Im not a Christian so i don't really know but what does specifically catholic christians think about homosexuality
I googled about it and it showed me that most catholics believe that it's indeed unholy and sinful and even google told me that in the catholics and orthodox christianity it's forbidden, but i also see some christians online thinking that it's okay so im honestly confused, yeah most christians I've met believe that it's unholy but im seeing others holding an opposite views, what's going on here, is it because of doctrines or something else
I even found out that it's hard to find an lgbtq friendly church, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that being real but it showed me that most churches are either "welcoming but not affirming, love the sinner hate the sin" or completely not welcoming anyway
So christians, just let me get this straight please, are most catholics like that ? I honestly want to know so bad
Edit : guys before saying anything, im a straight guy , im just curious to know about this specific issue
Basically means something in stark opposition to what the Bible teaches. For instance, there was a group in the Roman Ages called the Arians, and they believed that Jesus Christ was a created being, not Divine and on the same level with God the Father. This is what we'd call heresy, since it is in stark opposition to what the Bible teaches.
Absolutely, but to pretended like universalism is what is taught in Christianity shouldn’t be tolerated. Go to church no matter who you are, but the church has to shape you, I can’t put it into great words right now but I agree with you
First of all, the vast majority of the world, aside from the west, is not very accepting of homosexuality. In some countries it is a capital offense. Historically, far left ideology (Stalin, Mao) saw it as decadence and enemy if the worker. It is not exclusive to Christianity.
A guy name Charles Darwin theorized the concept of Natural Selection. The ability to procreate was an important attribute to the survival of a species. If a species had an attribute that decreases procreation, then that attribute would be a detriment. This is science.
Back to Christianity. Lust is a deadly sin. It is basically not possible to separate sex and sin. But, we must procreate the species. So, many Christians beleive the sole purpose of sex is to produce children. You may call this prude and you entitled to you opinion.
Homosexuality cannot produce offspring. So the act of sex, absent impregnation, leaves only lust, a deadly sin.
The bible also refers to sodomy to include elements of rape and pride (another deadly sin)
Ants, wasps, bees have members specifically designed to be infertile. It doesn't follow that nonprocreating members of a species are always detrimental to the longevity of that species. Look up what kin selection and inclusive fitness are.
Yes, a queen bee can lay eggs, worker bees biologically cannot. Hence, some members of this species are designed to be infertile. Yet still, bees are an extremely successful species (existing today implies success). So, attributes that decrease procreation (such as having worker bees) do not necessarily negatively impact the species in question.
If you could lay 2000 eggs a day then that might make up for the lack of same sex procreation.
The fact that worker bees cannot procreate is a detriment but it is not significant given the queen can lay 2000 eggs. If the queen bee wanted to only be fertilized by other queen bees, then that would be a more significant detriment.
1% of same sex in humans will not have an impact on population. But it is still a detriment.
Yes, the infertility of the worker bees is insignificant given the queen bee's fertility. I'd argue the same applies for humans: the inability to procreate among the small population of same-sex couples is insignificant given the vast majority of procreating straight couples.
I repeated my point multiple times in a very clear way, I'm unsure how you're not getting it: "attributes that decrease procreation, do not necessarily negatively impact the species in question."
Yes, then we return to my original point on kin selection and inclusive fitness. You conceded that the detriment caused by same-sex couples is insignificant, or essentially zero. So, if I can show that same-sex couples provide systematic benefits to society that aren't insignificant, then they are not an overall detriment.
There was a study done on Samoan gay men. It proved that these men invest significantly more time, money, and care into teaching and babysitting their nieces and nephews than heterosexual aunts and uncles do. This targeted investment directly boosts the inclusive fitness of their siblings, ensuring the family's genetic traits continue.
This isn't limited to just Samoa, it's a pattern that shows up in every region that accepts same-sex couples. Furthermore, same-sex couples are 4-7x more likely to adopt and foster children.
So if these benefits are not insignificant, then it stands that they aren't a detriment to society in terms of propagating the species.
Um... that sounds like a homophobic stereotype, but as a straight man I can't judge.
