apparently Ree and Hobbs (and others) have committed a mortal sin

[Kheldarson]

As to earlier points, Kabe is my hero and has answered quite nicely.

To your current question, Smiley, it's kinda both. Because if you had followed my link, you'd have seen that the Church has no problem with any sexuality. They have a problem with acting upon sexuality in an unchaste way. And unfortunately, the current definition of being chaste means that homosexuals have the greatest challenge.

On the other hand, the growing number of people discussing it and wishing a change does mean that this question is going up the ladder again. Whether or not it will change is a different matter as is how long it might take (to give an idea: for Catholics in America to be allowed to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer--a fairly minor preferential difference from the rest of the world--was a 50 year debate).

Who knows? Maybe they'll gain greater insight into the Biblical interpretation. Maybe it'll be for the way some wish. Maybe it'll be the opposite. Maybe they'll keep the status quo. But until then, the lay Catholic may say they wish a change, but to be in full communion with their chosen religion/faith, they have to say they are against homosexual acts.

That said, that doesn't mean that you don't have the choice of free will. Which is why I personally wouldn't stand against you gaining legal rights. If you choose to do as you wish, be it a sin or no, then under separation of church and state, or simple fairness, you should at least be legally protected. Everything else is up to God.

And yes, I had a long talk with my priest about that viewpoint once and he saw no problem with it.

[infinitemonkies]

I came across a term I really like a short while ago:

"Cafeteria Catholic" (or cafeteria christian, etc)

Someone who picks and chooses which parts of their religion to follow, and which to ignore.

The same book of the bible (leviticus) which states that homosexuality is an abomination also says that eating shellfish is an abomination, and the penalty for both is death. So my question is why aren't guys like Rev. Rodriguez as equally vocal in their condemnation of surf n' turf? Why are there no outraged firebombings of Red Lobsters all throughout the biblebelt?

The same goes for wearing poly-cotton blend clothing (a garment woven of two different threads.) The bible says this is equally a death penalty sin as homosexuality, and for the same reasons.

I think if you're going to argue that any part of the bible is valid, then you have to take the whole thing. Any man of god who speaks out against gays is a hypocrite unless after the sermon he heads over to the 7/11 to beat employees to death with rocks for working on a sunday.

Just remember, the bible says that everyone who has ever had a garden with more than 1 type of flower or vegetable in the same soil will go to hell after being executed by concerned family & neighbors.

[BigGiant]

The belief is instead that acting on those desires is sinful, and generally it's held pretty much on-par with adultery, because really, that's what it boils down to.

Adultery? What, because you're not having sex with a woman?

Sorry, I can't agree with that whatsoever.

But again, basically your argument is that, oh, it's cool to be homosexual, you just can't act it out, because that's bad....?

Think about that for a moment......Thinking about doing something is just fine. It is just the act that's bad?

And really, what act is it that is bad in particular? Certainly it isn't the act of loving another person? That's still ok, right? And it isn't kissing another person, regardless of sex...that's still ok, right?

So it is basically that God is worried about where someone puts their privates? Really? God is worried about that? All the other stuff is fine, just watch where you put your thing, dammit!

I'm sorry, I don't mean to rant.....but to me all of this is incredibly outdated. The idea that sex should only be for making offspring, and only in the bond of holy matrimony, comes from a time when birth control was incredibly unreliable. These 'rules' were set up to ensure that children had the proper support structure around them.

Now....although a bit unrealistic, these ideas still make plenty of sense. (making sure that kids have adequate support structure)

But, to warp them into homosexuality=adultery (basically because man+man =/= children) is just plain wrong.

Sorry....I think I rambled a bit....and sometimes I have trouble putting into words what's in my head....

[KnitShoni]

No, I think the reason it was equated with adultery is because, at present, gay people cannot get married, so it is considered the same as any other form of sex outside the bounds of marriage.

[BigGiant]

Knit-


Well, the reason sex outside of marriage is considered wrong is because you don't want a bunch of children running around without a good means of support...i.e a single parent.

Being that men cannot produce offspring with other men....that's kinda moot, no?

I mean really. Think about why these 'rules' came about in the first place.

Nobody has any problem when you explain that the reason that in the old testament you weren't allowed to eat meat from cloven hoofed animals is because at the time they were worried about parasites, and not being able to properly cook their meat as well as we can today. It has carried on to this day (in some religions) because it was originally a 'religious' rule.

People seem to grasp that with no problem. It makes sense.

Then why is it such a leap to say that due to inadequate birth control, sex outside of marriage was a sin. It has also carried on to this day (in most religions) because it was originally a 'religious' rule. It has also been warped over the years to have all sorts of different meanings (such as any sex without the intent of reproducing is a sin).

So, thinking rationally for yourself, and knowing the intent behind the rule in the first place, do you still think in this day and age that sex between 2 men is a sin because they aren't married?

We're talking about rules in a book that have been translated, interpreted and changed by hundreds, if not thousands of religious leaders over a span of 2,000+ years.

Isn't it time that we all use common sense in interpreting the bible (If the bible is what you are going to base your belief system on), instead of just listening to what man made institutions, (which are certainly affected by their own self interests), have to say on the matter?

[Hobbs]

Then why is it such a leap to say that due to inadequate birth control, sex outside of marriage was a sin. It has also carried on to this day (in most religions) because it was originally a 'religious' rule. It has also been warped over the years to have all sorts of different meanings (such as any sex without the intent of reproducing is a sin).

This coincides with the Church's stance on the sanctity of life. Promiscuity (of any sexuality) without proper precautions leads not only to unwanted births and possible marital problems, but with the spread of disease (not just AIDS, but chlamydia[sic], syphilis, etc.). This spread of disease is contrary to Church doctrine about respecting the life of your loved ones and your surrounding community.

