[antiskeptic]

Originally Posted by old hippy

You chose to be religious. Gays don't choose to be gay. They're born that way.

I didn't choose to be religious. I was born again that way.

[old hippy]

Originally Posted by antiskeptic

I didn't choose to be religious. I was born again that way.

You chose to accept Jesus/God etc

[DublinRescuer]

Didnt s/he compare it to an addiction??

[PDN]

Originally Posted by old hippy

You chose to be religious. Gays don't choose to be gay. They're born that way.

That's an interesting assertion, but the scientific evidence appears to be a bit more ambiguous. It is far from clear how much of someone's sexual identification stems from environment and how much from genetics.

And, once again, you are hopelessly muddling the distinction between 'being gay' and engaging in homosexual acts.

Take the example of men in prison who don't self-identify as gay, but happily rodger other men while they are behind bars. Historic Christian thought would see their sexual activities in jail as no better or worse than that of two men who hook up after a few drinks in The George. This is because it is the act that is considered immoral, not the self-identification.

A lot of damage has been visited on homosexuals in the name of religion. I can't say a lot of damage has been visited on religious folk in the name of homosexuality - can you?

Blanket assertions about 'religion' tend to be lazy expressions of prejudice.

It is rare for any minority group to persecute others, so I hardly expect homosexuals as a group to be persecuting anyone. However, even members of seemingly benign minorities can be extremely nasty in the rare occasions that they are given enough power. Ever hear of the Buganda martyrs - young men who were castrated, dismembered & butchered by a Ugandan king because their Christian faith caused them to refuse to allow him to bugger them?

Homosexual rape is a frequent method of torture, and has been utilised by American soldiers in Iraq because they know that their victims Muslim faith will cause them to feel a greater measure of shame at being raped.

The fact is that human beings, being prone to sin, are capable of intolerance and causing suffering to others. Neither the religious, nor the irreligious have a monopoly on this. And homosexuals appear to be no better, or worse, than others given the right circumstances.

Thankfully we live in a Western democracy where it is getting rarer for religious people or irreligious people to cause genuine suffering by their intolerance.

[old hippy]

Originally Posted by PDN

That's an interesting assertion, but the scientific evidence appears to be a bit more ambiguous. It is far from clear how much of someone's sexual identification stems from environment and how much from genetics.

And, once again, you are hopelessly muddling the distinction between 'being gay' and engaging in homosexual acts.

Take the example of men in prison who don't self-identify as gay, but happily rodger other men while they are behind bars. Historic Christian thought would see their sexual activities in jail as no better or worse than that of two men who hook up after a few drinks in The George. This is because it is the act that is considered immoral, not the self-identification.


Blanket assertions about 'religion' tend to be lazy expressions of prejudice.

It is rare for any minority group to persecute others, so I hardly expect homosexuals as a group to be persecuting anyone. However, even members of seemingly benign minorities can be extremely nasty in the rare occasions that they are given enough power. Ever hear of the Buganda martyrs - young men who were castrated, dismembered & butchered by a Ugandan king because their Christian faith caused them to refuse to allow him to bugger them?

Homosexual rape is a frequent method of torture, and has been utilised by American soldiers in Iraq because they know that their victims Muslim faith will cause them to feel a greater measure of shame at being raped.

The fact is that human beings, being prone to sin, are capable of intolerance and causing suffering to others. Neither the religious, nor the irreligious have a monopoly on this. And homosexuals appear to be no better, or worse, than others given the right circumstances.

Thankfully we live in a Western democracy where it is getting rarer for religious people or irreligious people to cause genuine suffering by their intolerance.

Ah, now we get to the bottom of it. It's the homosexual act(s) that exclude belonging to the church?

Is anal sex frowned upon between two consenting heterosexuals?

[PDN]

Originally Posted by old hippy

Ah, now we get to the bottom of it. It's the homosexual act(s) that exclude belonging to the church?

Jesus wept! Facepalm time!

What do you mean that now we get to the bottom of it? That's the very point that has been made in every one of the hundreds of stupid threads that unbelievers start in this forum on the subject of homosexuality.

Is anal sex frowned upon between two consenting heterosexuals?

