Gay/Lesbian Marriages

And Lot's family was the only one saved as being the only few good men out of Sodom?

Well, we encounter this ideal family latter in Genesis 19:30-38. In a story so graphic, the Bible should be classified as X-rated, the daughters of Lot committed INCEST with their father. Pinagpasa-pasahan ng dalawang darling daughters ang kanilang tatay.


Here's the verses: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=KJV (Porn alert: Don't show these verses or even the entire book to a child.)

Ateo wrote:And Lot's family was the only one saved as being the only few good men out of Sodom?

Well, we encounter this ideal family latter in Genesis 19:30-38. In a story so graphic, the Bible should be classified as X-rated, the daughters of Lot committed INCEST with their father. Pinagpasa-pasahan ng dalawang darling daughters ang kanilang tatay.


Here's the verses: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=KJV (Porn alert: Don't show these verses or even the entire book to a child.)

and they cite this as the basis of same sex a sin?..FTW!

vril wrote:

Hi Yidda,

Please let me know if I get this right.

It doesn't make sense. Lot offered his daughters to be raped instead of his men? Are you sure this is the word of god? Lot allowed his daughters to be raped instead of his men being pulled in for a homosexual act? I dont get it. Something is really wrong with Lot. Who's stupid enough to allow his daughters to be raped in exchange for a homosexual act?

And why is same gender sex is more serious than opposite gender sex? What is a specific sexual act by homosexuals that can be so reviling than a heterosexuals? Is it the annal sex ?, The oral sex? The kissing? Aren't these things also done by heterosexuals?

vril,

I would only comment on the subject.

The Bible condemns fornication (sexual acts outside of marriage) and it also condemns homosexual acts; both are serious sins against God. However, the Bible also distinguishes between these two types of serious sexual sins. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, an unmarried man who slept with an unmarried woman sins and was given a punishment, but the punishment was less than death. On the other hand, if any man had sexual relations with another man, the punishment was death, and the act itself is called by Sacred Scripture an abomination, the strongest word of condemnation used in the Bible:

[Leviticus]
{18:22} You shall not commit sexual acts with a male, in place of sexual intercourse with a female, for this is an abomination….
{18:29} Every soul who shall commit any of these abominations shall perish from the midst of his people.

Because of this same kind of sin, God destroyed the entire towns of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the many pagan towns, where fornication was common and widespread, God did not destroy.

[Genesis]
{13:13} But the men of Sodom were very wicked, and they were sinners before the Lord beyond measure….
{19:5} And they called out to Lot, and they said to him: "Where are the men who entered to you in the night? Bring them out here, so that we may know them."…
{19:24} Therefore, the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire, from the Lord, out of heaven.

The sin of homosexual sex is a more serious sin than that of heterosexual sex outside of marriage, because the former act is both a sexual act outside of marriage and a sexual act between persons of the same gender. The latter act is less offensive because the man and woman who have natural heterosexual sex outside of marriage might marry at some point in time, and then any subsequent acts of the same kind would be moral. But homosexual acts are so thoroughly disordered and unnatural that there is no circumstance in which they can be moral.

Homosexual acts are unnatural, and are not open to life, and are outside of marriage, and are between persons of the same gender. To be moral, sexual relations must be natural and open to life and within a marriage and between a man and a women. Homosexual sex offends against all these moral imperatives which God has placed in the natural law and in Divine Revelation and in the very nature of humanity. Therefore, homosexual acts are much more gravely disordered and much more sinful than heterosexual acts outside of marriage. The greater the disorder, the greater the sin. The more moral principles an acts violates, the more sinful that act is.

Yidda wrote:

vril,

I would only comment on the subject.

The Bible condemns fornication (sexual acts outside of marriage) and it also condemns homosexual acts; both are serious sins against God. However, the Bible also distinguishes between these two types of serious sexual sins. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, an unmarried man who slept with an unmarried woman sins and was given a punishment, but the punishment was less than death. On the other hand, if any man had sexual relations with another man, the punishment was death, and the act itself is called by Sacred Scripture an abomination, the strongest word of condemnation used in the Bible:

[Leviticus]
{18:22} You shall not commit sexual acts with a male, in place of sexual intercourse with a female, for this is an abomination….
{18:29} Every soul who shall commit any of these abominations shall perish from the midst of his people.

Because of this same kind of sin, God destroyed the entire towns of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the many pagan towns, where fornication was common and widespread, God did not destroy.

[Genesis]
{13:13} But the men of Sodom were very wicked, and they were sinners before the Lord beyond measure….
{19:5} And they called out to Lot, and they said to him: "Where are the men who entered to you in the night? Bring them out here, so that we may know them."…
{19:24} Therefore, the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire, from the Lord, out of heaven.

