The OP claimed that the charge is that Love sends them to hell - a false representation. That is not what you said. As to the sex, it’s probably not productive to use God as motivator too early in a conversation with an atheist.
How old was Mary?
So, homosexuals will go to heaven as long as they never have homosexual sex?
The entry conditions to heaven are the same for all of us - turn away from Sin and toward God. This presents different challenges for all of us.
So it is ok to be gay, as long as you don’t do anything gay? Is that right? Because being gay isn’t an option. It just seems cruel the way god would make someone not attracted to the opposite sex, but insist that they must sleep with them anyway or remain celibate. Do you see my confusion? Again, thanks for your reply.
Your right it wasn’t an option, however Homosexual acts are a grave sin. Just because you have a desire to commit an immoral act doesn’t mean you should be able to commit the act. It’s like saying our feelings is the scale of truth. Whatever we feel we want to do, must be right. But it isn’t. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world where people have fallen desires. Desires to sin. It is a cross one must bear.
Now I’m probably going to hear that i shouldn’t have to carry this cross, that I did nothing to deserve it, and that God wouldn’t want me to suffer. But here’s the thing. Adam and Eve rebelled and allowed sin into this world. Making their descendents (us) likewise to fall into destructive sins. Thankfully, God loved us so much to give his only son, so that way we can be forgiven of these sins which we fall prey to, that were caused by Adam and Eve’s rebellion.
The question, is not why would God allow us to experience an attraction that we would not be able to act on. The question is, why would we want to engage in something that is sinful, that runs contrary to the will of God, that was allowed to affect us because our earliest ancestors rebelled (against God, allowing sin into the world)?
It sounds like you think Homosexual actions are what will make a same sex attracted man like myself, happier and complete. I’m just assuming here, of course. However you may not be aware of this but there is a deeper meaning to why men are attracted to men. You just don’t realize it.
Intrigued, there’s as much evidence that people are born attracted to children as there is evidence that people are born attracted to the same sex. So you see, Catholics already either have to believe that (a) people are born attracted to children, and God lets that happen, or (b) people develop an attraction to children in some other way. Those two options are the attitude that Catholics have toward same-sex attraction.
So either you’ve gotta drop your view, or you’d have to say that God is being cruel to people attracted to children too. But if you say that, then why not say God is perfectly willing to be cruel to gay people too, or anyone for that matter? I think God is cruel to no one, but that people – for a variety of reasons – have various temptations to sin.
So true! We can’t say that one temptation to sin should be allowed to be acted on, while the rest of the different attractions are seen as something not to be acted on.
Humans, including myself, have fallen natures. God gives us a choice. He doesn’t force us to do anything but he gave us the ability to choose. The Church or State will not tell each of us if or when we should or should not do certain things. In this case, same-sex attracted or not, each one of us chooses to act or not.
And even if we choose to do right, we will still be tempted, but through prayer and by asking God for strength, we can make it. And gradually, realize by choosing the good we please God and we live a better life.
We don’t know why anyone experiences attractions to the same sex. But whether they do or do not, it remains the case that there are constraints on what constitutes moral sexual behaviour. Clearly God requires no one to sleep with another that they did not choose. There is also no escaping the fact that lacking sexual interest in the opposite sex, and experiencing it toward the same sex, is very challenging for the individuals concerned.
Your statement seems to reject the notion that humans should be compared with animals. After all (you seem to imply) humans are superior beings and are nothing like savage animals who sometimes kill and eat their own young. But if we compare humans to animals, humans are often no better and in many cases are often more savage than most animals.
As early as 1895, the German physician Alfred Ploetz introduced the notion of Rassenhygiene or “racial hygiene” and was influenced by the writings of a number of British and American eugenicists including Sir Francis Galton, Charles Davenport, and Albert Priddy. Hitler read about Ploetz and others like him and was enamored by what he read. In 1933, the Nazis enacted the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (commonly known as the Sterilization Law) which allowed anyone with a hereditary disease to be sterilized. In 1939, they started a program to eradicate “genetic defective” and described the victims with the euphemism lebensunwertes Leben or “lives unworthy of living.” They started off by euthanizing “defective” children under three years of age and soon expanded this program to include adolescents, juvenile delinquents, Jewish children, and then adults. By 1941, a quarter of a million men, women, and children had been exterminated and about four hundred thousand compulsory sterilizations had been performed. And, as we all know, all of this ultimately led to the extermination of over 6 million Jews, two hundred thousand Gypsies, thousands of homosexuals, etc.