The Bible does not comment on that.

In my opinion it would depend on whether they are married to each other or not. It doesn't personally float my boat (I don't find poop to be erotic) but if a man and wife like to get their kicks that way then I don't have a problem.

Of course, if they are not practising Christians, then it is no skin off my nose what heterosexuals or homosexuals choose to do in bed providing they are consenting adults. I see no reason why non-Christians should live by Christian standards of morality.

[old hippy]

Originally Posted by PDN

Jesus wept! Facepalm time!

What do you mean that now we get to the bottom of it? That's the very point that has been made in every one of the hundreds of stupid threads that unbelievers start in this forum on the subject of homosexuality.

The Bible does not comment on that.

In my opinion it would depend on whether they are married to each other or not. It doesn't personally float my boat (I don't find poop to be erotic) but if a man and wife like to get their kicks that way then I don't have a problem.

Of course, if they are not practising Christians, then it is no skin off my nose what heterosexuals or homosexuals choose to do in bed providing they are consenting adults. I see no reason why non-Christians should live by Christian standards of morality.

I don't find poop particularly erotic, either. Dunno who does but that's not what that rite of passage, so to speak, is about.

Anyway, I fear I'm bringing this thread into disrepute, so I shall say adieu for this evening.

Take care x

[Keaton]

The purpose of our lives is to give glory to God.

As the old Catechism used to put it:

Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

Q. What must we do to save our souls?
A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in
Him, and love Him with all our heart.

I think the OP is asking the question: Is is possible to engage in homosexual acts and, at the same time, be at rights with God? The answer to that would be no. You cannot serve two masters: God and sin. No, we must choose. If we choose a life of sin, so be it. If we choose a life with Christ, great. God is merciful, and He is patient. He will give us all the grace in the world to make us a saint.

Sometimes, a conversion from a life of sin happens in an instant, but it seems to me more common that conversion is a gradual thing. Indeed, it is a battle, a spiritual battle. Whether in an instant or gradually, our conversion is a lifelong process and in all cases requires us to engage in spiritual battle. If we fall, then we have recourse to God's mercy and forgiveness through the Sacrament of Penance.

There is plenty of useful information at Pure Love Club, an apostolate of Catholic Answers.

[antiskeptic]

Originally Posted by old hippy

You chose to accept Jesus/God etc

Only in the sense that a rubber duck (me) squeaks when run over by a truck (God). Where 'squeaks" represents "I accept"

Could the duck choose not to squeak? I don't think so.

[antiskeptic]

Originally Posted by DublinRescuer

Didnt s/he compare it to an addiction??

He took another area of life (to homo sexuality) where someone finds it impossible to act other than in the way they are acting (eg: the drug addict) and asked should they (the drug addict) be expected to stop taking drugs, just like that, just because they become a Christian.

My suggestion was that they shouldn't be expected to stop just like that just because they become a Christian.


I did this to challenge the somewhat simplistic suggestions some were making about what a homosexual should do if a Christian. A comparison was indeed drawn - not in the sense of supposing homo sexuality an addiction. But in order that the simplistic demands some were making could be more easily seen to be simplistic demands.

Demands that God himself, in all likelyhood wouldn't simplistically make.

[old hippy]

Originally Posted by antiskeptic

Only in the sense that a rubber duck (me) squeaks when run over by a truck (God). Where 'squeaks" represents "I accept"

Could the duck choose not to squeak? I don't think so.

So you got run over and now you worship the driver?

That sounds like an abusive relationship to me...

[antiskeptic]

Originally Posted by old hippy

So you got run over and now you worship the driver?

That sounds like an abusive relationship to me...

It wasn't so much the truck that did the damage. It was the load it was carrying.

My sin.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by antiskeptic

Only in the sense that a rubber duck (me) squeaks when run over by a truck (God). Where 'squeaks" represents "I accept"

Could the duck choose not to squeak? I don't think so.

I've got to remember that one!

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by antiskeptic

It wasn't so much the truck that did the damage. It was the load it was carrying.

My sin.

Superb!

[antiskeptic]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

I've got to remember that one!

Vroom, Vroom .. Quack!