The sin of homosexual sex is a more serious sin than that of heterosexual sex outside of marriage, because the former act is both a sexual act outside of marriage and a sexual act between persons of the same gender. The latter act is less offensive because the man and woman who have natural heterosexual sex outside of marriage might marry at some point in time, and then any subsequent acts of the same kind would be moral. But homosexual acts are so thoroughly disordered and unnatural that there is no circumstance in which they can be moral.

Homosexual acts are unnatural, and are not open to life, and are outside of marriage, and are between persons of the same gender. To be moral, sexual relations must be natural and open to life and within a marriage and between a man and a women. Homosexual sex offends against all these moral imperatives which God has placed in the natural law and in Divine Revelation and in the very nature of humanity. Therefore, homosexual acts are much more gravely disordered and much more sinful than heterosexual acts outside of marriage. The greater the disorder, the greater the sin. The more moral principles an acts violates, the more sinful that act is.

Hi Yidda,

Homosexual is unnatural to those wrote the bible 2000 years ago because those are the same people who also said that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. Science has proven that homosexuals are natural as heterosexuals are.

vril wrote:

Hi Yidda,

Homosexual is unnatural to those wrote the bible 2000 years ago because those are the same people who also said that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. Science has proven that homosexuals are natural as heterosexuals are.

Hi Vril,

It is better to know right from wrong, and to choose what is right.

We could all of us quote scientific evidence and authorities until the cows came home. But basically science moves forward in the sense that a hypothesis is put forward and empirical data is collected to confirm ,reject or modify the original idea.That's the great thing with science: there can be a consensus, a majority believing that the available evidence supports a certain hypothesis, and it can
be generally accepted, and then along comes new evidence to show that the majority was wrong!

I always remember too that at one time, all the greatest scientific minds in the world agreed the earth was flat.

So, Yidda, if the OT provided different punishments for fornication (straight sex) and gay sex, how does that translate to the punishment at the End of Time? Because Hell is eternal, how God differentiate the punishments? Different temperatures, perhaps? Fornication at 500C while gay sex at 1,000C. How about giving portable fans to those with lesser punishment?

Ateo wrote:So, Yidda, if the OT provided different punishments for fornication (straight sex) and gay sex, how does that translate to the punishment at the End of Time? Because Hell is eternal, how God differentiate the punishments? Different temperatures, perhaps? Fornication at 500C while gay sex at 1,000C. How about giving portable fans to those with lesser punishment?

Hell is beyond ordinary place and time. However, it is not Eternity. To dwell in Eternity, one must dwell with God, who is Eternity. Nothing is truly and completely eternal except God, who alone has always existed.

Hell is an act, not only of the Justice of God, but of His eternal Mercy. Everyone in Hell is punished according to the nature and extent of their unrepentant sins. This is justice. But everyone in Hell is also punished less than their sins deserve. This is Mercy. God is merciful even to the persons in Hell.

I think I'm done with this thread, further issues and questions could be open at the catholic board.

thank you.

Yidda wrote:

Hi Vril,

It is better to know right from wrong, and to choose what is right.

We could all of us quote scientific evidence and authorities until the cows came home. But basically science moves forward in the sense that a hypothesis is put forward and empirical data is collected to confirm ,reject or modify the original idea.That's the great thing with science: there can be a consensus, a majority believing that the available evidence supports a certain hypothesis, and it can
be generally accepted, and then along comes new evidence to show that the majority was wrong!

I always remember too that at one time, all the greatest scientific minds in the world agreed the earth was flat.

Hi Yidda,

Yes, better to know right from wrong and choose what is right. I dont think science will reverse itself when it found that homosexuals are natural. It's a fact. Just like the earth was found to be round. It will never be flat.

And to me what is right is giving same sex equal rights. There is nothing wrong with having equal rights.

Yidda wrote:...I always remember too that at one time, all the greatest scientific minds in the world agreed the earth was flat.

We can never tell... who knows if they knew that the Earth was round, but were scared that the dominant religious juggernaut might castigate them if they broadcast their view.

vril wrote:

Hi Yidda,

Homosexual is unnatural to those wrote the bible 2000 years ago because those are the same people who also said that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. Science has proven that homosexuals are natural as heterosexuals are.

To claim that the homosexual orientation is a natural condition is heretical because it denies the intrinsic moral disorder of the homosexual orientation and because it denies that the homosexual orientation is a result of the sins of individuals and of society. In truth, God created all that is truly natural. The homosexual orientation is contrary to the will of God and therefore it cannot be a part of
nature as created by God. By no means could God have created anything which is intrinsically evil. Therefore, it is contrary to the Catholic faith to claim that the homosexual orientation is merely a result of nature or genetics or 'normal' human psychological development, as if sin were in no way involved as part of the cause of something which is intrinsically immoral.

