Should homosexuality become a religion?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Should homosexuality become a religion?

Post #1

Post by AlAyeti »

Christianity is incompatible with those that are involved in lifestyle contrary to the Biblical views on marriage, family and sexual morality, and/or that will not repent of their "sins."

The homosexual ideological stance refuses to believe that they are doing anything wrong, claiming that homosexuality is a set pre-birth condition. This sets the Christian ideological and Theological beliefs against those that want to live a homosexual lifestyle.

Maniline protestant Christianity is clear in its teachings about the incompatibilty of homosexuals in the Clergy and Pope Benedict and the Catholic church (after being palgued by homosexual pedophila scandals) has issued guideleines for homosexual behavior and being a Catholic Priest.

If homosexuals claim that they are born to "be" homosexuals and deny that they are behaving contrary to the Bible, which puts their position in diametric opposition of established Biblical truths, shouldn't "they just start their own religion?
From the Associated Press:

Vatican Closes Door on Gay Seminarians

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

The Vatican is toughening its stand against gay candidates for the priesthood, specifying in a new document that even men with "transitory" homosexual tendencies must overcome their urges for at least three years before entering the clergy.

A long-awaited "Instruction," due to be released next week, was posted Tuesday on the Internet by the Italian Catholic news agency Adista. A church official who has read the document confirmed its authenticity; he asked that his name not be used because the piece has not been published by the Vatican.

Conservative Roman Catholics who have decried the "gay subculture" in seminaries will likely applaud the policy because it clarifies what the Vatican expects of seminarians and their administrators.

Critics of the policy warned that, if enforced, it will likely result in seminarians lying about their orientation and will decrease the already dwindling number of priests in the United States. Estimates of the percentage of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a research review by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."

The document from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education says the church deeply respects homosexuals. But it also says it "cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."

"Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," it said.

"If instead it is a case of homosexual tendencies that are merely the expression of a transitory problem, for example as in the case of an unfinished adolescence, they must however have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination as a deacon."

For many gay-rights activists, the Vatican's distinction between deep-rooted and "transitory" homosexuality is without basis.

"For decades now, the scientific and medical community have said that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, what some of us might call a gift from God," said Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

"This new policy causes candidates for the priesthood to be deceptive, and that should not be what the church should be about," he said.

Vatican prohibitions on sexually active gays becoming priests are not new, and a 1961 document says homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood. But the issue came to the fore in 2002, at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States.

A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys. Experts on sex offenders said homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that did not stifle questions about gay seminarians. In addition, some Catholic researchers said "gay subcultures" in seminaries were alienating heterosexuals, prompting them to drop out.

The new document underlines that long-standing traditions and church teaching consider homosexual acts "grave sins" and also intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law.

Thomas Plante, a psychologist who for more than 15 years has conducted evaluations of prospective seminarians for U.S. dioceses and religious orders, said the document would have an "enormous" ripple effect on the future U.S. priesthood if it is followed.

"Sexual orientation in almost all the evaluations I've done over 15 years hasn't really mattered," he said. "Now what's coming out of the Vatican is that it matters in a big way. That's a real challenge because we think that there are many, many, many gay men who are fabulous priests."

He questioned how seminary directors would apply the new regulations, and suggested that many may resort to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The candidates too, may try to hide their sexual orientation because homosexuality is now a deal-breaker, said Plante, who is chairman of the psychology department at Santa Clara University in California.

The document, called an "Instruction," is only five pages long, including footnotes. It was signed by the prefect and secretary of the congregation on Nov. 4, and says it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI on Aug. 31.

The text makes no reference to current priests, directed instead to people entering seminaries and preparing for ordination. Its title reads: "Regarding the criteria of vocational discernment regarding people with homosexual tendencies in view of their admission to the seminary and to sacred orders."

The sex abuse scandals have forced an unprecedented introspection into the clergy and how to train future priests. In September, Vatican-directed inspectors started visiting all 229 American seminaries. Part of their mission has been to seek any "evidence of homosexuality."

The Vatican has often visited the issue of homosexuality, reflecting an unbending theological opposition but also an acknowledgment that discrimination based on sexual preference is not justified.

In 2003, homosexuality was described as a "troubling moral and social phenomenon" in a document by the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict this year.

User avatar
chachynga
Apprentice
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:31 pm
Contact:

Post #31

Post by chachynga »

juliod wrote:
Christianity is incompatible with those that are involved in lifestyle contrary to the Biblical views on marriage, family and sexual morality, and/or that will not repent of their "sins."
Christianity is also therefore incompatible with wearing cloth made of mixed fibers, eating pork and related products, having church on Sunday, and all the other OT laws.

Until there is widespread adherence to these other things, it will be perfectly acceptable for homosexuals to remain in the churches.

OTOH, I can't imagine why a homosexual, or anyone else, would want to be part of the catholic or other christian church.

DanZ
they want to be accepted for many reasons, and their acceptance only brings destruction to whomever does it....

