FidoNet Echomail Archive
r_catholic

<<< Previous Index Next >>>

From: coyote
To: cartercc
Date: 2007-03-31 21:19:34
Subject: Re: Anglican Study Guide: Listening to Gay and Lesbian People

From: coyote <coyote-toss{at}diespammer.covert-ops.org>

cartercc{at}gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:47 pm, coyote <coyote-t...{at}diespammer.covert-ops.org>
> wrote:
>> This is where i get quite lost. My understanding is that the Church
>> views homosexuality as a sin. I also understand that Christians believe
>> that God made us in his image, and furthermore God is infallible.
>>
>> So if you accept that some people are homosexual because of genetics,
>> and God made those people...and God is infallible...how can their
>> sexuality be a sin?
>
> These are good, honest questions. Here is my attempt at an answer.

Thank you :)

>
> 'Homosexuality' can be viewed as a kind of behavior, or as a state of
> mind or mental condition. \

I think drawing the distinction between "behavior" and
"state of being" is important in this discussion. (I choose
"state of being" over "state of mind" because I think a
state of mind can be changed, but a state of being is much more
fundamental. Just my opinion, though.)

> If the word is used for behavior,
> homosexuality (or better) homosexual behavior is sinful.

Why? Really, I dont understand it. If you are coming from the perspective
that sex is for procreation - well, we suffer overpopulation already - and
in fact I have heard more than one theory that the
*apparent* upswing in homosexuality is a direct, nature (or God,
depending on your POV) driven response to overpopulation. And not everyone
that is having sex SHOULD have children, anyway. I have a feeling what you
are going to say is that the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is
sinful, and only a man and woman can be married, therefore gay sex is sin?
Am I guessing right?

But that still bring me back to the question of: if God made people
homosexual, why make their behavior a sin? They'd be acting as their genes
tell them to. This seems a Catch-22, especially if you do not believe in
re-incarnation and thus possibly opine that people born gay are being
punished for a past behavior by being born into a state of being such that
acting naturally on that state of being... would be a sin.

> If the word
> is used for a state of mind, a person's sexuality is irrelevant. That
> is, neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is sinful. After all, we
> are all sinners, so our sexual orientation doesn't augment or diminish
> our sinful condition.

Okay...Im following you so far.

> Read Romans 1. Paul explains that God gave men and women over to lusts
> for each other because of their abandonment of God. In other words,
> homosexuality is the RESULT of sin rather than the cause of sin.
> Homosexuality is the effect, not the cause.

Hrm. So its a side effect of original sin? But as I understand it,
heterosexual men and women have a way of...well, not expiating that sin,
but living in such a way that makes God happy: as man and wife, yes? Why
the cruelty of making homosexual people and then not giving them *any*
avenue to live as they were made without living in sin?


> Homosexuality did not exist in Paradise. God made the first man and
> the first woman in His image, and they were perfect in every way
> except having knowledge. They made the first perfect marriage, male
> and female.

A sexless marriage?

> After the fall, God 'punished' the woman by making her
> desire for her husband and later, issues of same gender lust came into
> being.

How do people have sex without desire? Why is desiring her husband a bad
thing? Why make us with sex organs that give pleasure? Why not make us have
estrus cycles, like for example horses do? They only desire sex when it is
time to breed.

> Lust is a disorder of love, and it's important to note that lust is
> most often expressed in a heterosexual context, but whether the
> context is homo- or hetero-, both the acting out of lust and the
> lustful desire constitute sin.

But...Oh, I am confused. What is the difference between lust and normal,
healthy sexual desire, without which babies would not be made?

> Of course, we only know of the lust if
> it manifests itself by behavior. No one can tell just by looking at me
> if I'm lusting after the pastor's wife. Yeah, it's still a sin, but
> only God and I know.

Okay..

> If some cancers are genetic, does that mean that God is fallible?

If you want an honest answer, to me it means that God is not nearly as nice
as people make him out to be.


--
~coyote

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 5030/786
@PATH: 261/38 123/500 379/1 633/267


<<< Previous Index Next >>>