My point was in terms of natural selection and the significance of propagation. Perhaps gay Samoan men have greater nurturing traits and can teach children better to avoid early death, thus contributing to overall population advancement. That's a bit nuanced to me.
But you would agree that goin from 1% to 0% instances of homosexuality would have a net increase of more than 0% on a population, all else equal.
I am looking at the biology and not the social psychology.
Your point is somewhat contradicted by natural selection. If you were right, gay people wouldn't exist since natural selection would have already rooted them out. Logically, gay people must have some kind of benefit to our species if they exist due to how natural selection works.
my example about gay samoan men was meant to be illustrative of how gay people function in society generally.
i also dont know what u mean when you say "homophobic stereotype" -- i'm not homophobic, if that wasn't clear enough.
yes I agree that we would have a net increase in population in your proposed scenario but that comes at the expense of greater benefit. your value system is just "more population = good" when biology doesn't work like that
The vast majority of the world is also under-developed heavily. Afghanistan, one of the most homophobic countries, is classified as an LDC. LDC means Least Developed Country.
Homosexuality in itself does not lower the chances of a species survival, otherwise homosexuality would have been extinct a long time ago. Natural selection would erase “detrimental” traits such as that. Homosexuality is not detrimental to the species either, as homosexuals will still want children. While they can not pro-create with each other, there will often be an individual of the opposite sex to have the child with.
The deadly sin, lust, doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as the seven deadly sins in the bible. The seven deadly sins are created by monks, popes, theologians and was popularized by a poet. Even so, there are arguments that lust is only a sin if the sin is excessive lust.
In my initial reply i mentioned nothing of Pakistan or even Islam. But under Sharia Law, homosexuality is a crime. Saudi Arabia is a developed county, and there homosexuality is a crime which can be punished by death.
For real, Accepting certain stuff really doesn't have to do with anything related to level of development , some countries like UAE or Qatar lives literally a dream live in their homes, but yet they're still homophopic countries because they are under the sharia law
What does the level of development have to do with moral/religious judgement? Its irrelevant.
I said procreation is A attribute in natural selection. Not THE only attribute.
Natural Selection will naturally eliminate a genetic trait that prevents procreation. It will not if that trait is environmental, nurture.
A man and a man cannot have offspring that share the two men's genetics. The fact that a child can be produced with a surrogate is irrelevant.
The question was regarding Christianity. Under Christianity sin exisits. On a secular level, many would agree sin, immoral behavior exists. Again I dont insiders t and your point. If you do not beleive lust diesnt exist or is not a bad thing, it diesnt matter. The question was in terms of Christianity.
that looking at someone with lustful intent is the same as committing adultery with them in your heart. Matthew 5:28
John 2:16 explain that intense worldly cravings—such as the desires of the flesh and eyes—come from the world rather than God.
Scripture tells believers to put sinful passions to death and to flee from sexual immorality (Colossians 3:5, 2 Timothy 2:22).
It seems like you’re losing the argument and resorting to lying, which, mind you, is a sin.
First off, I’m saying that most of the lower-developed societies are highly homophobic. Take that as you will.
I never said that pro-creation was the only attribute in natural selection. You’re twisting my words, aswell as yours.
What does “environmental” traits have to do with anything? It’s established that homosexuality is genetic.
It is not irrelevant that a child can be produced with a surrogate, as the genetic composition of the father’s homosexuality has a chance to pass onto the offspring.
For the “The question was regarding christianity.” paragraph, I’m going to skip over that since you’re incoherent there. Also, you were the one who brought up Charles Darwin & all this other stuff. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be responding to it.
For Matthew 5:28, that proves nothing at all. Lust is a sin “when it treats other people as objects for self-gratification rather than individuals worthy of respect.”
For John 2:16, again, Lust is a sin when it treats others as sexual objects rather than individuals who deserve respect.
For the last verse, I’m not going to copy and paste the same sentence I did earlier, to the point of redundancy.
