why is being gay forbidden ?

[sojourner]

Please Notice Matthew 19 vs 5-9 because Jesus re-inforced the original scriptural stand for marriage.

Riiight, because the writer of Matthew also knew nothing of the science of homosexuality.

 

[Madhuri]

As far as scriptural marriage is concerned - Genesis 2:24 - it is only between a male and female or man and woman.
Sin in Scripture can be within scriptural marriage. It can be before, during, or after a marriage has ended.
The word translated in English as fornication comes from the Greek word porneia.
So, porneia would be scriptural grounds for a scriptural divorce as per Matthew 5:32; 19:9
Porneia covers all un-scriptural sex even within the marriage arrangement such as sex with an animal being wrong.
We also get the word porn or pornography from the word porneia ( fornication ).
One real difference between hetero and homo would be that only a male and female can reproduce.

I wasn't talking about your religion though. I was talking about mine.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, besides the shrinking numbers, there's been schisms and they've basically divorced themselves from Christian tradition. The Episcopalians have gone so far off the deep end that they have married lesbian priests praising abortion as a blessing in sermons.

The Catholic Church is fine: 10 Ways the Church Is Rising | CatholicVote.org
Even the left-wing HuffPost has to admit it: Counting U.S. Catholics: Signs of Growth and Decline on the Road to 100 Million | David Briggs

Saint Frankenstein, this is directed at you. You are someone who has gone between strict RCC views and radically progressive and anti-establishment views. It seems to me that RCC created a schism within herself long ago, and while I think we protestants have suffered from a lot of schizms it is because we inherited 'Schism' from RCC and possibly from the Orthodoxy, too. Circling back to the haemorrhaging of Protestant mainstream churches, I think the RCC left protestants out in the cold and wrote them off for centuries. What the heck is Christian Tradition? Anyway the RCC is probably right to criticize the many bad aspects of the reformation but there have been some good things, too. A re-examination of Catholicism was due. What could be more obvious? So if a re-examination was needed 400 years ago why not today?

 

[lovemuffin]

ekklesia semper reformanda est!

 

[McBell]

ekklesia semper reformanda est!

I just wish it wasn't generations behind the times

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You didn't answer my question at all. What specifically are you referring to by "chaos" within the Protestant Church caused by their using reason to rethink doctrine? You mentioned no examples of chaos. You merely mentioned ways that they are changing. That seems like progress to me, but show me the chaos, and I'll be open to argument.

You don't see internal strife and schisms as chaotic? How has it been "progress" for them when their denomination is dying off?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well...all-righty then.

And the opinions of Aquinas on women and sex roles? Do you agree with him?

No, I don't. His views on that are the product of his time. As the link I posted said, he actually wasn't as sexist as most where during that time. However, neither do I agree with the views of a bunch of angry radical feminist leftovers from the Vatican II era who would see the Church destroyed.

 

[leibowde84]

You don't see internal strife and schisms as chaotic? How has it been "progress" for them when their denomination is dying off?

Because it's not about how many people are following your lead. It's about using God's gift of reason to always improve upon your own understanding of life in general. To stop with scripture is to give up on finding something better. I think that's a terrible way to live life ... to give up on societal evolution after we've come so far.

 

[leibowde84]

Because it's not about how many people are following your lead. It's about using God's gift of reason to always improve upon your own understanding of life in general. To stop with scripture is to give up on finding something better. I think that's a terrible way to live life ... to give up on societal evolution after we've come so far.

I could care less about keeping Christianity organized. I think religions should be after the truth at all costs. Intellectually speaking of course.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No, I don't. His views on that are the product of his time. As the link I posted said, he actually wasn't as sexist as most where during that time.

Your link wasn't convincing. He "wasn't as sexist" is still acknowledging the possibility that overt sexism is presented in his writings. And if his stance on Natural Law is a basis of much of your arguments, they should be put up for scrutiny.

However, neither do I agree with the views of a bunch of angry radical feminist leftovers from the Vatican II era who would see the Church destroyed.

You apparently haven't hung around actual angry RadFems enough to know the difference between mainstream Catholic feminists and them. My mother is a mainstream Catholic feminist. I dare say she is far from being angry and radical, though she is in much agreement with the link I provided too, and who is sincere in her faith and devotion to the Church.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your link wasn't convincing. He "wasn't as sexist" is still acknowledging the possibility that overt sexism is presented in his writings. And if his stance on Natural Law is a basis of much of your arguments, they should be put up for scrutiny.

No one said his views on women weren't sexist.

If you're going to argue against natural law, you'll have to refute it philosophically and not rely on character assassinations. I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not very good at arguing either for or against it. Other Catholics on this board would be better at it, one in particular, but he doesn't come on much.

You apparently haven't hung around actual angry RadFems enough to know the difference between mainstream Catholic feminists and them. My mother is a mainstream Catholic feminist. I dare say she is far from being angry and radical, though she is in much agreement with the link I provided too, and who is sincere in her faith and devotion to the Church.

Maybe we have different views on what qualifies as angry radical feminism.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No one said his views on women weren't sexist.

If you're going to argue against natural law, you'll have to refute it philosophically and not rely on character assassinations. I'm not a philosopher, so I'm not very good at arguing either for or against it. Other Catholics on this board would be better at it, one in particular, but he doesn't come on much.

Well okay, but you brought it up, bro. In fact, you've invoked it several times across threads and suggested that people need to read it and understand it better. Why bring it up this much if you aren't wishing to defend it's arguments to scrutiny and criticism?

Maybe we have different views on what qualifies as angry radical feminism.