Modern Christian ways are not biblical and can not be compared to it.
And there are those that do follow Gods Laws.

Besides, how do you know that Sunday is NOT the proper day of worship or at least a part thereof.

In fact you can actually worship on both saturday and sunday either or and be biblical.

Vianne
Student
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:37 pm

Post #32

Post by Vianne »

Jose wrote:
kiwimac wrote:As a church we cannot insist that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 must be normative for the church when we deny the verses sitting next to it, claiming they are no longer binding on Christians.
I would tend to agree. Why, then, do so many people do exactly this? They insist that these two bits are valid, but happily ignore the rest. To me, that seems rather weird.
For several reasons, I think. One, they have heard about the concept from others and are mostly following popular opinion, regardless of the apparent inconsistencies; two, they are aware of this, but choose not to acknowledge it because it does not fit in with what they think God would say (a.k.a. what the church would have them believe).

While I'm not Christian, I don't see any reason that homosexuality should be incompatible with it. I believe many of those initial laws were created for sanitation purposes, which served well a society in which running water and soap were not readily available, and in this case, also because homosexual practices made reproduction more difficult (reproduction being of upmost importance in a culture with a high infant mortality rate). This probably went for many of the dietary laws, as well: sanitation was important, and there were few ways to preserve food.

My question is this: if Jesus could completely erase an entire system of dietary laws with one simple statement (it is not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out), how are we to know that there was not a remark elsewhere that similarly differentiated between following the letter v. the spirit of the law? A remark which was left out, intentionally or not, during the purging at the Council of Nicea?

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #33

Post by Jose »

Vianne wrote:
Jose wrote:Why, then, do so many people ... insist that these two bits are valid, but happily ignore the rest. To me, that seems rather weird.
For several reasons, I think. One, they have heard about the concept from others and are mostly following popular opinion, regardless of the apparent inconsistencies; two, they are aware of this, but choose not to acknowledge it because it does not fit in with what they think God would say (a.k.a. what the church would have them believe).
Thank you, Vianne. I suspect you're right. I find it rather amusing, in an odd sort of way, that one can be so dogmatic about knowing what god would say, when one is really just following the herd.
Vianne wrote:While I'm not Christian, I don't see any reason that homosexuality should be incompatible with it. I believe many of those initial laws were created for sanitation purposes, which served well a society in which running water and soap were not readily available, and in this case, also because homosexual practices made reproduction more difficult (reproduction being of upmost importance in a culture with a high infant mortality rate). This probably went for many of the dietary laws, as well: sanitation was important, and there were few ways to preserve food.
I've thought before about the dietary laws, which make good sense. I hadn't thought about sanitation--but what you say makes sense. I'll add it to my pile of logical explanations.

There's also the basic human nature aspect of it. I was thinking the other day about how different species recognize each other, and how they decide who's a good choice for a mate. It's got to be hard-wired in the brain. It has to include more than mere recognition, but also a strong emotional link of some kind--that it's right to mate with one type of being, and just plain wrong to mate with a different type of being. When you look at an individual, you get some kind of sense of whether they are attractive, or unattractive, or whatever. If you think of having sex with them, you tend to think "would'nt be so bad" or "sure" or "eeew." For straight folks, the notion of homosexual sex is serious "eeew." It's just plain inconceivable.

The challenge, as I see it, is to make it more clear that homosexuality is part of humanity, and results from the way our embryonic development occurs. If it's "eeew," then don't do it. But it's like eating asparagus--it may not be to your liking, but you don't need to stone people who find it OK.
Vianne wrote:My question is this: if Jesus could completely erase an entire system of dietary laws with one simple statement (it is not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out), how are we to know that there was not a remark elsewhere that similarly differentiated between following the letter v. the spirit of the law? A remark which was left out, intentionally or not, during the purging at the Council of Nicea?
He may well have made such remarks elsewhere. We don't, after all, have the entire video of his life--just snippets written by onlookers who may well have told things to suit their own agendas. Add in the moderate spread of time over which these snippets were written, and the picking-and-choosing at Nicea, and you have a book that is pretty much crafted-by-men and moderately far removed from "what god wants."

Let's also throw in some alternate translations as various editions were updated to match language evolution, and we get quite a jumble. Indeed, I heard somewhere recently (was it Larry King Live?) that the original terminology for that "act" that is "an abomination" was a man/boy relationship--the pederasty that 1John so often refers to, and that AlAyeti referred to as well. It was relatively recently that it was re-written as "homosexuality." Now, if the translators had stuck with predatory pederasty as the Bad Thing, we'd probably all agree. For garden-variety homosexuality between consenting adults, Jesus would probably have said "just turn the other cheek." so to speak...
Panza llena, corazon contento

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #34

Post by Cathar1950 »

Besides, how do you know that Sunday is NOT the proper day of worship or at least a part thereof.

In fact you can actually worship on both saturday and sunday either or and be biblical.

I see no reason you cant worship everyday. I think you mean honoring the Sabbath.

Post Reply