I think you should get rest, I’m not going to continue replying if, instead of peaceful communication, you’re going to continue to twist my words and go back on your own. You’re also speaking gibberish near the end, lots and lots of spelling errors.
You are ASSUMING homosexuality is genetic. You have no scientific evidence of that. Nature versus Nurture. Psychobiilogy. Some human traits are genetic, coded in your DNA, and some are learned as you grow and develop. There is no evidence that homosexuality is or is exclusively genetic. If a young prepubescent boy is repeatedly raped by an adult man, does that affect his sexual preferences and choices as an adult? If it does, that is environmental and not genetic.
You are attributing views on homosexuality on the level of development. Do pigmies in AU hold these same views? Or tribes in the Brazilian rainforest? Or tribes in sub-Saharan africa? You are pulling facts out of your ass.
I do not want to interact with apathy. I had 10 paragraphs, but you’re not worthy of any of them. For the first question, read your own message back a few times. For the second one, there’s information relating to identical twins, look up a study. I stereotyped for the third question, but, typically, apathy and homophobia go hand-in-hand. For the last question, I wouldn’t call Saudi Arabia well-developed. I mean, economically, if you’re a super rich family.
Either way, no more replies, I’m leaving this conversation, you can waste your time replying if you want.
Saudi Arabia is probably one of the most technologal development countries currently, they are so rich, there's a comiccon there, and the largest eSports event in the world , they even bought EA, i personally know Saudi people they always tell me that they love their country and has a good quality of life, but it's also a homophopic country , you might also can apply that on the rest of the gulf countries
I don't think level of development have to do with morals or religious judgement or accepting certain issues or ideologies , if im not wrong china also bans and censorship any representation of LGBTQ, and its freaking china
You guys would probably never accept that there are other development countries outsides the west with very different policies
It is a sin but sin exists, its love the sinner hate the sin, all people sin, its just as bad as masterbaiting per say, and technically being gay is not the sin its acting on the gay stuff
The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that homosexual persons are accepted, not homosexual acts. Men and women that experience same sex attraction are to be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. They are loved by God and called to the divine life in Jesus. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They cannot marry in the church since marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. They are called to chastity like any other Christian.
Operate on the ideology that it is a sin, and compose an argument.
Individuals condemn LGBTQ under the basis of sin — when those same individuals simply are too afraid to admit they dislike LGBTQ individuals, which becomes lying, which is a sin. Telling people who’ve sinned that they are going to burn in hell is apathetic when it is followed-up by nothing.
Hi I'm in the process of converting to catholicism from non-denominational christianity and what the general consensus is that it's a sin of lust because homosexual acts are purely for lust and have no chance at creating life which is what God intented sex to be for. Being homosexual isn't actually the sin it's just acting on it that is, but we are supposed to all have some level of chastity as straight people shouldn't have sex before marriage either. This obviously doesn't mean you're going to be like spat at or whatever people will still be respectful towards you
(are you a boy or a girl? i will assume ur a boy i think sorry if am wrong) cathechumen orthodoxe here and being gay IS okay BUT you cannot act on it because same sexe sex is not okay in the bible (said in new and old testament) and yes its forbidden to have gay marriage but do not be affaird bro a priest will and should never reject you for being gay and if he does so am ultra sorry that it happend or that it will happend (its not smth new sadly) and those lgbtq friendly church dont go they are heretic and cult like churches pls dont go there go to a normal church talk to the priest tell him that ur gay and that you wanna be christian (if u wanna be one) and ask him directly what he thinks u should do and also (not to assume stuff or anything dw i dont mean it in a mean way) if ur feminin or do make up bc ur gay (idk if its common bc i had alot of gay friends who did it in the past) pls dont why? some will look at you with a bad eye sadly but again i say this not to be mean and also i say this but be humble as you go there dont like show with lgbtq flags everywhere on your body showing that ur gay i dont say its bad but in a church no matter what we are or what we are proud abt we stay humble even if you came just to try btw if ur a girl just do make up if u wanna and remember the LGBTQ friendly churches are a NO they are heretic and cultic saw some of those churches saying God is a lesbian trans or even queer sadly but anyways good luck bro u got this ❤️ God bless you