That's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible that we have different views on what qualifies as "justice" and "morality."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well okay, but you brought it up, bro. In fact, you've invoked it several times across threads and suggested that people need to read it and understand it better. Why bring it up this much if you aren't wishing to defend it's arguments to scrutiny and criticism?

I was answering the question of the OP. I don't feel all that passionate about it one way or another and I'm still trying to sort through some issues.

That's entirely possible. It's also entirely possible that we have different views on what qualifies as "justice" and "morality."

*shrugs*

 

[Riverwolf]

'They' didn't change it because 'it' sounded stupid, rather it was the gay-community that rallied against the name.
'''''''

I didn't say "sounded stupid". I said "was stupid". If the gay community had anything to do with it, then I consider it a great victory for justice (and I'm heterosexual, mind.)

 

[leibowde84]

No, I don't. His views on that are the product of his time. As the link I posted said, he actually wasn't as sexist as most where during that time. However, neither do I agree with the views of a bunch of angry radical feminist leftovers from the Vatican II era who would see the Church destroyed.

I'm pretty sure that the purpose of Vatican II was to save the Church. They were still doing mass in Latin with the Priests back to the congregation. I don't know how anyone can think that didn't need to change. Vatican II is exactly what I am asking for ... we need another one.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Homosexuality is a choice.

No it is not.

HIV used to be called Homosexuality Immunodeficiency Virus

No it was not. There was GRID was used as a medical term for a short period of time that was introduced in 1982 which was used to describe the unknown cluster of cases of immune deficiency in the homosexual population. Later it was discovered to be AIDS which is a condition caused by HIV. But HIV has never been called Homosexuality Immunodeficiency virus.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm pretty sure that the purpose of Vatican II was to save the Church. They were still doing mass in Latin with the Priests back to the congregation. I don't know how anyone can think that didn't need to change. Vatican II is exactly what I am asking for ... we need another one.

Yeah, no. The Mass shouldn't have been changed and there's a movement in the Church to bring it back. All they did was make it more like a Protestant service. The priest should be facing the Lord along with the rest of the congregation, not the people. It's not about the priests, so they shouldn't be the center of attention. Altar rails need to be brought back and people should be taking Communion on their knees and on their tongue, because it's God Himself and we should express all due reverence. It's also good to have a universal liturgical language. Latin should be revived and learning it needs to be encouraged among the clergy, religious and laity. We need a revival of tradition, not more selling ourselves out to modernity.

 

[leibowde84]

'They' didn't change it because 'it' sounded stupid, rather it was the gay-community that rallied against the name.
'''''''

Well, we now KNOW that HIV is not a "homosexual affliction". We know that heterosexuals spread the disease. And, we know that being a homosexual does not make you any less immune to the virus. Thus, we now know that the classification was based on ignorance of reality ... and also a hand-full of prejudice to boot.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah, no. The Mass shouldn't have been changed and there's a movement in the Church to bring it back. All they did was make it more like a Protestant service. The priest should be facing the Lord along with the rest of the congregation, not the people. It's not about the priests, so they shouldn't be the center of attention. Altar rails need to be brought back and people should be taking Communion on their knees and on their tongue, because it's God Himself and we should express all due reverence. It's also good to have a universal liturgical language. Latin should be revived and learning it needs to be encouraged among the clergy, religious and laity. We need a revival of tradition, not more selling ourselves out to modernity.

Good luck with that "movement". I don't think it has a sliver of a chance. And, I couldn't disagree more about the priest, but that is based on my personal experience. Further, Latin is a dead language, so, unless you don't want parishioners to understand the sermon, then Latin is not a good idea.

If you think that keeping members of the church and bringing in "fresh blood" to the pews is important, you should not be pushing for this "movement". It will cause many more to leave, imho. Modernization is the only way to bring back people to the Church, which I think should be the number 1 priority.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Christians do Not fight against 'Caesar's laws '. If ' Caesar ' wants to re-define marriage that is his right to do so.
Yes, those 2 single women were able to adopt. That was still in the 90's, maybe earlier, so perhaps that is No longer an option.
Remember: Scripture says Many would come ' In Jesus' Name ' but prove false according to Matthew chapter 7.
So, if someone claiming to be Christian is fighting against what laws ' Caesar ' makes, then he is a fake (weed/tares ) Christian.

P.S. I know a couple who wanted to adopt and then the birth mother changed her mind and took the child. The couple had ' their son ' for a few years before everything fell apart. They cried a lot, and even concerned because the birth mother had been a drug user. They are now too afraid to try adoption again.

I know of another case where the mother left, and her step-daughter, who was in her late teens, raised the step-mother's son for 9 years before the birth mother surprisingly showed up and took him away. After raising the boy for 9 years the heart-broken step-daughter felt as if she was the boy's mother.

Adoption is an issue apart from "why is being gay forbidden". While many see gay marriage and adoption as a part of the same issue, they are not. When adoption comes into play, many more issues come into the equation; regardless of who adopted the child. While there is beauty within some adoption scenarios, this also remains true: Every adoption is also associated with trauma and profound loss. When children are adopted, no one truly knows what they are getting into until they are in it. And when the adoptee, or the adoptee's first family start looking for their lost loved ones and forgotten relatives; we sometimes don't like what we find.

I speak from personal experience as I am an adoptee.

"Why is being gay forbidden?" is really not connected to the adoption question. "Should gays marry?" is also not connected to the adoption question; as today, single parents certainly can adopt (privately, and sometimes, through adoption agencies). Gays already can adopt; privately and through some adoption agencies.

Gays raising kids is not connected to the "why is gay forbidden" question as there are plenty of gays already raising kids.