to separate our identities and existence as sexual beings to put them in a box in another category. I'll make the exceptions when needed, but overall splitting hairs is only attempting to deny why the Christian world has for so long frowned upon and criminalized homosexual acts.

1. But, like christians, you're using homosexuality to mean something it does not.

2. Homosexuality was an english translation used for people who have sex with their own gender.

3. Today, we know otherwise. The bible is wrong on many accounts because know "today," that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with who a person has sex with. (edit)

4. We can either go with the bible's definition (and side with christians) or go with the medical definition (and side with science). All in all, the bible's definition (as we know now) is not right.

5. But you didn't answer my question directly: Do you believe that gay people are gay because they have same-sex sex?

Also. The stereotype is: People are gay because they have same-sex sex

The fact: Some gay people have same-sex sex; having same-sex sex doesn't make you gay.

Why are you using biblical definitions of homosexuality on gay people?
I know spiritually, christians say homosexuality=gay sex but scientifically, why connect the two?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you missed my point.

The passage in Leviticus doesn't say "another man;" it says "a man."

IOW, read at face value, it condemns anyone who has sex with a man, including women. The idea that women are exempt and that the passage only condemns male same-sex acts takes a few assumptions that aren't actually in the text.

Yeah. I think that's the one with the rape verse, if I'm not mistaken. The only bible verse I can remember that has to do with a person's sex and not a person's desire of the flesh is marriage being between male and female. Other than that, all the "homosexuality" verses are just a means any male or female interact with another male or female (as your example-doesn't matter) in a lustful way and displeasing to god.

The thing is, though. The bible doesn't mention that any two people can be intimate when they have sex outside of marriage. So, any person who has sex outside of marriage are lusting regardless who they are. I'm just not sure how they got "gay people" out of it. The context says otherwise.

(I did miss what you said... but I do find this weird how the word homosexuality can be so bastardized from 2,000 years or so ago to today)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah. I think that's the one with the rape verse, if I'm not mistaken.

No, I'm talking about Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.

There's nothing in this verse to suggest that it only applies to men.

A straightforward interpretation of the text as written without bringing any assumptions into it would be "nobody - man, woman or other - should ever have sex with a man."

It takes a fair number of assumptions and prejudices (common ones, but still) to interpret the passage as "men shouldn't have sex with other men, but it's okay for women to have sex with men in the right context."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, I'm talking about Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.

There's nothing in this verse to suggest that it only applies to men.

A straightforward interpretation of the text as written without bringing any assumptions into it would be "nobody - man, woman or other - should ever have sex with a man."

It takes a fair number of assumptions and prejudices (common ones, but still) to interpret the passage as "men shouldn't have sex with other men, but it's okay for women to have sex with men in the right context."

True. Either or the same message applies: if anyone has sex with anyone else outside of marriage it is considered lust (akin to rape, fortification, and so forth) and its an abomination. I don't know why the word homosexuality was choose to described such actions between people of the same sex; but, the closest it really has to do with gay people is If that gay person engages in same-sex behavior. But if not, the verse doesn't apply to him (or her). It's pretty much irrelevant until the person (gay or straight) sleeps with someone of their own gender outside of marriage.

It's actually a straight ward message, though.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's to say, in your view it's substantially about sex.

Whereas in my view it's substantially about decency, respect, honesty, kindness, inclusion. That covers sex, but it covers everything else, too.

On the stats below.
2001-2020 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:
Married men having affairs 7 to 9%.

There was a time when adultery was a capital offense. You could die if you were caught.
Now nearly 10% of Americans are fine with it. Not just turning a blind eye but openly
accepting of cheating. And this isn't just about sex - it's about lying and cheating too.
And that's the same with all the issues below - the loss of decency, respect and
kindness in our me-generation.

 

[Deeje]

Nothing news worthy here.
Just more blatant hypocrisy from the Catholic Church.

Well, I guess this is one instance where the official line is accurate....in practice of course, it might be a different story.
It would be blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a Christian and then flout God's moral laws. So do they have a choice really? Are the churches who acquiesce really following the Bible's teachings? Since when had God had to keep up with the timers?

Homosexual sex has been practiced on (mostly male) children in Catholic institutions for God knows how long...and the reason shocked me. I saw an interview with a disgraced priest who was in jail serving time for the many boys he had raped or sexually abused. When asked why the priests usually targeted young boys his reply was that it was forbidden for priests to have sex with women...hence they did not deem it a sin to have sex with a male child. How twisted!

 

[Altfish]

WTF does any of that have to do with god making a decision and the Pope reiterating said decision?

Why do people pick and choose what to believe in the Bible?

 

[blü 2]

On the stats below.
2001-2020 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:
Married men having affairs 7 to 9%.

So? I find that a breach of trust.

There was a time when adultery was a capital offense. You could die if you were caught.

Only if the wife of the king was involved.

Now nearly 10% of Americans are fine with it. Not just turning a blind eye but openly
accepting of cheating. And this isn't just about sex - it's about lying and cheating too.
And that's the same with all the issues below - the loss of decen

If you're talking about a consensual open marriage agreed between equals, what business is it of yours?

 

[PruePhillip]

So? I find that a breach of trust.
Only if the wife of the king was involved.
If you're talking about a consensual open marriage agreed between equals, what business is it of yours?

It's something like this -
Me - "No-fault divorce and more promiscuity in general could lead to situation where half the
kids in the country come from broken homes."
Liberal - "You are exaggerating. You think the sky is falling. You sound like a Murdoch press neocon."

30 years later.

Me - "Remember that argument we had about where promiscuity would lead us? Well here are the
stats you said would never happen."
Liberal - "What business is it of yours?"

And this is where it IS my business. Half the kids in the country are being supported not by their fathers
but by people like me who pay taxes and see freedom being eroded as the state increases to handle
a Peter Pan generation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True. Either or the same message applies: if anyone has sex with anyone else outside of marriage it is considered lust (akin to rape, fortification, and so forth) and its an abomination.

The verse doesn't say anything about marriage.

On its face, it seems to condemn anyone who has sex with a man. It doesn't provide an exception for a woman having sex with her husband.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The verse doesn't say anything about marriage.

On its face, it seems to condemn anyone who has sex with a man. It doesn't provide an exception for a woman having sex with her husband.

Yes. I was saying the only thing I can think of in the bible where a person's sex is important is marriage.

Outside of that, why do people say these scriptures are "gay oriented"?

Since it's anyone, how would anyone draw that conclusion unless they believed being gay is having sane sex sex.