[Kheldarson]

I came across a term I really like a short while ago:

"Cafeteria Catholic" (or cafeteria christian, etc)

Someone who picks and chooses which parts of their religion to follow, and which to ignore.

*Snip*

You're confusing things.

Not the term. That's right.

But Catholics do not believe all things in the Bible as law. We believe that the Bible is the Holy Word of God. We believe in the interpretation given to us via Faith, Tradition, and the Magesterium. So if the Magesterium tells us that eating shellfish is fine, but homosexuality is not, guess what? That's what we believe.

So Cafeteria Catholic does not refer to picking and choosing what out of the Bible to believe, but instead what out of Catholic dogma to believe.

[KabeRinnaul]

Adultery? What, because you're not having sex with a woman?

Or if you are and you're not married to her.

But again, basically your argument is that, oh, it's cool to be homosexual, you just can't act it out, because that's bad....?

Think about that for a moment......Thinking about doing something is just fine. It is just the act that's bad?

Sure. That doesn't seem like a big stretch to me. It's cool for me to consider other women sexually attractive. But Kheldarson might take offense to me acting on that interest.

And really, what act is it that is bad in particular? Certainly it isn't the act of loving another person? That's still ok, right? And it isn't kissing another person, regardless of sex...that's still ok, right?

So it is basically that God is worried about where someone puts their privates? Really? God is worried about that? All the other stuff is fine, just watch where you put your thing, dammit!

I'd argue that there's a rather large gap between kisses and actually having sex.

But, to warp them into homosexuality=adultery (basically because man+man =/= children) is just plain wrong.

It's adultery because two people of the same sex can't be legitimately married in the eyes of the church. And if they're not married, having sex would be adulterous.

Well, the reason sex outside of marriage is considered wrong is because you don't want a bunch of children running around without a good means of support...i.e a single parent.

Being that men cannot produce offspring with other men....that's kinda moot, no?

Perhaps, but then you're looking at convincing the various churches to change their definition of marriage. And the only one that really has enough structure to actually do that is the Catholic. But even then you have to make it through the bureaucracy.

I mean really. Think about why these 'rules' came about in the first place.

(...cut down for length...)

So, thinking rationally for yourself, and knowing the intent behind the rule in the first place, do you still think in this day and age that sex between 2 men is a sin because they aren't married?

Something can be a sin without being wrong or evil. Look at the Commandments. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Going by the book, Hindus are sinful. Doesn't mean I think they're bad people. But that they'll be accounting for it in the afterlife. Or how about "Remember the sabbath, and keep it holy." I go to church maybe once a month, at best, and nine time out of ten, I work on Sundays. Doesn't make me a bad person.

And besides, isn't your argument kind of like a Jew saying, "I know it's not Kosher, but bacon is awesome. Logically, I know this bacon will be cooked better than my primitive ancestors who wrote Kosher law could make it. So that's fine then! One BLT footlong, please."

[BigGiant]

I had typed this earlier, and because it takes the argument to extreme ends, I deleted it.

Sure. That doesn't seem like a big stretch to me. It's cool for me to consider other women sexually attractive. But Kheldarson might take offense to me acting on that interest.

By that logic, it's ok to fantasize about maiming, torturing and killing toddlers, as long as I don't act on it?

[Kheldarson]

The Church can't control your thoughts. She doesn't even really try to anymore. So by technicality, yes. However, we still don't know what God judges by. So God may judge you on your sexual thoughts (or your thoughts of killing children). Or he may just judge you by your actions.

Church can only see actions, so can only judge actions.

[KabeRinnaul]

By that logic, it's ok to fantasize about maiming, torturing and killing toddlers, as long as I don't act on it?

Sure. Well, I'd still consider you a sick, perverse person. But it's not a crime until you're actually out doing it.

[BigGiant]

I don't think I explained that very well. We're not just talking about doing something, but also having the desire to carry it out.

Also, I didn't think we were talking about the law, I thought we were talking about sin and/or right and wrong.

[Hobbs]

I don't think I explained that very well. We're not just talking about doing something, but also having the desire to carry it out.

What's your point then, exactly? Your own words state, "it's ok to fantasize about maiming, torturing and killing toddlers, as long as I don't act on it?"

Unless I missed something, you weren't talking about doing something, but imagining something in your head. So in that sense, there is no "desire to carry it out" because it is a product of fantasy. Why would you think it would be punishable, by anyone, for having a fantasy?

[HYHYBT]

I think if you're going to argue that any part of the bible is valid, then you have to take the whole thing

Other than it making a convenient lever to oppose all religion whatsoever, why?

[Kheldarson]

I don't think I explained that very well. We're not just talking about doing something, but also having the desire to carry it out.

Also, I didn't think we were talking about the law, I thought we were talking about sin and/or right and wrong.

There's sin of action and sin of thought. Both are sinful, both are wrong. Here's the issue: Who besides God knows what you think and desire? The Church will counsel you on your thoughts, your desires, can even condemn some of your worst ones...if you share them. But ultimately, being made of human beings, she can only condemn your actions. You and God have to debate the thoughts. That's why the act of homosexuality is wrong. Just as the act of extramarital sex is wrong. It's unchaste.

Sure, I can imagine and outline what I want to do to Kabe once we're married. But we're not to do any of that until then otherwise I, being the Catholic, will be in poor standing with the Church. The Church still understands human desire in this area (current interpretation on original sin is that it twisted our sexuality, hence why the first thing Adam and Eve noticed was their nakedness) but believes that we cannot allow ourselves to be completely free to our desires without responsibility.