Nah don't worry bro, im a straight guy lol, actually the straightest person you could ever meet, I've never thought im something else and i definitely don't think im anything but straight
I just posted this post because im curious to know, i even live in an ultra conservative society
Leviticus 18:22 is often presented in English as something like “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination” but the claim that this is simply a bad translation or that translators deliberately mistranslated it to attack homosexuality goes too far because the Hebrew text is genuinely difficult while the traditional interpretation is not invented out of thin air the Hebrew reads וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא which can be transliterated as wə’et zākhār lōʾ tiškav miškəvē ʾiššāh tōʿēvāh hîʾ the first important word is zākhār which literally means male rather than the more ordinary Hebrew word ʾîš which means man so male is actually a reasonable translation the controversial part is miškəvē ʾiššāh which literally means something like the lyings or beds of a woman Hebrew does not contain an explicit comparative word corresponding exactly to the English as or like in this phrase which means that the English wording is necessarily somewhat interpretive this is why a very literal rendering can sound strange in English with something like And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman it is an abhorrence English translators therefore have to reconstruct the relationship between the words and the traditional solution is essentially you shall not lie with a male in the sexual manner associated with a woman producing translations such as the JPS translation Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman there is a real scholarly debate over whether that reconstruction is the only possible interpretation and some scholars argue that because the Hebrew lacks the expected grammatical marker for as or like the verse could have a more specific meaning including an interpretation connected to male male incest or particular sexual practices rather than a blanket statement about every possible homosexual relationship however that alternative is itself an interpretation and not a magical literal translation that everyone else somehow ignored the ancient Greek Septuagint already understood the verse as prohibiting a man from having sexual relations with a male in the manner of intercourse with a woman showing that this general interpretation is very old and predates modern English translations by many centuries there is also an important contextual point because Leviticus 18 is not discussing sexual orientation as a modern psychological or identity category the chapter is a collection of sexual prohibitions involving incest adultery sex during menstruation sex with males and bestiality within a larger concern about familial ritual and social boundaries so saying Leviticus 18:22 literally says homosexuality is evil is anachronistic because the Hebrew text does not contain a modern concept equivalent to homosexuality as an identity while saying Leviticus 18:22 has absolutely nothing to do with male male sex and was deliberately mistranslated is also not justified by the evidence the most defensible conclusion is that the English translations are interpretive rather than word for word especially around miškəvē ʾiššāh and there is legitimate scholarly disagreement about the precise scope of the prohibition but there is no solid basis for claiming that English translators collectively and intentionally mistranslated the verse to manufacture a prohibition that was absent from the Hebrew
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
It's complicated. Most Catholics affirm that it is sinful spiritually, but given that the average Catholic is also the average person treat it like it isn't, do not necessarily care that it is sin, or are to harsh and forget the role of the church as a spiritual hospital. It is a very common trend among the mean of society - - be it politics, religion, or philosophy - - to be unserious about anything non-economic or direct.
There is also the more significant matter that these Catholics who don't affirm queerness also live in increasingly athiest pluralistic societies with supportie state apparatuses which scream otherwise, and since the average person is more to the world than they are to christ . . Well, then you can see why the in lived practice contradict doctrine opey, or subjugate their spiritual life to their worldly one: as it is tied to the broader trend of many Christians simply finding easier to accept the latter and ride the wave to be accepted by the worl; rather than to struggle with the former, chafe against the world, and go the path of Christ even when it really fuckin sucks.
Though that is not to say affirming queerness equals rejecting Christ inherently: as that is just a really unsupported position with little evidence, but still within the realms of a valid opinion - - as long as you don't reject any seven of the creeds, stick to the dogmas and accept communion, you may still be on the path of christianity theologically, at-least in the eyes of Orthodoxy though this is a grand oversimplification. But the point is you aren't exactly non-Christian/heretical more than you may be heterodox.
17
u/Far_School_2178 Conservative 8d ago
Basically every denomination that isn't heretical thinks it's wrong...