But what the Nazis did is hardly an exceptions is it? King Leopold and the Belgians were responsible for killing up to 10 million Africans in the Congo. And killing children is hardly a Nazi innovation. Many human cultures have practiced infanticide in the past. And in war, humans can be quite savage and millions of people have been killed in wars.
It seems to me that if we compare humans to animals, humans often come off as being worse than animals in many ways, not superior beings.
Not relevant to the discussion. I suggest you start a thread about how human beings kill others. You left out Josef Stalin.
So how is the fact that some animals eat their own young relevant to this discussion but the fact that humans do many things that are even worse than eating their own young not relevant to this discussion? I’m not the one who introduced a silly example to buttress their case against comparing human sexual behavior to sexual behavior among animals.
I agree with Ben Shapiro (did I spell that right?) that the Church needs to get out of civil marriage contracts entirely. The secular world sees marriage as a social construct that exists because of civil laws. In other words, being married only means that you’ve entered into a civil contract with another person. So, in their mind, there is no objective substantial reality of the married state, only a socially constructed one which we can define. Thus, if people’s lives are being negatively affected by a lack of ability to enter into this civil contract AND no one is hurt by gay marriage, then there is no reason to not have gay marriages. And all arguments are about forcing your religion down non-religious people’s throats.
So, to get around the persecution of marriage, you have to fight it on religious liberty. You have to be able to say “look, you can think our religion is eccentric and our teachings weird, but no one is forced to be in our religion.” But to do this, the Church needs to pull out of civil marriage contracts. She already does this in some countries, so it should be modeled on whatever we’re doing there. If we insist on having our priests act on behave of the state, we risk the State imposing their views on the religion.
Granted, I do think it’s more complicated in Canada as I don’t believe they have the same religious protections as the US does.
But you’re not going to get anywhere arguing with people who embrace social construction theory. Social construction theory is a rejection of substance theory. And arguing about what the SUBSTANCE of marriage is with people who reject substance theory isn’t going to go anywhere.
I’m not the one that introduced the silly idea that what some animals do guides what man may morally do, to buttress their case that a man in a sexual relations with man could be a right and good thing. I’m just the guy that pointed to where that silliness leads.
I don’t see how that follows at all. That the priest attends to legal requirements simply reflects the understanding of marriage that existed before it was changed. I see no benefit flowing from implementing your suggestion, on the understanding that it’s unlikely the State will withdraw the freedom of religious celebrants to operate only consistent with their religion.
This sentence makes no sense to me. I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I meant to write “common” understanding. Church and State were aligned in understanding of the essentials of marriage: man+woman. Thus why not simply have the priest facilitate the State paperwork, save the State cost and save the couple time?
But the real issue is not that, but what good flows from priests ceasing those tasks. Were the State to place unacceptable requirements on them - then of course. But absent that, what would be the benefit?
Same sex sexual activity is something that many animals engage in. That includes humans which are a species of animal, so it doesn’t seem all that silly to me to compare ourselves to other animals, especially other great apes with whom we share almost 99% of our DNA.
Same-sex sexual activity has been reported among all primates and is often a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation. And homosexual behavior might even be in our genes. In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, On Human Nature, the famous Harvard biologist, Edward O. Wilson suggested that homosexuality may be “a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization,” being “above all a form of bonding”, possibly based on a genetic predisposition. So, homosexual behavior among humans might have evolved for the same reason that it did among other great apes like bonobos, for social bonding reasons and it could very well be in our genes.
When Wilson published On Human Nature in 1978, the prevailing view was that humans are a “blank slate” when we’re born and that genetic influences on our personality and behavior are minimal with upbringing being much more important. But as Wilson shows, there is growing evidence that much of our human behavior derives from or is influenced by the genetically determined anatomy and physiology of our brains and central nervous systems. He proposed applying biological principals to humans just like he does with ants (he’s the world’s leading expert on ants). And homosexual behavior apparently can serve a beneficial social purpose among primates (including humans) whether you want to admit it or not and is possibly in our genes.
I don’t know about Canada, but I know in the US, we have anti-discrimination laws. That’s the real threat. Anything where the Church and State mix is vulnerable to the State imposing things. Better to change things sooner rather than wait till they’re too difficult to change.