The question as to whether or not there may be some minor genetic influences which make some persons more susceptible to fall into this deplorable state is a matter of some dispute among the faithful. However, it is not an heretical idea, as long as one does not claim that such possible genetic factors are in some way determinate, as if free will cooperating with God's grace would be ineffective against such factors.

I am a straight single Catholic lady, who believes and practices the Catholic faith, including Catholic teaching on sexuality. I am not biased or prejudiced against homosexuals. I hope that such persons will, through the grace of God, repent from theirsins and avail themselves of God's mercy.

Esther wrote:
To claim that the homosexual orientation is a natural condition is heretical because it denies the intrinsic moral disorder of the homosexual orientation and because it denies that the homosexual orientation is a result of the sins of individuals and of society. In truth, God created all that is truly natural. The homosexual orientation is contrary to the will of God and therefore it cannot be a part of
nature as created by God. By no means could God have created anything which is intrinsically evil. Therefore, it is contrary to the Catholic faith to claim that the homosexual orientation is merely a result of nature or genetics or 'normal' human psychological development, as if sin were in no way involved as part of the cause of something which is intrinsically immoral.

The question as to whether or not there may be some minor genetic influences which make some persons more susceptible to fall into this deplorable state is a matter of some dispute among the faithful. However, it is not an heretical idea, as long as one does not claim that such possible genetic factors are in some way determinate, as if free will cooperating with God's grace would be ineffective against such factors.

I am a straight single Catholic lady, who believes and practices the Catholic faith, including Catholic teaching on sexuality. I am not biased or prejudiced against homosexuals. I hope that such persons will, through the grace of God, repent from theirsins and avail themselves of God's mercy.

Science has always been heretical to religionists. But the fact remains, homosexual orientation is natural. They are as human being as anybody and it's not a matter of choice.

Reason NO. 7

7. Idiocy or hypocrisy – pick one.

When you subscribe to an established religion, you have only two options. You can become an tsk. tsk. tigas ng ulo mo, or you can become a hypocrite. If you’ve already chosen the former, I’ll explain why, and I’ll use small words so that you’re sure to understand.First, there’s the idiocy route. You can willingly swallow all of the contrived, man-made drivel that’s fed to you. Accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Believe stories about dead bodies coming back to life. Learn about various deities and such. Put your trust in someone who thinks they know what they’re talking about. Eat your dogma. Good boy!Congratulations! You’re a moron believer. You’ll be saved, enlightened, and greeted with tremendous fanfare when you die… unless of course all the stuff you were taught turns out not to be true. Nah… if the guy in the robe says it’s true, it must be true. Ya gotta have faith, right?Next, we have the hypocrisy option. In this case your neocortex is strong enough to identify various bits of utter nonsense in the religious teachings that others are trying to ram don your throat. You have a working B.S. detector, but it’s slightly damaged. You’re smart enough to realize
that earth is probably a lot older than 10,000 years and that pre-marital (or non-marital) sex is a lot of fun, but some B.S. still gets through. You don’t swallow all the bull, but you still identify yourself as a follower of a particular religion, most likely because you were raised in it and never actually chose it to begin with.To you it’s just a casual pursuit. You’re certainly not a die-hard fundamentalist, but you figure that if you drink the wine and chew the wafer now and then, it’s good enough to get you a free ride into a half-decent afterlife. You belong to the pro-God club. Surely there’s safety in numbers. Two people can’t be wrong… although 4-1/2 billion supposedly can.In this case you become an apologist for your own religion. You don’t want to be identified with the extreme fanatics, nor do you want to be associated with the non-believers. You figure you can straddle both sides. On earth you’ll basically live as a non-practitioner (or a very sloppy and inconsistent practitioner), but when you eventually die, you’ve still got the membership card to show God.Do you realize how deluded you are?Perhaps if you
have to throw out so much of the nonsense to make your chosen belief system palatable, you shouldn’t be drinking the Kool Aid in the first place. Free yourself from the mental baggage, stop looking to others for permission to live, and start thinking on your own. If your God exists, he’s smart enough to see through your fake ID.From time
to time, some of my readers take a stab at converting me to their religion. Most of them come across as total loons, but I can at least respect their consistency. I’ve no idea why they bother to read my site (which is about raising, not lowering, consciousness). Perhaps some of them are getting ready to convert from fundamentalism to common sense.You’d think I’d be quite a prize for any serious religion. With 2.4 million monthly readers, that’s a lot of people I could potentially enslave convert, not to mention how much I could fill the Church coffers by soliciting indulgences donations on their behalf. Henceforth I expect a much better conversion effort. If you won’t do it for the money, then do it for the souls. You can’t let so many of us go to hell without trying in earnest to save us, can you? Just keep those conversion emails below 10,000 words if possible, with no more than 9,000 of them quoted from your favorite great book.